Comparative Analysis of Costs of Alternative Coal Liquefaction Processes

Abstract

As the cost of production is a key determinant of long-term viability, developing methods that reduce the cost of direct coal liquefaction has posed a challenge to scientists and industrial organizations worldwide. This paper summarizes recent developments in technology and processes and explores the overall economic competitiveness of direct coal liquefaction using the China Shenhua Group Corp. (Shenhua) project as a case study. A comparative analysis of the costs and economic competitiveness of the Shenhua approach and a variety of conceptual designs outlined in U.S. studies is presented. The comparison shows that the economic competitiveness of direct coal liquefaction is dependent on production costs that consist primarily of raw material, operation and management, and capital costs. Capital cost is shown to be a primary determinant of the cost of production. The relative competitiveness of the plant and supporting facilities depends heavily on the economic alternatives relevant to a particular plant site. Initial results indicate that the Shenhua direct coal liquefaction plant is relatively competitive given the cost allocation assumptions made. Long-term financial markets as well as safety and environmental factors are all issues that may affect the analysis and ultimate conclusions.

Direct liquefaction of lower-rank coals and biocoals with magnetically separable catalysts as a sustainable route to fuels

“…Since several literature reports for the calculation basis for the cost components are from different years [7][8][9]36], the prices (in US-$) were calculated by considering the cumulative inflation with respect to the development of the US-$ value up to 2014 [37]. If Table 1 Results for the HHV, the proximate and the ultimate analysis for the used coals.…”

“…Nevertheless, after World War II there have been many successful efforts, especially for building DCL pilot plants, in order to decrease the hydrogen pressure below 20 MPa during the operation mode [2][3][4]. The process economics are always estimated by the relation between the barrel price of a crude oil equivalent out of DCL and the current crude oil price per barrel [8,9]. Most of the documented and investigated processes refer to high-rank coals (bituminous or subbituminous coals) [2][3][4][5]7].…”

“…The combination of a low-rank coal, which has a higher reactivity than high-rank coals [7], and an efficient catalyst http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.01.006 0016-2361/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. could help to decrease the severity of the process conditions and therefore the capital costs, which are the major cost component for direct coal liquefaction [7][8][9]12].…”

Recent Advances in Direct Coal Liquefaction

“…The hydrogen as a capping agent can stabilize the radicals/fragments to form liquid products and suppress the coke formation reactions in the process. It was estimated that roughly 30% of the production cost for a DCL process is associated with hydrogen generation [29]. Molecular hydrogen itself is a poor capping agent because of the stability of the H-H bond, but the H 2 molecules can be dissociated into reactive atomic hydrogen under high severity conditions and in the presence of an appropriate catalyst.…”

A review on coal-to-liquid fuels and its coal consumption

“…Older and more modest studies claim break-even crude oil-prices around US$35 per barrel [37]. Liquid fuel costs for a Chinese DCL facility have been estimated at around US$24/barrel [38]. The development of coal prices and the economic situation in recent years has influenced break-even prices.…”