Advanced Gasification

Technologies – Review and

Benchmarking
Opportunities and barriers for next generation
AGTs

Task 4 Report
BEIS Research Paper Number 2021/038

Prepared for BEIS by AECOM & Fichtner Consulting Engineers

October 2021
Document approval
Name Signature Position Date
Andy Cross Project Manager 9 February 2021
Andy Cross Project Manager 18 March 2021

Document revision record

Revision Date Details of revisions Prepared by Checked by
no
P1 9/02/2021 Draft for Client Review David Menmuir Andrea Jordan / John
Weatherby
P2 18/03/2021 Revisions following David Menmuir David Hope
Steering Board Meeting
on 18 February

© Crown copyright 2021

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise
stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to
the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email:
[email protected].

Where we have identified any third-party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the
copyright holders concerned.

Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at:

[email protected]
Contents
Management Summary ____________________________________________________ 5
UK Gasification Experience _______________________________________________ 5
Lessons Learned on Government Incentives __________________________________ 8
Lessons Learned on Project Delivery________________________________________ 8
Opportunities __________________________________________________________ 9
Barriers to Scale-up and Deployment ______________________________________ 10
Development of AGTs __________________________________________________ 12
1 Introduction ___________________________________________________________ 13
2 Lessons Learned ______________________________________________________ 15
2.1 Incentives for Gasification ___________________________ 15
2.2 Biomass and Waste Projects in the UK _________________ 16
2.2.1 Other Industries ___________________________________ 18
2.3 International Experience ____________________________ 18
2.4 Key Lessons Learned ______________________________ 19
3 Opportunities _______________________________________________________ 21
3.1 CO2 Emission Reductions ___________________________ 21
3.2 Technology Developments __________________________ 21
3.3 Cost Reduction ___________________________________ 23
3.4 Societal Benefits __________________________________ 23
3.4.1 Job Creation _____________________________________ 23
3.4.2 Fuel Security _____________________________________ 24
3.4.3 Technology Export ________________________________ 24
4 Barriers to Scale-up and Deployment _____________________________________ 25
4.1 Economic________________________________________ 25
4.1.1 Government Incentives _____________________________ 25
4.1.2 Competing Technologies for CO2 Emissions Reductions ___ 25
4.1.3 Competing Technologies for Producing Low Carbon Products
26
4.1.4 Competition for Feedstock __________________________ 27

3
 4.1.5 Product Price Volatility _____________________________ 29
4.1.6 Availability of Finance ______________________________ 30
4.2 Technical ________________________________________ 31
4.2.1 Availability _______________________________________ 31
4.2.2 Reliable Process Unit Operation ______________________ 32
4.2.3 Scale-up ________________________________________ 33
4.2.4 Full Chain Integration ______________________________ 35
4.2.5 Operation and Maintenance Costs ____________________ 36
4.2.6 Requirement for CCUS _____________________________ 37
4.2.7 Efficiency of Conversion ____________________________ 38
4.2.8 Feedstock Flexibility _______________________________ 38
4.2.9 Product Quality ___________________________________ 39
4.2.10 Safety __________________________________________ 40
4.3 Non-Technical ____________________________________ 41
4.3.1 Reputation of Gasification ___________________________ 41
4.3.2 Planning and Permitting ____________________________ 42
4.3.3 Dissemination of Lessons Learned ____________________ 43
4.3.4 Skills ___________________________________________ 43
5 Development Pathway ________________________________________________ 44
5.1 AGT Development _________________________________ 44
5.2 Government Support Mechanisms ____________________ 44
5.3 Next Steps _______________________________________ 45
5.4 Further Work _____________________________________ 46

4
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

Management Summary
This report presents the outcome of Task 4 of the Advanced Gasification Technologies
(AGTs) benchmarking study being undertaken on behalf of the Department for Business,
Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) by AECOM / Fichtner. It identifies opportunities for,
and barriers to, the scale-up and deployment of biomass and waste fired AGTs to produce
low carbon hydrogen and hydrocarbon products. The report is intended to support the
assessment of the feasibility of large-scale deployment of AGTs in the coming decades and
understand what would be required to allow it to occur.

In this report the term AGT is used to refer to a thermal conversion technology (gasification
or pyrolysis) used to convert biomass or waste into hydrogen or hydrocarbon products.
AGTs do not include technologies used to produce electricity. The term Advanced
Conversion Technology (ACT) is used to describe gasification or pyrolysis technologies
used to produce electricity. ACT plants may, or may not, include equipment for cleaning or
upgrading of syngas prior to use for the generation of electricity.

AGTs have the potential to produce low carbon hydrogen and hydrocarbon products, with
the possibility to operate with a net negative release of CO2.

This assessment has been based on a review of publicly available information,

contributions from the Steering Board and AECOM / Fichtner in-house professional
experience.

UK Gasification Experience
In the last 20 years, more than 30 gasification projects using waste or biomass have been
developed in the UK, with assistance from a variety of government support mechanisms.
All these projects were intended to produce electricity. However, many of these projects
have never been successfully commissioned, did not perform in line with initial
expectations, or only operated for a limited period of time. A list of UK commercially
developed gasification plants is presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Commercial Scale Gasifiers

Plant Fuel Gasifier supplier Indicative Status 1
Acharn Biomass Gasification CHP Wood LiAg Commissioning
Plant
Advanced Biofuel Solutions RDF RadGas Commissioning
Limited Swindon

1 The status of the projects shown is indicative. Plants shown as operational may not be operating with high availability and plants shown as in
commissioning may have been in commissioning for an extended period.

5
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

Plant Fuel Gasifier supplier Indicative Status 1

ARBRE Wood TPS Shut down
Biomass UK No. 1 (Hull) Waste wood Outotec Energy Commissioning
Products
Biomass UK No. 2 (Barry) Waste wood Outotec Energy Commissioning
Products
Biomass UK No. 3 (Boston) Waste wood Outotec Energy Commissioning
Products
Charlton Lane Eco Park RDF Outotec Energy Commissioning
Products
CliniPower Clinical waste Compact Power Shut down
Dargavel, Dumfries RDF Planet Shut down
Dartmoor Bio Power Waste wood Nexterra Shut down
Derby Resource Recovery Centre RDF Energos Mothballed
EMR Oldbury Automotive shredder Chinook Sciences Shut down
waste Limited
Energy Works Hull RDF Outotec Energy Commissioning
Products
Full Circle, Belfast RDF Biomass Power Operational
Limited
Glasgow Recycling and Renewable RDF Energos Operational
Energy Centre
Hoddesdon Energy RDF Biomass Power Operational
Limited
Hooton Park RDF Kobelco In construction
Ince Bio Power Waste wood Outotec Energy Operational
Products
Kew Technologies RDF Broadcrown Commissioning
Levenseat Renewable Energy RDF Outotec Energy Operational
Limited Products
Milton Keynes Waste Recovery RDF Energos Operational
Park
New Earth Solutions RDF NEAT Shut down
(multiple plants)
O-Gen, UK Waste wood OGEN Shut down
(multiple plants)
Swindon Energy Waste wood Refgas Shut down
Tees Valley 1&2 RDF Alterg-NRG Shut down

6
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

Plant Fuel Gasifier supplier Indicative Status 1

Tyseley Bio Power Waste wood Nexterra Operational
Welland Bio Power Waste wood Nexterra Operational
While publicly available data on many of these plants is limited, it is noted that those
identified as shut down have ceased operation for a range of reasons, including failure of
the plant to meet initial operating expectations and / or commercial failure of the owner /
operator. A number of those that are identified as ‘operational’ operate with limited
availability, and some declared as being in commissioning have been commissioning for a
number of years. More detail on some of these plants is included in a 2019 report from
Supergen 2 and in Tolvik Consulting’s Report UK Energy from Waste Statistics 2019 3

While the specific circumstances of individual projects differ, a number of common themes
have been identified that led to the difficulties experienced, including:

• Delivery of projects by contractors with limited experience in complex process plant

• Commercial pressures on projects leading to a lack of robustness in plant design and
auxiliary systems
• Underestimating the impact of feedstock variability on reliable plants operation
• Underestimating the complexities of significant scale-up of existing technologies
• Development of projects based on support mechanisms that incentivised projects
that may otherwise have not had a favourable business case
From a technical perspective, ACTs that produce electricity without syngas upgrading are
simpler than AGTs because they do not require syngas cleaning, syngas upgrading and the
addition of CCUS. The performance issues experienced by waste and biomass fired ACTs
are a concern in relation to the development of more technically complex AGTs.

Gasification and similar thermal processes have been, and are, used commercially in
industries other than power generation. The use of gasification and pyrolysis in other
industries demonstrates that long-term commercial use of gasification and pyrolysis is
possible if the right economic conditions are in place. It should be possible to transfer skills
and technology developed in other industries to future biomass and waste gasification
projects.

Demonstration projects have been constructed to produce hydrocarbon fuels from biomass
or waste using gasification-based processes. Details of these projects are provided in Task
2.

2 www.supergen-bioenergy.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Bioenergy-and-waste-gasification-report-2019.pdf
3 Tolvik-UK-EfW-Statistics-2019-Report-June-2020.pdf

7
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

Lessons Learned on Government Incentives

The historical UK approach to subsidise electricity generation from gasification as a first
step in developing either higher efficiency electricity generation or to making chemical or
fuel products has realised limited benefits. The majority of the gasifiers built are not suitable
for either higher electrical generation efficiencies or to produce a syngas to make products.
Future support will need to be more targeted to ensure projects can achieve the aims of the
support.

Lessons in relation to government support for advanced conversion technologies (ACTs) in

the electricity generation sector include:

1. Incentive schemes should be mindful of potential unintended consequences, such as

supporting the development of technologies that lack clear and demonstratable
advantage(s) over existing technologies.

2. There may be advantages in incentives that are outcome based rather than pathway
based. For example, to support efficient electricity generation from biomass and
waste rather than providing support for a specific class of technologies.

3. Development and implementation of robust incentive schemes for complex process

plant that involve multiple inputs and outputs is a challenging process.

Lessons Learned on Project Delivery

A number of projects that have been constructed have not met initial expectations for a
variety of economic, technical and non-technical reasons. However, there are common
themes that emerge in underperforming projects. For future projects, lessons that could be
learned include:

1. Realistic assessments of cost and performance risk (particularly availability) should

be made by investors or third-party advisors.

2. Optimism bias should be managed, particularly in relation to performance claims

made by organisations without exposure to financial risk in relation to plant
performance. Realistic assessment by independent parties is essential.

3. If historical operational data is not available for process equipment there is

considerable risk associated with assuming that high levels of performance will be
achieved. This risk will always be present for new technologies, but needs to be
understood and managed to deliver successful projects with an appropriate balance
between risk and return.

4. The existence of reference facilities does not always indicate that a technology is
‘proven’, or that it would be reasonable to assume high operational availability in any

8
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

future project. Consideration needs to be given to the actual performance achieved,

scale, configuration and feedstock used at any reference facility. Changing from
operation on biomass to operation on waste is a significant step.

5. Financial contingencies and plant designs should make adequate allowances for
process optimisation when new technologies are being developed.

6. Appropriate risk allocation is required during project development, ideally with risks
being allocated to parties most able to control them.

7. The tension between the desire to build a large facility to benefit from economies of
scale and avoiding excessive scale-up risk should be understood and assessed by
stakeholders.

8. The capabilities of organisations involved in the design and construction of projects

needs to be considered during project development. Suitably funded and
experienced technical oversight is valuable during design, construction and testing.

9. Processes that are more complex are more likely to experience technical difficulties.

10. Building multiple similar units at the same time offers little opportunity for additional
innovation, and increases the risk associated with the repetition of mistakes.

11. Commercial pressures on projects may lead to lack of robustness in plant design and
auxiliary systems

Cognisance of these issues is required in future project development to promote more

positive project outcomes and encourage valuable technology development.

Opportunities
The primary opportunity for AGTs is as a means of producing low carbon hydrogen and
hydrocarbon products. Use of biomass or waste feedstocks give AGTs with CCUS the
potential to be one of a limited number of technologies available for operating with a net
negative release of CO2.

AGTs will give a wide range of CO2 emission reduction performance depending on the
feedstock, the technology used and whether, and how, CCUS is applied. The ability to
provide cost effective CO2 emission reductions relative to other CO2 emission reduction
technologies is a key factor to consider when evaluating different AGT configurations.

There are opportunities for technical innovations and improvements across the full chain of
equipment that comprises an AGT plant. These improvements could lead to cost reductions
in the technology. However, it should be appreciated that, when new technologies are
moving from the demonstration phase to commercial operation, capital cost requirements
can increase as challenges, such as full chain integration, are met.

9
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

Barriers to Scale-up and Deployment

There are a variety of economic, technical and non-technical barriers to the scale-up and
deployment of AGTs. Many of these barriers are complex in nature and this report provides
only a high-level overview. Barriers have been summarised and categorised in Table 3 with
explanations of the categorisations given in Table 2. The categorisation and quantification
of risk is an inherently subjective process. Table 3 should be considered in relation to the
additional information provided in the body of this report and the fact that the barriers being
considered are complex and varied in nature.

Table 2. Barrier Classification

Barrier Description Category
A potential barrier to the large-scale deployment of AGTs in the UK.

A potential barrier to large scale deployment of some AGT configurations

prior to 2035.
In isolation, unlikely to prevent deployment of well-developed AGT
configurations prior to 2035.
Table 3 Barriers to AGT Deployment
Barrier Comment Category
Economic Barriers
Government incentives Level of support required, and time required to
develop incentives for low carbon products and
CO2 capture.
Competing technologies The potential availability of simpler, lower cost
for CO2 emissions CO2 emission reduction options.
reductions
Competing technologies Competition from other technologies capable of
for producing low carbon producing low carbon hydrogen and other low
products carbon products.
Competition for feedstock Biomass and waste are limited resources with
other uses. Many other uses of biomass and
waste have their own positive environmental
impacts.
Product price volatility Market prices of AGT products are volatile and
unpredictable.
Availability of finance The perceived risk of gasification may influence
the future cost and availability of finance for
AGTs.

10
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

Barrier Comment Category

Technical Barriers
Plant availability Achieving an acceptable balance between
equipment cost and availability. Availability is
dependent on many of the factors listed below.
Reliable process unit Development of reliable process units for all
operation process stages.

Scale-up The cost, time and technical challenges

associated with scale-up.
Full chain integration Demonstration of full chain operation from
feedstock reception to product output and CO2
capture (if applicable).
Requirement for CCUS Some AGTs may require CCUS to provide CO2
emission reductions. CCUS infrastructure will
take time to develop and adds additional cost
and complexity to the project.
Efficiency of conversion Mass of product output per unit of feedstock is
fundamental to the viability of AGTs.
Feedstock flexibility Achieving an acceptable balance between
grade of feedstock that can be processed and
cost of equipment.
Product quality The ability to reliably produce products of the
required specification without incurring
excessive equipment costs.
Safety Effective management of process safety in a
process with varied hazards.
Non-Technical Barriers
Reputation of gasification Poor reputation of gasification among
stakeholders including, contractors, financiers
and planning authorities.
Potential for public perception issues due to
underperforming projects.
Planning and Permitting Time required to develop large infrastructure
projects, particularly an issue for waste
processing plants.
Dissemination of lessons Openness in relation to sharing lessons
learned learned from underperforming projects.
Skills Availability of suitably skilled and experienced
staff, and organisations at all stages in project
delivery.

11
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

Development of AGTs
Many of the barriers to deployment faced by AGTs could be overcome with further time and
financial investment. However, due to the number, nature and magnitude of barriers
identified there is considerable uncertainty in relation to the achievability of successfully
deploying multiple large scale AGTs in the UK by 2035, as discussed with BEIS during this
assignment. Furthermore, some of the barriers identified have potentially fundamental
implications to the long-term viability of some, or all, of the AGT configurations considered.

Ultimately, the development pathway for AGTs will depend on several factors including the
cost of products, CO2 savings achievable, technology risk of AGTs, competition from other
technologies and support mechanisms available.

12
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

1 Introduction
This report presents the outcome of Task 4 of the Advanced Gasification Technologies
(AGTs) benchmarking study being undertaken on behalf of the Department for Business,
Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) by AECOM / Fichtner. It identifies opportunities for,
and barriers to, the scale-up and deployment of biomass and waste fired AGTs to produce
low carbon hydrogen and hydrocarbon products. Where barriers have been identified,
potential pathways for addressing them have been described as applicable.

AGTs have the potential to produce low carbon hydrogen and hydrocarbon products, with
the possibility to operate with a net negative release of CO2. However, the ability to achieve
a commercially acceptable balance between costs (capital and operational) and plant
performance has been, and is likely to continue to be, a key challenge in the development
of gasification technologies.

Information on lessons learned and barriers to future development will inform the technical
and economic requirements to move from the current level of technology development, as
described in Task 2, to the large-scale deployment of commercial plants, as considered in
Task 5. In turn this will provide an improved understanding of the feasibility of large-scale
deployment of the next generation of AGTs in the coming decades and what would be
required to allow it to occur.

One challenge when reviewing gasification technologies is the diversity of technological

options available. There are many different options in relation to feedstock processed, types
of gasifier, syngas upgrading, end products produced and scale of operations. This diversity
of options represents both an opportunity and a challenge for gasification as a class of
technologies. Different configurations and applications of the technology have different
associated advantages and challenges.

When considering the future development of AGTs, it is important to consider the overall
purpose of the technology being considered. This could be manufacturing products, treating
residual waste or capturing carbon. Maintaining a focus on purpose promotes a fair
assessment of the potential benefits of the technology for fulfilling that purpose. Critically,
this allows comparisons to be made to other, non-gasification based, technology options for
achieving the same outcomes.

Maintaining a focus on purpose and alternative technology options available will help to
focus development efforts on applications for gasification-based technology where it is most
likely to be of benefit in the medium to long term.

This assessment has been based on a review of publicly available information,

contributions from the Steering Board and the collective professional experience of AECOM
and Fichtner Consulting Engineers. Professional experience often includes knowledge and

13
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

information gathered from working on live projects that cannot be directly referenced for
reasons of confidentiality. If specific projects have been mentioned in this report it is based
on publicly available information on that project and information sources have been
referenced.

14
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

2 Lessons Learned
Constructing large scale processing plants that fail to operate successfully, or perform
below expectations, can have negative consequences for local authorities, companies,
individuals and the wider industry sector that the plant was part of.

In the last 20 years, more than 30 gasification and pyrolysis projects using waste or
biomass have been developed in the UK, with assistance from a variety of government
support mechanisms. A high proportion of these projects have experienced notable
performance issues. This section seeks to identify lessons that can be learned from
gasification project performance and related government incentive schemes. Many projects
that have not met initial performance expectations have done so for similar reasons, the
most significant of which are discussed below.

2.1 Incentives for Gasification

This section considers the gasification of waste or biomass for the purposes of electricity
generation. Such projects have been supported by the UK Government through the Non-
Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO), Renewable Obligation Certificate (ROC) and Contracts for
Difference (CfD) schemes under the definition of Advanced Conversion Technology (ACT).

The intention of subsidising gasification was to develop processes which could either
operate at higher electrical efficiency than conventional electricity generation plants or
produce fuel products. It was recognised that developing such processes had higher risks
and could be achieved in stages. However, by providing subsidies for electricity generation
without ensuring that either the technology could be later developed to higher efficiencies or
to produce fuels, there was no safeguard on what technologies were allowed subsidies.

Details of incentive schemes have evolved over time. When many of the gasification plants
currently entering operation were built, eligibility for fiscal support as an ACT required the
plant to demonstrate that syngas of a certain calorific value had been produced. No
requirements were stated in relation to processing of the syngas, how it was used to
generate electricity or overall plant electrical generation efficiency. This resulted, in many
cases, in no syngas processing being included in the process and raw syngas being
combusted shortly after it is generated, sometimes in the same vessel in which it is
generated. Heat was then recovered from the flue gases generated and used to generate
electricity using a water-based Rankine cycle.

These plants generally offer lower electrical generation efficiency compared to gasification
plants that upgrade syngas for the use in a gas turbine or reciprocating engine, and they do
not provide demonstration of syngas processing technologies. Furthermore, if gasification
and combustion are conducted in the same vessel, there is no guarantee that the
gasification part of the process would still work if the syngas was to be removed for further
processing, rather than being combusted.

15
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

This definition of ACT resulted in technologies being supported that were technically similar
to existing staged combustion technologies for generating electricity from waste or biomass,
but were however not suitable for the longer-term goal of higher electrical efficiency or
producing fuel products. Being classified as ‘Advanced’ may have been an advantage in
relation public perception. However, many of the plants built presented few technical
advantages over existing combustion-based technologies for the purposes of electricity
generation and provided limited innovation as part of a pathway to using gasification for
production of other end products or more efficient generation of electricity. In addition, many
of the ACT plants built had a lower net efficiency than conventional energy from waste
plants using combustion only.

A secondary impact of the subsidy regimes was that few of the more advanced suppliers in
the Energy from Waste (EfW) sector took advantage of it. These suppliers already had
conventional products with a strong track record that were sold commercially world-wide.
They saw little purpose in developing new solutions suited to the UK subsidy regime which
may have been viewed as short-term. The mainstream of the international biomass and
waste supply industry continued to develop conventional combustion processes for
electricity generation. Gasifier suppliers intending to produce fuels may also have seen little
value in the UK subsidy regime which was based on electricity production.

Based on the above, a number of key points can be drawn out in relation to government
support for gasification including:

• Incentive schemes should be mindful of potential unintended consequences, such as

supporting the development of technologies that lack clear and demonstratable
advantage(s) over existing technologies.
• There are advantages in incentives that are outcome based rather than pathway
based. For example, to support efficient electricity generation from biomass and
waste rather than providing support for a specific class of technologies.
• Development and implementation of robust incentive schemes for complex process
plant that involve multiple inputs and outputs is a challenging process.

2.2 Biomass and Waste Projects in the UK

One of the first commercial attempts to use biomass gasification for power generation in the
UK was the £30m ARBRE project constructed in 2001. The project intended to gasify
biomass, clean the syngas and then use it to generate power in a gas turbine. However, the
plant reportedly closed after around eight days of operation due to technical and financial
difficulties4. In the nearly 20 years since, there have been other projects where the
performance achieved was not in line with initial expectations. This includes projects that
were built but never operated, or operated commercially, but only for a limited period. A full
review of projects of this kind has not been conducted and publicly available information on

4 www.biomassmagazine.com/articles/5149/biomass-gasification-in-the-ukundefinedwhere-are-we-now

16
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

many of them is limited. However, two recent published reports can be used to provide an
indication of the type of issues experienced.

The first report, a 2019 report from Supergen 5, states that there are eight operational
biomass of waste gasification plants in the UK at the time of publication. All eight of these
plants were based on close coupled gasification technology (raw syngas being combusted
in a boiler without being upgraded). The report does not include operational data to allow
assessment of the performance achieved by the developments. Of the eight plants, four
run on biomass (waste woodchip). Of these four plants, two went into administration in
2020, one uses the same technology and had the same owner as the two that went into
administration, and no information is available on the operation of the fourth plant.

The second report is from Tolvik Consulting. For plants that use waste as a feedstock,
certain performance information can be obtained through freedom of information requests
and through the Environment Agency. Tolvik Consulting publishes annual performance
data from UK based energy from waste plants. In Tolvik Consulting’s Report UK Energy
from Waste Statistics 2019 6 it states:

“ACT commissioning remains challenging – as highlighted by the effective

“mothballing” of Sinfin Road ACT in Derby. After at least four years of
construction the seven ACT facilities which combusted waste, collectively
processed just 27% of their Headline Capacity.”

Given that an Energy from Waste (EfW) facility would typically take around two to three
years to construct, these figures are an indication of poor performance across the UK fleet
of waste fired ACT plants. Further analysis of the figures presented by Tolvik indicates that
the best performing plant of the seven waste fired ACT facilities was the Energos plant in
Milton Keynes, with an availability of around 62% based on waste processing capacity.
This compares to the availability of a typical combustion based EfW plant of around 90%.

While availability of these ACT plants would be expected to improve over time if continued
investment is made, there is a risk that some investors could stop funding the projects. The
gasification equipment for five out of the seven plants identified in the Supergen report was
supplied by companies that no longer exist and there have been legal disputes relating to
the projects. There have been many biomass or waste fired ACT projects that have been
built but not achieved long term commercial operation in the UK 7.

From a technical perspective gasifiers that produce electricity without syngas upgrading are
simpler than those producing fuels because of the requirements for syngas cleaning and
syngas upgrading. The potential addition of CCUS adds a further complexity. The current

5 www.supergen-bioenergy.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Bioenergy-and-waste-gasification-report-2019.pdf
6 Tolvik-UK-EfW-Statistics-2019-Report-June-2020.pdf
7 UKWIN_Gasification_Failures_Briefing.pdf

17
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

performance of waste wood and waste fired ACTs is a concern in relation to the
development of more technically complex AGTs to produce fuel products.

Project underperformance is often due to a combination of factors that may be economic,

technical or non-technical in nature. The combination of factors responsible will vary
between projects but often includes technical issues with the main process units, balance of
plant issues, feedstock quality and supply issues and issues relating to project structure
and contractual risk allocation.

An analysis of specific projects has not been conducted as part of this review. However,
Section 2.4provides a list of key lessons that could be learned in relation to implementing
gasification projects based on experience of underperforming projects. Section 4 outlines
barriers to scale-up and deployment of AGTs. These barriers have contributed to historic
project underperformance in gasification-based power generation projects, as well as
applying to potential future projects.

2.2.1 Other Industries

Gasification and similar thermal processes have been, and are, used commercially in
industries other than power generation. Coal gasification was used in the UK for the
manufacture of towns gas prior to the conversion to natural gas. Coal gasification can also
be used for the manufacture of hydrogen and this process is common in China. In South
Africa there is a well-established industry for producing diesel and other liquid hydrocarbons
from coal using gasification and syngas upgrading.

Pyrolysis processes also have long established commercial applications. These include
manufacturing coke from coal, or heavy hydrocarbons, for use in steelmaking and the
manufacture of charcoal from wood. As well as a solid product, these processes produce a
syngas and other liquid products.

The use of gasification and pyrolysis in other industries demonstrates that long-term
commercial use of gasification and pyrolysis is possible if the right economic conditions are
in place. It should also be possible to transfer skills and technology developed in other
industries to future biomass and waste gasification projects.

2.3 International Experience

Most of the thermal processing of biomass and waste internationally is conducted in
combustion-based facilities.

Demonstration projects have been constructed that produce hydrocarbon fuels from
biomass or waste using gasification-based processes. Details of these projects are
provided in Task 2. Developing these technologies as demonstration projects, rather than in
a commercial setting, will have had advantages in relation to certain aspects of the

18
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

technology development process and in preventing unsuccessful projects in the commercial

sector.

Japan is an exception in that it has many operational waste gasification plants. One of the
drivers for the development of waste gasification in Japan is understood to be a desire to
melt the ash produced. The melting of incinerator ash reduces its volume and changes its
physical and chemical properties, which is seen as a worthwhile advantage in Japan.

Further details of international experience in gasification and pyrolysis technologies are

detailed in Task 2.

2.4 Key Lessons Learned

Biomass and waste gasification projects often fall short of initial expectations for a
combination of economic, technical and non-technical reasons. However, there are
common themes that emerge in such projects. The list below sets out lessons that could be
learned from gasification projects to promote better project performance in the future.

1. Cost and performance risk (particularly availability) should not be underestimated by

investors or third-party advisors.

2. Optimism bias should be avoided, particularly in relation to performance claims made

by organisations without significant exposure to financial risk in relation to plant
performance. Realistic assessment by independent parties is essential.

3. If historical operational data is not available for process equipment there is

considerable risk associated with assuming that high levels of performance will be
achieved. This risk will always be present for new technologies, but it needs to be
understood and managed to deliver successful projects with an appropriate balance
between risk and return.

4. The existence of reference facilities does not necessarily indicate that a technology
is ‘proven’, or that it would be reasonable to assume high operational availability in
any future project. Consideration needs to be given to the actual performance
achieved, scale, configuration and feedstock used at any reference facility. Changing
from operation on biomass to operation on waste is a significant step.

5. Financial contingencies and plant designs should make adequate allowances for
process optimisation when new technologies are being developed.

6. Appropriate risk allocation is required during project development, ideally with risks
being allocated to parties most able to control them.

7. The tension between the desire to build a large facility to benefit from economies of
scale and avoiding excessive scale-up risk should be better understood by industry
stakeholders.

19
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

8. The capabilities of organisations involved in the design and construction of projects

needs to be adequately considered during project development. Suitably funded and
experienced technical oversight is valuable during design, construction and testing.

9. Processes that are more complex are more likely to experience technical difficulties.
At all stages, simpler means of achieving the desired outcome should be considered.

10. Building multiple similar units at the same time offers little opportunity for additional
innovation, and increases the risk associated with the repetition of mistakes.

11. Commercial pressures on projects leading to lack of robustness in plant design and
auxiliary systems.

Biomass and waste gasification technologies in the UK have largely been developed in
commercial settings supported by schemes such as Renewable Obligation Certificates
(ROCs) and Contracts for Difference (CfD). While these incentive schemes have
successfully promoted the development of other technologies, like wind and solar, the
requirement to operate in a commercial setting may have exacerbated some of the issues
listed above in relation to the development of gasification technologies. If an AGT project
were to be built as a demonstration plant, rather than as a commercial project, this could
have advantages in relation to many of the lessons detailed above. In addition, a
demonstration project may provide a better platform for assessing different technical
options relating to the design and operation of the facility.

However, a directly funded demonstration project would be unattractive to organisations

investing for the purposes of making financial returns and are therefore unlikely to become
involved. This may restrict the level of finance available and the speed of deployment of
the technology. Also, funders of any demonstration projects would need to be convinced of
the value of the investment relative to other technology development options available to
them.

20
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

3 Opportunities
Gasification-based technologies can be used for many different applications, using different
feedstock at different scales. This report, and the opportunities described in this section,
relate to the use of biomass and waste fired gasifiers for producing low carbon hydrogen
and hydrocarbon products at the scales considered in Task 5. Opportunities for other
applications of the technology, such as electricity production, are outside the scope of this
study.

Task 2 details the current status of different gasification and syngas upgrading technologies
for producing different products. None of the AGTs investigated have demonstrated full
commercial operation. If developments occur that allow the plants to operate commercially
with a significant total installed capacity, then there are a range of potential benefits that
could be realised, these are described below.

3.1 CO2 Emission Reductions

AGTs have the potential to help decarbonise the economy by producing hydrocarbon
products that result in a lower mass of fossil origin CO2 emissions than the combustion of
fossil-based hydrocarbons. As part of the AGT production process, CO2 is generated. For
some AGT configurations one of the streams containing CO2 has a high concentration of
CO2 and this is a significant advantage for the addition of CCUS technology.

If biomass or waste feedstock are used, AGTs with CCUS have the potential to be one of a
limited number of technologies that can operate with a net negative release of CO2, helping
to reach net zero carbon emissions by offsetting emissions from more difficult to
decarbonise sectors.

AGTs offer a wide range of CO2 emission reduction performance depending on the
feedstock, the technology used and whether, and how, CCUS is applied to the process.
There is a need to better understand the CO2 emissions associated with selecting different
options in the production process and using different feedstock. This would be a valuable
area of further work. The ability to provide cost effective CO2 emissions reductions relative
to other CO2 emissions reduction options is a key factor to considering when evaluating
AGTs.

3.2 Technology Developments

Task 2 describes technologies that are being developed that could form all or part of an
AGT plant. A generic block flow diagram for an AGT plant is presented in Figure 1 below.

21
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

Figure 1. Generic AGT Block Flow Diagram

There are areas for technology development in all the blocks represented above. Feedstock
preparation and product upgrading are perhaps the most technologically developed due to
their extensive use in other waste or biomass processes and hydrocarbon refining.
Nevertheless, biomass and waste handling and hydrocarbon refining are both technically
complex areas where refinements and improvements are expected to be possible.

In the other blocks, from gasification to syngas clean-up, conversion and carbon capture,
there are many areas of potential research and opportunities for future innovation.
Innovations could lead to benefits including improved process efficiency, reduced
equipment costs, safer operation, reduced maintenance requirements and a wider range of
end products. One important area of development relates to the demonstration of sustained
operation with high availability under conditions experienced in a commercial environment.
The extent to which this has been achieved is a key area for consideration when assessing
technology readiness level. In some cases, such as Fischer-Tropsch upgrading, there is
operating experience in other applications, but integration of this process with a biomass or
waste fuelled gasifier presents unique conditions under which its operation has not been
commercially demonstrated. Long term reliable operation of process units under relevant
process conditions would encourage the development of full chain AGTs, and this in turn
could lead to commercial projects, increases in scale and the associated benefits that that
can bring. As described in Task 2 there are already technologies that have made
progression along this pathway.

Improving product yield could help the viability of many AGT configurations. There will be a
variety of measures that could be taken to improve product yield, including developments in
syngas upgrading technology, heat integration or input of hydrogen produced off-site. The
most beneficial development relating to increasing product yield, or improving any other
aspect of plant performance, will be dependent on the AGT configuration under
consideration. The wider impacts on factors like capital and operating costs, plant
availability and net CO2 savings would need to be considered in relation to any process
developments that improve product yield.

22
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

3.3 Cost Reduction

AGTs, as discussed in Task 2, have been built for demonstration purposes but are yet to be
proven in a commercial setting. Therefore, there will be a significant degree of risk and
uncertainty associated with any cost estimate provided for a commercial plant.

For some technologies, as more units are built there is the potential for cost reductions to
occur as lessons are learned and developments are made. However, it should also be
appreciated that, when new complex process technologies are moving from demonstration
to commercial operation, capital cost requirements often increase as challenges, such as
scale-up and full chain integration, are met.

AGTs are a complex process technology so there is uncertainty as to whether cost

reductions will occur if more plants are constructed. If cost reductions were to occur, the
cost reduction pathway for AGTs will require some time, as the time from project inception,
through development and construction to demonstration of reliable operation, is likely at be
at least five years. This contrasts with, for example, wind and solar developments, which
have seen dramatic cost reductions in recent years, in part due to the high number of
similar units manufactured and the much shorter length of time between manufacture and
performance assessment.

After commercial operation has been demonstrated, the principal areas of AGT plants that
present opportunities for cost reduction are those areas where the technology is less
developed such as:

• More reliable process units across the chain allowing reduced downtime and / or
levels of redundancy.
• Gasifier design with improved feedstock flexibility, reduced maintenance
requirements and improved syngas quality.
• Syngas cleaning with reduced energy requirements and improved methods for
processing waste produced during syngas cleaning.
• Increased efficiency of the overall process leading to increases in yields.
• The development of catalysts with improved technical and economic characteristics.
• Advances in process control and unit integration.

3.4 Societal Benefits

3.4.1 Job Creation
The scale-up and deployment of AGTs has the potential to create new jobs, including high
and medium skilled roles. This includes jobs in the feedstock supply chain as well as in the
construction and operation of AGT facilities.

23
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

Comparing the job creation potential of AGTs in relation to other low carbon energy
technologies, or projects that use biomass or agricultural products in other ways, could be
an area for further work.

3.4.2 Fuel Security

There is value in having a diversity of sources for products that are relied upon by society.
AGTs are another means by which hydrocarbon products can be produced, so can
contribute towards fuel security if locally sourced feedstock is used.

A comparison of the energy security benefits compared to those brought about by other low
carbon energy technologies could be an area for further work.

3.4.3 Technology Export

Any technology that is successfully developed in the UK has the potential to be exported to
other parts of the world and this has the potential to be of benefit to the UK economy.

24
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

4 Barriers to Scale-up and Deployment

Barriers to the scale-up and deployment of gasification technologies may be economic,
technical or non-technical in nature. These various interrelated factors would need to be
addressed to allow AGTs to be deployed as a part of the overall transition to net-zero in the
UK. A summary of the main economic, technical and non-technical barriers is provided in
this section along with commentary on how they relate to each other and how they may be
overcome.

It is technically challenging to reliably produce high quality and consistent products from
feedstock materials that can be low quality and variable. The ability to achieve a
commercially acceptable balance between costs (capital and operational) and plant
performance has been, and is likely to continue to be, a key challenge in the development
of successful projects using gasification technology.

Gasification plants, like many investments, are subject to a variety of risks of differing types
and magnitudes. The sum of all the different risks that any one project is exposed to can be
considered as the aggregate risk. Investment in new plants is a fundamental requirement of
the deployment of any new technology. Fiscal incentives can be used to reduce risk and or
increase the rate of return for investors. The ability to achieve a balance of risk and return
that is good enough to attract investment without the need for excessive subsidies will
determine whether there is increased deployment of AGTs.

The product costs determined in Task 5 must therefore be considered in relation to the risks
associated with achieving that cost and the ability to successfully deploy the proposed
configuration. The risks associated with these product costs will be dependent on the
technical assumptions made. More, or less, ambitious assumptions relating to factors like
plant availability or feedstock cost will mean more, or less, risk associated with the final
product cost derived. It is important that the product cost figures in Task 5 are considered in
conjunction with the assumptions made in Task 5, descriptions of technology track record
from Task 2 and the risks and barriers described in this Task 4 report.

4.1 Economic
4.1.1 Government Incentives

4.1.2 Competing Technologies for CO2 Emissions Reductions

All the products available from AGTs are readily available through the extraction and
refinement of fossil fuels. One of the main issues that AGTs are seeking to address is that
the extraction of fossil fuels leads to the release of fossil origin CO2 into the atmosphere.
Therefore, AGTs must be considered in the context of providing value for money in relation
to other methods of preventing the release of fossil origin CO2, or other technologies with
the potential to operate with negative CO2 emissions.

25
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

Biomass and waste fired AGTs have advantages over other CO2 reduction technologies in
that they have the potential to contribute to removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, if CCUS
is included, and they can contribute to CO2 emission reductions in difficult to decarbonise
sectors of the economy like aviation. However, there is a balance to be struck between
spending money developing technologies with these advantages and spending money on
simpler lower cost methods of reducing CO2 emissions. A greater understanding of the
barriers to the development of a technology can help inform decision makers in relation to
striking an appropriate balance.

Having an appropriate balance between early development of CO2 reduction technologies

for the future, and implementing currently available CO2 reduction measures now, should
help reduce the average cost of CO2 abatement. For example, deployment of direct air CO2
capture plants is questionable when CO2 is being emitted from ammonia production
facilities, where the cost of capture would be far less.

There are a wide variety of technologies and strategies available for reducing CO2
emissions in different industry sectors, including strategies like demand reduction and
efficiency. Further work could be conducted into comparing AGTs with other options for
achieving CO2 reductions. The current availability of simpler, lower cost decarbonisation
options is a potential barrier to the development and upscale of AGTs.

Further work could also be conducted in directly comparing AGTs with CCS, with other
options for achieving negative CO2 emissions. This could include options like land use
change or post combustion carbon capture from biomass or waste fired power plants.

Mitigations
1. Determine whole life CO2 emission reduction potential, and associated cost on a
£/tonne of CO2 basis, for different AGT configurations and feedstock.

2. Consider prioritising certain AGT configurations based on selected factors including

cost of CO2 reduction and barriers to development.

3. Use available information on costs and barriers for AGTs to inform national CO2
emission reduction policies that consider a range of technologies and options for
achieving CO2 reduction.

4. Compare AGTs with CCS to other technology options for removal of CO2 from the
atmosphere.

4.1.3 Competing Technologies for Producing Low Carbon Products

CO2 emissions from the combustion of hydrocarbons can be reduced by reducing demand,
increasing efficiency or by using an alternative means of providing the required energy,
such as electrification or combined heat and power from biomass or waste. Where available
these options could have advantages over using products from AGTs.

26
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

Where options to reduce demand, or substitute the use of hydrocarbons, are not available
at low cost, there are other competing technologies for producing similar low carbon
hydrocarbon products. Some alternative existing and emerging technology options are
listed below.

• Hydrogen production using electrolysis using excess renewable electricity.

• Hydrogen production by reforming natural gas with CCUS.
• Methane produced by anaerobic digestion.
• Liquid hydrocarbon production by biological means, for example plant oils or
fermentation products.
• Methane or liquid hydrocarbon production based on technologies that combine low
carbon hydrogen and CO2.
Decarbonisation of industry sectors that rely on hydrocarbons can also be achieved through
carbon offsetting schemes. In some cases, carbon offsetting may be the most cost-effective
long-term way of reducing CO2 emissions from a sector.

Comparison of different technologies with diverse advantages and disadvantages is not

straightforward. Nevertheless, it remains important to question whether AGTs are, or have
the potential to be, better than competing technology options for any given application.
Further work could be conducted in this area. If the balance of cost, feedstock
requirements, technological risk and CO2 emission reductions of alternative production
pathways is better than for AGTs, this is a potential barrier to their scale-up and
deployment.

Mitigations
1. Compare AGTs with other technologies for producing the same products considering
factors including cost, feedstock requirements, technological risk and CO2 emission
reductions.

2. Prioritise different AGT configurations based on risks and advantages.

3. Use available information on costs and barriers for AGTs to inform national policy in
relation to the production of low carbon hydrogen and other hydrocarbon products.

4.1.4 Competition for Feedstock

Both biomass and waste are limited resources and there are existing and emerging
competing uses for these materials. Competing uses for biomass and waste will impact
both the price and availability of biomass or waste feedstock for any future AGT projects
and this is a potential barrier to scale-up and increased deployment.

In some cases, supply chain improvements could improve the supply of biomass or waste
to a given project. Supply chain development is encouraged most when projects can

27
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

provide a constant and predictable demand for feedstock. Any unpredictability in feedstock
demand, or unrealistic expectations in relation to quality or price, may make feedstock
suppliers reluctant to invest in feedstock storage and handling equipment.

Both biomass and waste have a relatively low energy density compared to other fuels. This
makes them more expensive to transport. Therefore, the availability of feedstock needs to
be considered on a regional basis. If AGT plants have other site-specific requirements that
may not be widely available, such as access to CCUS networks, then constraints on
feedstock availability have a greater potential to reduce the number of potentially suitable
sites.

For waste fired AGTs there is a risk that by the time the technology has developed to a
commercial level much of the residual waste available in the UK will be used by other
competing technologies such as combustion-based energy from waste plants. Much of this
material will be supplied through long term contracts. To gain access to waste, AGTs may
be required to offer to process it at a cost lower than existing facilities. In many areas this
may be a barrier to the development of large waste fired AGTs.

In the future the economics of operating an EfW plant could change in relation to the cost of
emitting CO2 and the value of the electricity generated. This could make AGTs more, or
less, competitive relative to EfW plants depending on a range of factors. One important
factor will be the relative cost of CO2 emission reductions using either an AGT with CCUS
or an EfW with CCUS. If AGTs were able to reliably process waste at a lower cost that
EfWs then it could be expected that over time waste would become available.

Many of the competing uses for biomass and waste have their own positive environmental
impacts and will have an important role to play in relation to helping the UK to meet its net
zero CO2 emissions commitments. Assuming that both waste and biomass are finite
resources, the environmental benefits of the competing uses for biomass and waste should
be considered in relation to any potential future demand created by a new generation of
AGT projects. If alternative uses of the material offer greater environmental benefits, or the
same benefits at a lower cost or with lower technical risk, then this may be a barrier to the
deployment of AGTs. Some existing and emerging competing uses for biomass and waste
are listed below.

Competing uses for Biomass

• Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)

• The production of dispatchable low carbon electricity
• Contributing to the decarbonisation of domestic and industrial heat
• Manufacture of paper packaging as an alternative to single use plastic packaging
• A sustainable construction material
• Afforestation

28
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

• Alternative carbon negative processes such as the manufacture and storage of

biochar
Competing uses for Waste

• Recycling (although in this study the waste being considered is the residual waste
available after economic levels of recycling)
• Heat and power generation – with the potential to add CCUS
• Fuel for industrial processes such as cement manufacture - with the potential to add
CCUS
Mitigations
1. Compare different uses for biomass and waste to inform national policy in relation to
the use of these materials and the support for associated processing technologies.

2. Conduct, or review, market assessments of biomass and waste availability.

3. Consider feedstock availability and price in relation to the future development of

AGTs.

4.1.5 Product Price Volatility

The market prices of products that can be produced by AGTs can be volatile and
unpredictable as they relate to fossil fuel prices. This issue is discussed in Task 3 when
benchmark costs for counterfactual products are considered. This product price volatility is
a financial risk for future AGT projects and is a potential barrier for scale-up and
deployment.

In addition to product price volatility, there is uncertainty relating to the cost and or revenue
associated with the CO2 generated. For AGT projects that include CCUS, there is
uncertainty relating to the cost of exporting CO2 to transport and storage infrastructure, and
the cost of emitting CO2 not captured by the CCUS system to atmosphere. For gasification
projects not including CCUS, there is a higher potential cost associated with emitting CO2
produced during the process to atmosphere. The ability of AGTs to operate as a process
with net negative CO2 emissions is a potential source of revenue. Economic uncertainty
relating to the cost of CO2 emissions is a potential barrier to the scale-up and deployment of
AGTs.

Exposure to market risks relating to feedstock, product prices and CO2, increases overall
project risk and means that investors are likely to require higher returns compared to
projects with less exposure to market risk. For example, a water electrolysis hydrogen
project directly attached to a renewable energy generation asset would have little exposure
to feedstock price risk.

29
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

Contracting strategies can be used to reduce a project’s exposure to market risk. However,
they are of limited value because, if a third party takes market risk by supplying a long-term
fixed price contract, there is generally a cost associated with providing this service. In the
electricity generation sector, the contracts for difference (CfD) scheme reduces asset
owner’s exposure to electricity market price risk. A similar mechanism could be used for the
products and CO2 generated by AGTs.

Mitigations
1. Acknowledge product and CO2 price volatility risks relating to AGTs and consider it in
relation to the rate of return required by investors.

2. Consider the possibility and impact of government adoption of product and CO2 price
risk through a contract for difference type arrangement.

4.1.6 Availability of Finance

Obtaining finance is a challenge for the demonstration of any new technology because of
the increased levels of risk and uncertainty relative to existing technologies.

The availability of affordable finance and an overly conservative approach taken by finance
institutions have been cited as barriers to the development of new gasification projects.
However, new gasification-based power projects have continued to be financed under the
current government incentive scheme, based on assessment of the project risks.

The reputation of gasification-based power generation projects, and the potential increasing
size and complexity of AGTs in combination with the other risks and barriers described in
this report, will influence the cost and availability of finance for AGTs in the future. However,
‘low carbon energy technologies’ are expected to remain of interest to financiers and, if a
project can demonstrate an acceptable balance of risk and return, then sources of finance
for AGTs are likely to be available.

Mitigations
1. Encourage lessons to be learned and adequate scrutiny of new projects to promote
positive project outcomes.

2. Develop an appropriate deployment programme for development of AGTs to learn

from experience and demonstrate performance of the individual process units, full
chain integration and increasing scale of plants.

3. If project risk and rate of return are acceptable after other barriers have been
addressed and considered, it should become possible to develop financeable
projects.

4. Government grant support.

30
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

4.2 Technical
Risk relating to performing as anticipated is common to all emerging technologies. AGTs
are complex process plants involving chemical reactions, heating, cooling, rotating
machinery, complex material handling and control of multiple interconnected systems. This
creates a different set of technical risks when compared to other renewable energy
technologies such as wind and solar. For AGTs, performance risk primarily relates to the
factors listed below. Issues in any of these areas will impact project economics.

• Availability
• Reliable process unit operation
• Scale-up
• Full chain integration
• Requirement for CCUS
• Efficiency of conversion
• Feedstock flexibility
• Product quality
• Safety
The technical risks and challenges associated with AGTs will depend on the application of
the technology. For example, a project aiming to process waste into low carbon hydrogen
may face challenges relating to waste processing but will not require a Fischer-Tropsch
stage. The technical issues described below are common to waste and biomass gasification
used in different applications.

4.2.1 Availability
The operational availability of a plant once constructed is fundamental to project
economics. Realistic technical assumptions for plant availability were identified in Task 2 as
being fundamental to the development of commercially viable financial models.

None of the AGTs for producing hydrogen or various hydrocarbon products considered in
Task 2 have fully demonstrated commercial operation. A lack of technology that has
demonstrated commercial operation with acceptable levels of availability is a barrier to the
further deployment and scale-up of AGT projects. While technologies could be expected to
improve over time if there is continued investment, it is difficult to predict the number of
iterations, and length of time, required to develop technologies without a track record of
achieving commercially viable levels of availability into commercially viable technologies.

For plants using waste as a feedstock, unplanned outages are particularly challenging
because waste keeps being produced, it is difficult to store in large volumes, it is expensive
to transport to other facilities and it can be challenging to find other facilities with enough

31
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

unused capacity to accept additional waste at short notice. For this reason, local authorities
who are responsible for waste disposal may be particularly reluctant to rely on technologies
that are novel or perceived to have an increased availability risk. Similar supply chain
challenges exist in relation to unreliable consumption of biomass, and unplanned outages
could also be problematic in relation to the use of CO2 transport and storage infrastructure.

Many factors can adversely affect plant availability including:

• Poorly performing main process units (for example the gasifier or gas clean-up
equipment).
• Issues relating to scale-up.
• Poor quality construction and / or lack of resilience / redundancy in auxiliary systems.
• System integration issues.
• Feedstock that is incompatible with the equipment installed.
Improvements to availability can be achieved by improving the design of, or adding
redundancy to, main process units and balance of plant, by sourcing feedstock that is
compatible with the equipment installed and increased operational experience. However, in
general these measures come at an increased cost. Achieving an acceptable balance of
availability and cost is a key challenge for AGTs and a potential barrier to scale-up and
deployment.

Mitigations
1. Consider appropriate evidence for, and sensitivity to, availability assumptions in
project assessment.

2. Acknowledge availability risk in relation to financial model assumptions and the likely
rates of return required by investors.

Refer also to Section 2.4 in relation to lessons learned.

4.2.2 Reliable Process Unit Operation

There are technical challenges associated with achieving long term reliable performance for
the main process units in an AGT. The challenges experienced by different process units
are multiple, varied and specific to the technology being considered. The summary below
provides a high-level overview of some common challenges with AGT plant process units.

• Feedstock Preparation and Handling – The ability to reliably process the incoming
feedstock to the quality required by the gasifier at an affordable cost.
• Gasifier – Availability, slagging (the melting of ash in unwanted places), coping with
variations in the feedstock and producing syngas of consistent quality.

32
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

• Syngas clean-up – Effective control of tars, particulates and other contaminants.

The ability to reliably produce a consistent syngas output, from a variable quality
input, without incurring excessive equipment and operational costs.
• Syngas upgrading – Product yield, product quality, efficiency, catalyst life, ability to
reliably process the syngas produced by the upstream equipment.
• Product refinement – reliably meeting quality requirements without excessive
processing costs or product wastage.
• Carbon Capture and Storage – Availability of CO2 transportation and storage
infrastructure.
The development of reliable process units, of a suitable scale and cost, is a challenge
associated with the upscale and deployment of AGTs. Further information on specific
technologies is provided in Task 2.

Mitigations
1. Include suitable levels of redundancy in equipment designs.

2. Adequately assess reliable unit operation and redundancy during pre-financial close
project reviews.

3. Ensure good quality equipment is sourced and the capital costs of the project are not
unreasonably low.

4. Consider funding demonstration projects to promote the development of reliable

process units.

5. Include demonstration of long-term reliable unit operation as a key research output

from any funded demonstration or innovation project.

4.2.3 Scale-up
The optimum size for an AGT plant will be a balance between the benefits of economies of
scale that can be gained by building larger plants and constraints that may occur in relation
to factors such as scale-up risk, feedstock transportation, land available or investment
requirements.

The scale-up of AGTs is a challenging process and issues have occurred in relation to
previous attempts to benefit from economies of scale. Factors to consider in relation to
controlling scale-up risk include:

• The extent to which the existing scale of plant has operated successfully.
• Realistic expectations of the time and risk involved in process scale-up. Several
steps may be required before a commercially competitive scale is achieved.

33
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

• Recognition that some processes have fundamental technical limitations in relation

to size and scale.
• An appropriate balance between the time required to achieve scale-up ambitions and
the risk associated with large scale-up steps.
The number of scale-up steps required, the length of time required for each step, and a
reasonable magnitude for each step is highly dependent on the technology being
considered as well as other factors. Therefore, it is not possible to provide generic
recommendations covering all technologies in relation to scale-up time and cost
requirements. However, if large projects are desired, based on limited scale pilot plants,
then several scale-up steps may be required, and each step may take several years.

Conducting scale-up processes too quickly increases the risk associated with the process
and can lead to failed projects. If scale-up is conducted in smaller, incremental steps with
more developmental work and experience gained at each step, then risks are reduced.
However, this can be difficult to achieve in a commercial setting where there is pressure to
operate at a sufficiently large scale to benefit from economies of scale.

A more controlled, lower risk scale-up process could be achieved through the construction
of intermediate scale demonstration projects, where capital at risk and commercial
pressures on performance are lower than for full scale commercial projects. However, this
may require different sources of funding from commercial projects. Furthermore, a slow and
methodical scale-up process does not guarantee that all desired or predicted economic and
performance outcomes will be achieved when the equipment is scaled up. Lengthy scale-
up periods also increase the likelihood that alternative technologies for achieving the same
outcomes will be developed.

Scale-up issues can be successfully overcome, as has been demonstrated in other process
industries that operate on a large scale. From a technical perspective it would be possible
to scale-up any AGT process, either by increasing unit size or by using more units where
units are limited in size for technical reasons. However, for any technology, there are
challenges relating to the cost, risk and time required to progress through the scale-up
process. Successful scale-up is a potential barrier to further deployment of many AGTs.

Existing large-scale commercial gasification technology that operates on other feedstocks,

such as coal, has the potential to be modified to operate on biomass, or a mixture of coal
and biomass. Additionally, many of the processes used in the syngas clean-up and
conversion processes have already been demonstrated at scale in the oil and gas industry.
Experience gained from such technology can be used to reduce the risks of scale-up.
Several of the developers of biomass or waste to biofuels processes use designs converted
from coal gasification processes to gasify the feedstock or convert the syngas into useful
products.

Some suppliers have already developed and tested reasonable scale gasifiers and to scale-
up plants the current intention is to supply two or more gasifiers. As long as the modular

34
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

units or of a reasonable scale, this will not be a significant disadvantage in terms of costs or
efficiency. In the waste industry it is commonplace to have multiple unit plants as this adds
operating flexibility in managing waste streams.

Mitigations
1. Consider the factors listed above in relation to scale-up on any new projects.

2. Highlight any scale-up risks during pre-financial close project reviews.

3. Consider funding of a medium scale demonstration project.

4.2.4 Full Chain Integration

AGTs involve multiple process units being integrated together, as seen in Figure 2, noting
that each of the blocks in Figure 2 will contain multiple interconnected processes. For the
whole chain to work as required, with acceptable levels of availability, all the process units
are required to work together.

Figure 2. Generic AGT block flow diagram

Plant
performance issues occur if any one of the process units fails to operate as intended. Due
to the complex nature of the plant, there is a risk that a process unit that has functioned well
on another site, performing a similar role, will fail to operate reliably due to differing
operational conditions. An example of this could be a Fischer-Tropsch reactor that worked
well when fed with syngas produced from natural gas or coal but may not operate well with
syngas produced from biomass or waste. Interface conditions between the process units
are also critical to the full chain integration, to ensure that outputs from each unit are
consistently within the design parameters for the inputs to the following unit.

The issue of full chain integration is common in process industries and is generally
addressed by a combination of:

• Using process units with a proven track record, if available.

• Ensuring each individual process unit can reliably process the full range of material
that might be presented to it from upstream process units.
• Well designed, constructed and commissioned balance of plant.

35
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

• Adequate levels of equipment redundancy where required.

• Realistic assumptions on process unit availability.
Using the techniques above it would be possible to overcome the challenges associated
with full chain integration. However, effective application of these techniques to control full
chain integration risk will increase costs. The ability to demonstrate that that the whole
process chain works reliably without incurring excessive costs is a potential barrier to the
scale-up and deployment of AGTs.

Demonstrating reliable full chain integration has been an issue in the past when gasification
has been used in electricity generation projects based on the combustion of unprocessed
syngas and release of CO2 to the atmosphere. Adding process steps for syngas cleaning,
syngas upgrading, hydrocarbon refining, and CO2 capture will increase the technical
challenges associated with full chain integration for AGTs.

Mitigations
1. Consider the factors listed above in relation to full chain integration on any new
projects.

2. Highlight any full chain integration risks during pre-financial close project reviews.

3. Consider shortening the chain by having elements such as feedstock preparation or

product upgrading conducted by third parties.

4.2.5 Operation and Maintenance Costs

Like availability, operation and maintenance costs are a key economic parameter in relation
to the financial viability of any new technology. AGTs will need to demonstrate acceptable
operation and maintenance requirements in relation to several technically challenging areas
including long term operation of the gasifier, removal of tars and particulates from syngas,
treatment of process residues and catalyst life in relation to syngas upgrading processes.
Lack of operating experience and an understanding of long-term operation and
maintenance costs will be an issue for first-of-a kind plants. High, or uncertain, operation
and maintenance cost requirements are a potential barrier to the scale-up and deployment
of AGTs.

Rather than seeking to make first-of-a-kind plants overly complex by minimising

consumable costs by producing oxygen and power on-site, it will be less risky to simplify
initial projects and import consumables, knowing that improvements can be made in future
projects, or systems added on later.

Mitigations
1. Highlight operation and maintenance cost risks during pre-financial close project
reviews.

36
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

2. Research, demonstration projects and / or operational experience would reduce

operation and maintenance cost uncertainty.

3. Use operating experience from similar process units to minimise uncertainties. For
example, there is a reasonable amount of experience available on the operation of
fuel processing and biomass/waste gasifier units.

4.2.6 Requirement for CCUS

AGTs are being considered in the context of aiding the UK in meeting its net zero CO2
emissions targets by 2050. Therefore, the net CO2 emissions associated with products from
AGTs must be understood, to allow them to be compared with other means of producing
the same products.

Calculation of net CO2 emissions is a complex issue but is essential to demonstrating that
government support to carbon reduction technologies across the whole energy system
represents value for money.

When CO2 emissions are being calculated to compare or evaluate different technology
options it is important that the boundary conditions for the calculation are understood and
are consistent between the options being compared. The use of different boundary
conditions may give very different results to the CO2 emissions calculations. For waste
plants, if the boundary conditions are taken as the feedstock entering the plant (as is used
when calculating the carbon intensity (gCO2/kWh) of electricity generated at EfW plants)
then products from waste fire AGTs without CCS may have higher associated fossil origin
CO2 emissions than the direct use of fossil fuels. This is because of the proportion of fossil
origin carbon in the waste and the conversion efficiency of AGTs. If different boundary
conditions are used, then the CO2 emission calculations will provide different results.

If CCUS is added, either biomass or waste fired AGTs have the potential to provide
negative CO2 emissions. However, the addition of CCUS to an AGT presents a number of
challenges. The required CO2 transport and storage infrastructure does not currently exist,
although there are plans to develop it at several locations in the UK. Including carbon
capture technology adds additional process units, an additional project interface and
increases the overall technical risk associated with the project.

CCUS itself is a developing technology and early stage CCUS deployments may choose to
be associated with low risk, dependable sources of CO2. The owners and operators of CO2
transportation and storage infrastructure may consider dependability of supply when
considering which CO2 producers to provide capacity to (subject to the commercial basis on
which they are developed). The requirement for, and complications associated with, the
inclusion of CCUS in AGTs could be a barrier to scale-up and deployment.

37
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

Mitigations
1. Understand the whole life CO2 emissions associated with different AGT
configurations.

2. Identify AGT configurations that do not rely on CCUS to achieve carbon savings.

3. Make realistic development timeframe assumptions for AGT configurations that rely
on CCUS to achieve meaningful carbon savings.

4. Consider the potential of the application of CCUS to create AGT configurations with
net negative carbon emissions.

4.2.7 Efficiency of Conversion

Efficiency of conversion of feedstock to products is important for AGTs as it fundamentally
influences project economics and CO2 emission reduction potential and because biomass
and waste are limited resources with competing uses. Conversion efficiency assumptions
will be important in relation to estimating the cost of products from AGTs. Further
information on typical conversion efficiencies will be provided in Task 5.

For processes that use waste or biomass feedstock it is important that any fiscal incentives
promote the efficient use of the material. As waste has a gate fee (negative price)
associated with it, particular care must be taken to avoid incentivising inefficient processes.

Mitigations
1. Determine overall conversion efficiency levels including all required auxiliary
equipment, feedstock handling and CCUS if applicable. Reasonable allowances to
be made for any external inputs such as support fuel, oxygen or electricity.

2. Use conversion efficiency figures to make fair comparisons with other technologies,
such as combustion technology with electrolysis as a route to low carbon hydrogen.

4.2.8 Feedstock Flexibility

One of the challenges of waste gasification development has been that processes
developed to process clean biomass has been adopted for waste wood or RDF, due to
economic pressures. As waste wood is considerably cheaper than clean biomass and RDF
attracts a gate fee, projects have been driven by economics to process more difficult fuels.
Some technology suppliers have failed to appreciate the difficulties in using much harsher
fuels and this has been a common cause of project difficulties. A technology which works
reasonably on virgin wood will need significant modifications to work with waste wood or
RDF. This was not well understood by some of the technology suppliers for the plants built
recently in the UK.

Biomass and waste are complex materials to process, and there is a wide array of
equipment available for handling this material. Generally, lower cost feedstock materials

38
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

require more complex and expensive processing equipment. For example, wood pellets are
typically easier to process than wood chips, which in turn are easier to process than refuse
derived fuel (RDF) and raw municipal solid waste (MSW). On any waste or biomass fired
project, whether using gasification or combustion, this creates a trade-off between the cost
of the equipment and the cost of the feedstock that it can process. Achieving an acceptable
balance between the grade of feedstock that can be reliably processed and the cost of
equipment is a challenge for any biomass or waste processing plant.

We are not aware of any continuous gasification process that can process raw municipal
solid waste (MSW) without some form of mechanical pre-processing. Waste processing
equipment represents an additional capital and operating cost, uses energy, is a potential
source of downtime and has associated hazards. EfW plants can operate on raw MSW with
limited feedstock preparation. Being able to operate with limited feedstock preparation is an
advantage for EfWs in relation to the treatment of waste, which is one of the services
potentially provided by AGTs. However, mechanical pre-processing of waste to RDF is well
understood and plants can be designed to have a marginal impact on overall AGT
availability, albeit at a cost.

A further risk for waste fired gasifiers is the changing composition of waste. If consumer
habits change such that the composition of waste will change, e.g. due to a reduction in use
of single use plastics or increased recycling. Such a change has the potential to adversely
impact any thermal waste processing technology, and technologies that are most sensitive
to changes in the input composition of feedstock are at most risk to adverse impacts of such
changes. This may be a barrier for the development of some AGTs, although it is probably
a relatively minor risk.

Mitigation
1. Ensure that there is a match between the quality of the feedstock available and the
feedstock quality requirements of the installed equipment.

2. At government level the relative roles of waste and biomass need to be considered
separately and support mechanisms tailored to achieve what is needed.

4.2.9 Product Quality

Upgrading of the treated syngas to produce longer chain hydrocarbons will be carried out
using Fischer-Tropsch or other processes, Figure 3. Further refinement of the mixed
hydrocarbons is then required to produce the desired end products such as aviation fuel,
methanol or ethanol, as illustrated in Figure 3.

39
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

Figure 3. Product separation

The consistency of the treated syngas, and the ability of the upgrading and separation
processes to produce consistent end products that meet the required quality standards is
fundamental to the plant economics. By-products, or product that has not met required
quality requirements could be sent to an existing oil refinery for further processing, but this
will reduce its value. The ability of a full chain AGT plant to produce a high yield of
compliant product remains to be proven in a commercial setting and therefore is a potential
barrier to up-scaling and deployment of AGTs.

Mitigation
1. Develop an appropriate deployment programme for development of AGTs to
demonstrate consistency and yield of end products.

2. Further product refinement could be conducted, with an associated cost.

4.2.10 Safety
Safety is a concern during the construction and operation of any biomass or waste
processing facility regardless of whether gasification technology is used.

Fire is a particularly challenging hazard to control during the operation of waste

management sites.

Examples of safety incidents at gasification plants include the major fire at the Scotgen
facility in Dumfries in 2013 that took an estimated 70 firefighters two and a half days to
extinguish 8 and in 2017 there was an explosion at a gasification plant in Oldbury that killed
one worker.

AGTs have additional hazards in relation to the syngas created, the processing of syngas,
the storage and handling of products and any CO2 captured. The use of new technology
and combinations of equipment means that safety is a critical consideration at all stages of
design, build and operation to identify and eliminate, reduce or mitigate hazards as
appropriate.

8 https://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/scotgen-gasification-plant-gutted-by-fire/

40
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

Major safety incidents can have implications in relation to the lives and health of workers
and nearby residents, the environment, compliance with the law, the reputation of a
technology and the cost and ability to obtain insurance for other projects.

Established engineering practices for managing process safety at complex, high hazard
installations are applicable to AGTs and, provided that appropriate practices are adopted
throughout the development and operation of projects, process safety is not anticipated to
be a fundamental barrier to the scale-up and deployment of AGTs.

In the UK the application of regulations such as Construction Design and Management

(CDM) 2015 sets out what people involved in construction work need to do to protect
themselves, and anyone the work affects, from harm.

Mitigation
1. Apply established engineering practices available for managing process safety at
complex, high hazard installations at all stages of project development.

2. Ensure adequate fire detection and protection systems are installed.

4.3 Non-Technical
A brief summary of political, social and other non-technical issues relating to upscale and
development of AGTs is provided below.

4.3.1 Reputation of Gasification

Commercial scale gasification-based projects are significant developments with respect to
the money and time invested, and the number of different companies and diverse range of
stakeholders involved. If a project significantly underperforms it can have financial and
social implications for both the organisations and individuals involved. Under-performance
may also impact the reputation of gasification-based projects, regardless of whether the
gasification part of the process contributed to the performance issues experienced.

While it is difficult to quantify, a poor reputation could make many aspects of project
development more difficult for future AGT projects. This could include obtaining feedstock
contracts, obtaining finance, agreeing commercial terms with contractors, allocation of
performance risk and obtaining the required permits and consents.

The poor reputation of gasification-based projects in the UK will make development of

AGTs more challenging. This situation has the potential to be exacerbated if any of the
current gasification-based power generation projects, that are in commissioning or early
operation, fail to achieve long term commercial operation, resulting in further losses for
investors, companies and individuals connected to the project.

41
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

Mitigations
1. Learn lessons from the past to encourage positive innovation and successful
projects.

2. Consider marketing, brand management and public relations input.

3. AGTs being able to demonstrate benefits over other EfW technologies that are
perceived as lower risk by investors.

4.3.2 Planning and Permitting

Obtaining the required planning and operating permits for large industrial developments is,
by necessity, a complex and time-consuming process. Waste management processes face
additional challenges due to several reasons including an often undeserved, poor
reputation in relation to environmental performance. These challenges are not unique to
AGTs. However, the length of time required to obtain the required permissions will influence
timescales for the development and deployment of AGTs.

Reputational issues could be a challenge for AGTs in relation to obtain planning

permission, particularly when they relate to the provision of a key service like waste
management. Waste gasification plants that do not perform in line with initial expectations
have the potential to result in increased costs and inconvenience for local authorities in
relation to the provision of waste management services. Increased costs for local authorities
in relation to the provision of essential services will have wider social implications for
residents who rely on services provided by the local authority. Any authorities that have
been directly impacted by technical challenges experienced at gasification projects may be
reluctant to permit new gasification-based projects to form part of their waste management
infrastructure in the future.

If any local authority area where CCUS infrastructure is accessible is reluctant to allow new
gasification projects in its area, this could have a disproportionate impact on the ability to
deploy larger scale AGT plant.

The challenges associated with obtaining the required planning consent will depend on the
scale of the project being developed. If a project is large enough to be considered a
Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) then a Development Consent Order
(DCO) will be required rather than a local authority planning permission.

Obtaining operational permits for new industrial facilities, such as AGTs, requires technical
information relating to the operation of the facility. However, permitting is generally
considered as a less political process than obtaining planning consent, so is likely to be less
of a barrier than obtaining planning consent.

42
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

Mitigations
1. Make realistic allowances for planning and permitting of projects in relation to
deployment predictions.

2. Undertake potential site identification and selection assessment. Selecting the most
appropriate sites is critical to a smoother planning process.

4.3.3 Dissemination of Lessons Learned

Organisations involved in the development of gasification-based projects will learn lessons
by developing and commissioning projects. However, there are commercial sensitivities
around project performance and sharing of innovations. This can slow down the overall
development of the class of technologies by different organisations.

Increased openness in relation to the technical and economic aspects of developing

successful gasification projects would help in relation to the dissemination of lessons
learned from past projects.

Mitigations
1. Consider knowledge dissemination and sharing of performance data as a condition
of government support to AGT projects.

4.3.4 Skills
A lack of suitably skilled and experienced staff, and organisations, at all stages in project
delivery can be a barrier to the successful development of new projects. This issue is not
unique to gasification-based projects. In general, the skills base for any technology will
develop if successful projects are being deployed.

The availability of suitable skills to allow the future deployment and scale-up of AGTs could
be impacted by the reputation of gasification-based technologies. Organisations and / or
individuals with applicable skills, may choose to work with other technologies if they
perceive them to be of lower risk and more likely to progress to a successful outcome. For
the syngas handling and upgrading part of the AGT process there could be opportunities to
use skills from the oil and gas industry. The UK oil and gas industry has seen declining job
numbers in recent years, meaning that there may be a pool of suitably skilled staff for some
parts of the AGT process.

Mitigations
1. Invest in education and training.

2. Learn lessons from the past to encourage positive project outcomes.

43
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

5 Development Pathway
5.1 AGT Development
Predictions relating to development timescales for emerging technologies to reach
commercial operation and subsequent large-scale deployment are inherently uncertain.
Some recently developed technologies such as wind and solar have surpassed many
people’s expectations, whereas other technologies, for example wave and tidal power, have
shown slower progress in deployment.

The time required to deploy a new technology is dependent on the current state of
development, the benefits that the technology can bring and the barriers to its development.
For AGTs, the current state of development of specific technologies is described in Task 2
and opportunities and barriers are described in this report. Further details on the
opportunities are being developed in Task 5 in relation to the anticipated cost of products.

In the last 25 years there has been ongoing investment in waste and biomass gasification-
based projects and many advances have been made. However, there are barriers on the
pathway to the large-scale deployment of AGTs to produce hydrogen and various
hydrocarbons. Many of the barriers to deployment faced by AGTs could be overcome with
further time and investment. However, due to the number, nature and magnitude of barriers
identified there is considerable uncertainty in relation to the achievability of successfully
deploying multiple large scale AGTs in the UK by 2035. Large scale deployment prior to
2035 will be particularly challenging if it is to be based on the development of new
technology that is currently at a small scale. Some of the barriers identified have potentially
fundamental implications to the long-term viability of the AGT configurations considered.

Notwithstanding the challenges associated with the development of AGTs, the positive
aspects of the technology and opportunities that it could bring are significant. The potential
to produce hydrocarbon products with negative associated CO2 emissions is a key benefit.

5.2 Government Support Mechanisms

There are a variety of forms of government support that could potentially be provided to aid
the development of the next generation of AGTs. The most appropriate form of support will
be dependent on the specific AGT configuration being considered. Examples of potential
support mechanisms are listed below:

1. Incentives based on the number of units of product made, for example the ROC
scheme for electricity generators. This type of scheme may be most appropriate for
more developed AGT configurations.

2. Grant funding for pilot or demonstrator type projects. This approach could mitigate
some of the risks associated with development of complex process technology in a

44
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

commercial environment. However, it restricts the level of finance available and the
speed and scale of deployment of the technology.

3. Targeted support aimed at developing a specific element of the process, such as

catalyst development or syngas upgrading equipment. The most appropriate element
to target will be dependent on the AGT configuration under consideration.

5.3 Next Steps

The most impact from any support provided to the development of AGTs will be achieved
by focussing on the configurations with the most potential to be of value. To allow decisions
to be made relating to the most appropriate form of support to provide, the following next
steps are recommended to be taken alongside technology specific development actions
relating to the development of AGTs. Data from Task 5 can be used in this assessment
process.

1. Determine the cost of products from AGTs.

2. Compare the CO2 emissions associated with AGT products, with the CO2 emissions
from alternative sources of these products.

3. Determine a specific cost of CO2 saved (£/tonne) and consider the risks associated
with the calculated cost. For example, assumed plant availability, access to
feedstock and other factors detailed throughout this report.

4. Compare the cost and risk of CO2 emission reductions using AGTs with other CO2
emission reduction and removal options. This comparison will be sector specific as
the alternative CO2 emission reduction options available are dependent on the
product being considered. Alternative CO2 emission reduction options are available
in all sectors and will include measures such as demand management.

The next steps above represent a structured approach to assessing the value of AGTs as a
means of controlling CO2 emissions in different sectors of the economy.

Due to the current level of development of AGTs and the assumptions required in the above
analysis, there will be a degree of uncertainty associated with the results obtained. If AGTs
are to be developed, then final selection of feedstocks and end products to pursue will also
be influenced by BEIS policy within the overall strategy for achieving net zero carbon
emissions.

Assuming one or more AGT configurations will be pursued, there are common issues to be
addressed that will provide beneficial impact in deploying AGTs commercially at scale, such
as:

1. Improving the reliability of operation and consistency of syngas produced by the

gasifier. This is a technology-specific and feedstock dependent issue.

45
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

2. Developing and demonstrating existing technologies for use in AGT applications, e.g.
water gas shift reactor, syngas upgrading technologies. Many of the process stages
that form part of the AGT configurations assessed are demonstrated at a commercial
scale in other applications, and fundamentally the processes are similar. However,
their application in AGTs and the unique conditions that are derived from gasification
of waste and biomass feedstocks will need to be demonstrated to support
commercial deployment. For example, the impact of the specific gas conditions and
composition, including trace contaminants, on the materials selection, process
efficiency, operation and control, and maintenance requirements will need to be
addressed. Again, these are configuration and technology-specific considerations.

3. Once the basic operation of the chosen configurations has been demonstrated, there
are process improvements that may be considered to improve plant efficiency and
yield, such as:

a. Optimised heat integration to make best use of heat generated by the various
process stages.

b. Reduction in use of utilities and consumables, e.g. by producing oxygen and

electrical power on site using power generated from surplus heat.

c. Application of CCUS to reduce CO2 emissions

d. Technology improvements, e.g. development of Fischer-Tropsch catalysts to

reduce production of unwanted hydrocarbon fractions.

However, it is emphasised that such improvements are secondary to the

demonstration of reliable core process operation as an integrated chain.

5.4 Further Work

Potential further work relating to the development of AGTs are outlined below:

1. Conduct a more detailed feasibility study into a specific AGT configuration identified
as promising through the exercise described in Section 5.3. This study would allow a
more detailed assessment of the technology to be conducted and specific areas for
development to be identified. This type of study could also be used to inform
decisions relating to any potential demonstration project.

2. Compare the cost, risk and limitations of AGTs with other options for removal of CO2
from the atmosphere. These other options could include land use change, post
combustion carbon capture from biomass or waste fired power plants, direct air CO2
capture or biochar projects.

3. Consider configurations of AGT that produce other products which have not been
considered in this study. These other products could include raw syngas (for use in

46
Advanced Gasification Technologies Review and Benchmarking: Task 4 report

heating), solid carbon products (such as a biological origin replacement for coke) or
less refined hydrogen.

If further government support is to be provided to the development of AGTs, the barriers

identified within this report should be continually reviewed. There is a complex technical
and economic balance to be struck between supporting a wide range of technologies with
the potential to be valuable at some point in the future, and more targeted support towards
technologies that are likely to provide measurable benefits in the short to medium term. This
report provides information in relation to achieving that balance.

47
This publication is available from: www.gov.uk/government/publications/advanced-
gasification-technologies-review-and-benchmarking

If you need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email
[email protected]. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what
assistive technology you use.