Policy drivers and barriers for coal-to-liquids (CtL) technologies in the United States

Vallentin, Daniel

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.04.032

Cited by 35 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The development of coal prices and the economic situation in recent years has influenced break-even prices. The most recent study of CTL costs available, suggests a break-even price of 48-75 US$/barrel [39]. Expected costs for ICL and DCL do not seem to differ much and can be assumed as virtually identical.…”

Section: System Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Vallentin [39] concludes that DCL generates about 90% more CO 2 than conventional fuel on a well-to-wheel basis. This is in agreement with other studies, but if reduction measures are implemented, the emissions could be reduced to no more than 30% extra compared to conventional petroleum fuels [30].…”

Section: Emission Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…ICL-technology generates approximately 80-110% more CO 2 emissions compared to conventional fuels, if the CO 2 is vented [30,39]. However, there are ICLsystem configurations where H 2 S+CO 2 co-capture/co-storage can reduce emissions [30].…”

Section: Emission Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Höök

Aleklett

2009

Int. J. Energy Res.

153

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Continued reliance on oil is unsustainable and this has resulted in interest in alternative fuels. Coal-to-Liquids (CTL) can supply liquid fuels and have been successfully used in several cases, particularly in South Africa. This article reviews CTL theory and technology. Understanding the fundamental aspects of coal liquefaction technologies are vital for planning and policy-making, as future CTL systems will be integrated in a much larger global energy and fuel utilization system. Conversion ratios for CTL are generally estimated to be between 1-2 barrels/ton coal. This puts a strict limitation on future CTL capacity imposed by future coal production volumes, regardless of other factors such as economics, emissions or environmental concern. Assuming that 10% of world coal production can be diverted to CTL, the contribution to liquid fuel supply will be limited to only a few Mb/d. This prevents CTL from becoming a viable mitigation plan for liquid fuel shortage on a global scale. However, it is still possible for individual nations to derive significant shares of their fuel supply from CTL, but those nations must also have access to equally significant coal production capacities. It is unrealistic to claim that CTL provides a feasible solution to liquid fuels shortages created by peak oil. For the most part, it can only be a minor contributor and must be combined with other strategies.

show abstract

Section: System Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Emission Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Höök

Aleklett

2009

Int. J. Energy Res.

153

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, for instance life cycle emissions of oil products from oil shale are expected to have a life cycle CO 2 emission which is 50%-500% larger than in the case of conventional mineral oil (Sundquist and Miller 1980). The life cycle emission of CO 2 from coal-based diesel is about twice the well-to-wheel emission from conventional diesel (Vallentin 2008b). Also, the water input, problematic solid wastes and the emissions of non-CO 2 pollutants tend to be much increased in the production of synfuels, when compared with conventional fossil fuels (Metz 1974, Walker 1974, Purde and Rahu 1979, Mossop 1980, Kuljukka et al 1996, Kok 2002, Hirsch et al 2005, Puura and Puura 2007, Brecha 2008, Tenenbaum 2009).…”

Section: Unconventional Fossil Fuels (Also Called: Synfuels)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Fuels for the future

Reijnders

2009

Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are unconventional fuels that may serve as near term major replacements for conventional mineral oil and natural gas. These include fuels from oil shale and bitumen, liquid fuels from coal, methane from methane hydrates, biofuels and the secondary fuel hydrogen. Here, these fuels will be reviewed as to their presumable stocks and life cycle wastes, emissions and inputs of natural resources. The unconventional fuels are usually characterized by a relatively poor source-toburner energy efficiency when compared with current conventional mineral oil and gas. Apart from some varieties of hydrogen and biofuel, their life cycles are characterized by relatively large water inputs, emissions, and wastes. The unconventional fuels shale oil, bituminous oil, coal liquids, and methane from methane hydrates are based on natural resources which are practically finite. This does not hold for biofuels, but the sustainable supply thereof is severely limited when large numbers of people also have to be fed. In view of the problems associated with unconventional fuels, there is a case to consider fuel-less replacements for many fuel applications.

show abstract

“…In the same year, studies by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated that CTL without CCS could more than double the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions compared to those of conventional petroleum-derived fuels [4]. In 2010, Vallentin [41] mentioned that DCL generates approximately 90% more CO2 than conventional fuel on a well-to-wheel basis.…”

Section: The Necessity Of Using the Ccs Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

EROI Analysis for Direct Coal Liquefaction without and with CCS: The Case of the Shenhua DCL Project in China

Kong

Dong

et al. 2015

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Currently, there are considerable discrepancies between China's central government and some local governments in attitudes towards coal to liquids (CTL) technology. Energy return on investment (EROI) analysis of CTL could provide new insights that may help solve this dilemma. Unfortunately, there has been little research on this topic; this paper therefore analyses the EROI of China's Shenhua Group Direct Coal Liquefaction (DCL) project, currently the only DCL commercial project in the world. The inclusion or omission of internal energy and by-products is controversial. The results show that the EROIstnd without by-product and with internal energy is 0.68-0.81; the EROIstnd (the standard EROI) without by-product and without internal energy is 3.70-5.53; the EROIstnd with by-product and with internal energy is 0.76-0.90; the EROIstnd with by-product and without internal energy is 4.13-6.14. Furthermore, it is necessary to consider carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a means to control the CO2 emissions. Considering the added energy inputs of CCS at the plant level, the EROIs decrease to 0. 65-0.77, 2.87-3.97, 0.72-0.85, and 3.20-4.40, respectively. The extremely low, even negative, net energy, which may be due to high investments in infrastructure and low conversion efficiency, suggests CTL is not a good choice to replace conventional energy sources, and thus, Chinese government should be prudent when developing it. OPEN ACCESSEnergies 2015, 8 787

show abstract

Policy drivers and barriers for coal-to-liquids (CtL) technologies in the United States

Cited by 35 publications

References 4 publications

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

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

Fuels for the future

EROI Analysis for Direct Coal Liquefaction without and with CCS: The Case of the Shenhua DCL Project in China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About