Lifecycle carbon footprint and cost assessment for coal-to-liquid coupled with carbon capture, storage, and utilization technology in China

Abstract

The coal-to-liquid coupled with carbon capture, utilization, and storage technology has the potential to reduce CO₂ emissions, but its carbon footprint and cost assessment are still insufficient. In this paper, coal mining to oil production is taken as a life cycle to evaluate the carbon footprint and levelized costs of direct-coal-to-liquid and indirect-coal-to-liquid coupled with the carbon capture utilization and storage technology under three scenarios: non capture, process capture, process and public capture throughout the life cycle. The results show that, first, the coupling carbon capture utilization and storage technology can reduce CO₂ footprint by 28%–57% from 5.91 t CO₂/t·oil of direct-coal-to-liquid and 24%–49% from 7.10 t CO₂/t·oil of indirect-coal-to-liquid. Next, the levelized cost of direct-coal-to-liquid is 648–1027 $/t of oil, whereas that of indirect-coal-to-liquid is 653–1065 $/t of oil. When coupled with the carbon capture utilization and storage technology, the levelized cost of direct-coal-to-liquid is 285–1364 $/t of oil, compared to 1101–9793 $/t of oil for indirect-coal-to-liquid. Finally, sensitivity analysis shows that CO₂ transportation distance has the greatest impact on carbon footprint, while coal price and initial investment cost significantly affect the levelized cost of coal-to-liquid.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

coal-to-liquid / carbon capture / utilization and storage (CCUS) / carbon footprint / levelized cost of liquid / lifecycle assessment

References

[1] NationalBureau of StatisticsChina. China Energy Statistical Yearbook 2021. Beijing: China Statistics Press, 2022 (in Chinese)

[2] Zhang L, Shen Q, Wang M. . Driving factors and predictions of CO₂ emission in China’s coal chemical industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019, 210: 1131–1140

[3] Yao X, Fan Y, Xu Y. . Is it worth to invest? — An evaluation of CTL-CCS project in China based on real options.. Energy, 2019, 182: 920–931

[4] JaramilloP. A life cycle comparison of coal and natural gas for electricity generation and the production of transportation fuels. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Carnegie Mellon University, 2007

[5] Guo M, Xu Y. Coal-to-liquids projects in China under water and carbon constraints. Energy Policy, 2018, 117: 58–65

[6] Fan J L, Xu M, Wei S. . Carbon reduction potential of China’s coal-fired power plants based on a CCUS source-sink matching model. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2021, 168: 105320

[7] Kawai E, Ozawa A, Leibowicz B D. Role of carbon capture and utilization (CCU) for decarbonization of industrial sector: A case study of Japan. Applied Energy, 2022, 328: 120183

[8] Li K, Shen S, Fan J L. . The role of carbon capture, utilization and storage in realizing China’s carbon neutrality: A source-sink matching analysis for existing coal-fired power plants. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2022, 178: 106070

[9] Wang F, Harindintwali J D, Yuan Z Z. . Technologies and perspectives for achieving carbon neutrality. Innovation, 2021, 2(4): 100180

[10] Budinis S, Krevor S, Dowell N M. . An assessment of CCS costs, barriers and potential. Energy Strategy Reviews, 2018, 22: 61–81

[11] Fan J L, Wei S, Yang L. . Comparison of the LCOE between coal-fired power plants with CCS and main low-carbon generation technologies: Evidence from China. Energy, 2019, 176: 143–155

[12] Bassano C, Deiana P, Vilardi G. . Modeling and economic evaluation of carbon capture and storage technologies integrated into synthetic natural gas and power-to-gas plants. Applied Energy, 2020, 263: 114590

[13] Yang S, Xiao Z, Deng C. . Techno-economic analysis of coal-to-liquid processes with different gasifier alternatives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020, 253: 120006

[14] MantripragadaH C. Techno-economic evaluation of coal-to-liquids (CTL) plants and their effects on environment and resources. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, 2010

[15] Jaramillo P, Griffin W M, Matthews H S. Comparative analysis of the production costs and life-cycle GHG emissions of FT liquid fuels from coal and natural gas. Environmental Science & Technology, 2008, 42(20): 7559–7565

[16] Gao D, Ye C, Ren X. . Life cycle analysis of direct and indirect coal liquefaction for vehicle power in China. Fuel Processing Technology, 2018, 169: 42–49

[17] Zhang Y, Li J, Yang X. Comprehensive competitiveness assessment of four coal-to-liquid routes and conventional oil refining route in China. Energy, 2021, 235: 121442

[18] El Joumri L, Labjar N, Dalimi M. . Life cycle assessment (LCA) in the olive oil value chain: A descriptive review. Environmental Development, 2023, 45: 100800

[19] IPCC. Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005

[20] Fu K, Qi S. Accounting method and application of provincial electricity carbon emission responsibility in China. China Population Resources and Environment, 2014, 24(4): 27–34

[21] Shan Y, Guan D, Liu J. . Methodology and applications of city level CO₂ emission accounts in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017, 161: 1215–1225

[22] Ministryof EcologyEnvironment(MEE)China. Notice on key tasks related to the management of greenhouse gas emission reports for enterprises in 2022. 2022-03-15, available at the website of MEE (in Chinese)

[23] NationalBureau of StatisticsChina. China Statistical Yearbook 2021. Beijing: China Statistics Press, 2022 (in Chinese)

[24] NationalBureau of StatisticsChina. China Transport Statistical Yearbook 2021. Beijing: China Statistics Press, 2022 (in Chinese)

[25] NationalBureau of StatisticsChina. CPI moderately rising in 2022, PPI growth falling back. 2023-01-18, available at the website of National Bureau of Statistics (in Chinese)

[26] Zhang Y, Cheng M, Liu X. Research on greenhouse gas emissions during the life cycle of coal railway transportation in China. Resources Science, 2021, 43(03): 601–611

[27] JiangG. Research on comprehensive evaluation and optimization of China’s energy transport corridor system. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Beijing: China University of Mining and Technology, 2021 (in Chinese)

[28] Gan A, Men L, Chen K. Carbon footprint prediction and policy recommendations for China’s international shipping industry. Water Transport Management, 2014, 36(10): 9–11

[29] WuX. The First Exploration of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Geological Storage in China on a Large Scale. Beijing: Science Press, 2013 (in Chinese)

[30] ChineseAcademy of Sciences. The Administrative Center for China’s Agenda 21—China carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) technology assessment report. 2021 (in Chinese)

[31] HuangJ. Assessment Report on Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage Technologies in China. Beijing: Science Press, 2021 (in Chinese)

[32] CaiBLiQLiuG, . Carbon dioxide capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) report in China. Institute of Environmental Planning, Ministry of Ecology and Environment, China, 2020 (in Chinese)

[33] Ouyang X, Lin B. Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) of renewable energies and required subsidies in China. Energy Policy, 2014, 70: 64–73

[34] IEAOECD. Projected costs of generating electricity 2015 edition. International Energy Agency, Nuclear Energy Agency and Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, France, 2015

[35] JiaotongBaike Network. Unified railway freight rate (national railway freight price list). 2022 (in Chinese)

[36] Ministryof Transport (MoT) of the People’s Republic of China. Statistical bulletin on the development of the transportation industry in 2021. 2022-05-22, available at the website of the website of MoT (in Chinese)

[37] ChinaLogistics Information Center (CLIC). China highway logistics freight rate weekly index report. 2023-04-28, available at the website of CLIC (in Chinese)

[38] Fu C, Bai X F, Ding H. . Basic requirements for coal quality in China’s power coal and coal chemical industry. Coal Quality Technology, 2019, 34(05): 1–8

[39] QinhuangdaoCoal Network. Overall stabilization of coal prices in 2022. 2023 (in Chinese)

[40] CCTD. Resource base of index business. 2021 (in Chinese)

[41] ChinaInternational E-Coumerce Network. Commodity Price Index (CPPI) 2022. 2022 (in Chinese)

[42] Li G, Liu Z, Liu T. . Techno-economic analysis of a coal to hydrogen process based on ash agglomerating fluidized bed gasification. Energy Conversion and Management, 2018, 164: 552–559

[43] Wang Y, Li G, Liu Z. . Techno-economic analysis of biomass-to-hydrogen process in comparison with coal-to-hydrogen process. Energy, 2019, 185: 1063–1075

[44] ChinaPrice Information Network. Latest year’s price data. 2021-07-13, available at the website of Chinaprice (in Chinese)

[45] Fan J L, Yu P, Li K. . A levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) comparison of coal-to-hydrogen with CCS and water electrolysis powered by renewable energy in China. Energy, 2022, 242: 123003

[46] KearnsDLiuHConsoliC. Technology readiness and costs of CCS. Global CCS Institute, Australia. 2021

[47] Zhao Y, Li J, Zhang S. . Amidoxime-functionalized magnetic mesoporous silica for selective sorption of U(VI). RSC Advances, 2014, 4(62): 32710–32717

[48] Dahowski R T, Davidson C L, Li X C. . Examining CCS deployment potential in China via application of an integrated CCS cost curve. Energy Procedia, 2013, 37: 2487–2494

[49] SichuanUnited Environment Exchange. Domestic market. 2022-12-31, available at the website of Carbon Emission Trading (in Chinese)

[50] TheNo.1 Source for Oil & Energy New. Oil price charts WTI crude. 2021-12-31, available at the website of oilprice

[51] Hu M. Study on the development characteristics and cost boundaries of CCUS industry. Oil and Gas Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2020, 10(03): 15–22+2

[52] GuloranTuran Alex Zapantis. The global statue of CCS 2021. Global CCS Institute, Australia, 2021

[53] Mantripragada H C, Rubin E S. CO₂ implications of coal-to-liquids (CTL) plants. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2013, 16: 50–60

[54] Mantripragada H C, Rubin E S. Techno-economic evaluation of coal-to-liquids (CTL) plants with carbon capture and sequestration. Energy Policy, 2011, 39(5): 2808–2816

[55] Zhou L, Duan M, Yu Y. Exergy and economic analyses of indirect coal-to-liquid technology coupling carbon capture and storage. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018, 174: 87–95

[56] Budinis S, Krevor S, Dowell N M. . An assessment of CCS costs, barriers and potential. Energy Strategy Reviews, 2018, 22: 61–81

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Higher Education Press 2023