Fuel Processing Technology 169 (2018) 42–49

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel Processing Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuproc

Research article

Life cycle analysis of direct and indirect coal liquefaction for vehicle power MARK
in China
Dan Gaoa, Chao Yea, Xiangkun Renb, Yuning Zhanga,⁎
a
Key Laboratory of Condition Monitoring and Control for Power Plant Equipment (Ministry of Education), School of Energy, Power and Mechanical Engineering, North
China Electric Power University, Beijing 102206, China
b
Beijing Sanju Environmental Protection & New Materials Co., Ltd., Beijing 100044, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In the present paper, life cycle analysis of several typical coal liquefaction technical routes for vehicle power in
Coal chemical engineering China is performed with full considerations of environmental pollutants (e.g. SO2 and NOx), greenhouse gas
Life cycle analysis emissions, costs, and energy efficiency. Direct and indirect coal liquefactions are discussed in detail with
Coal liquefaction comparisons of several different technical routes (e.g. different transportation methods and liquefaction factory
Coal-to-liquid
locations). Furthermore, sensitivity analysis of three direct coal liquefaction routes is performed with a focus on
Energy efficiency
the transportation distance and vehicle internal combustion engine efficiency. Our analysis shows that the direct
Production costs
coal liquefaction with railway distribution is the best technical route among all the routes investigated, which
could significantly reduce the emissions of CO2, the production costs with acceptable energy efficiency.
Generally speaking, the coal liquefaction factory should be located at the coal mining area to minimize the costs
of products.

1. Introduction substitutable vehicle energy [22,23], coal-to-methanol process [24,25].

Coal occupies the largest percentage in China's energy configuration
(e.g. electricity generation). Although the renewable energies (e.g.
wind [1], solar, and hydro [2] energies) and large-scale electrical en-
ergy storage [3,4] are being rapidly developed in China, coal will still
be the primary energy resource in the next 50 years because of its huge
reserves with plenty of utilizations. The primal problems of coal-based
energy generations are the environmental pollutant emissions (e.g. SO2
and NOx emissions) and the carbon dioxide. However, coal liquefaction
techniques could convert coal into oil and other important chemical
products with limited environmental pollutions. As there is an in-
creasing demand of the petroleum in China, coal liquefaction industry
is increasing with an expeditious speed in China [5–8], providing a
practical way to solve the intense problem of petrol supply with less
emissions and relatively low costs [9]. In the present paper, several
typical coal liquefaction technical routes (from the coal mining to
terminal utilization) are evaluated with the aid of life cycle analysis
(LCA [10]).
In the literature, LCA has been widely utilized into the analysis of
the impacts of the energy utilization processes on the environments e.g.
chemical catalyst [11,12], biofuel or biodiesel production [13–15],
renewable energy [16–18], building carbon emissions [19–21],
Ou et al. [26] utilized LCA to analyze the energy consumption and the
carbon emissions of coal combustion with a focus on the China's cases.
Zhai et al. [27] employed LCA to evaluate the coal-fired power system
with solar energy input and heat storage device. Li et al. [28] in-
vestigated energy consumption and greenhouse emissions of the coal-
based synthetic natural gas (SNG) and power cogeneration. They ana-
lyzed several technical routes of SNG and concluded that coal-based
SNG and power cogeneration can reduce the energy consumptions and
carbon emissions. Qin et al. [24] combined LCA with ASPEN plus si-
mulation software to evaluate the carbon trace of the coal-to-methanol
production process. Yi et al. [29] performed a comprehensive literature
review on the carbon recycle of the coal chemical engineering and
explored the way of reducing its emissions. In the heat supply system,
Wang et al. [30] compared the greenhouse gas emissions and the pol-
lutants releasing between the coal and the wood pellets together with
the economics. Bartolozzi et al. [18] explored the impacts of the re-
newable energy on the environment during heating and cooling ser-
vices. However, according to the literature review, LCA of the coal li-
quefaction has not been fully addressed especially to supply the vehicle
power.
In the present paper, life cycle analysis of the coal-to-liquid (CTL) is
performed to evaluate the impacts and economic potentials of the direct

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: y.zhang@ncepu.edu.cn (Y. Zhang).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2017.09.007
Received 1 July 2017; Received in revised form 12 September 2017; Accepted 13 September 2017
Available online 21 September 2017
0378-3820/ © 2017 Published by Elsevier B.V.
D. Gao et al. Fuel Processing Technology 169 (2018) 42–49

and indirect coal liquefaction techniques. Several different technical Table 1

routes of CTL are discussed in detail with focuses on the emissions of A detailed description of direct and indirect coal liquefaction technical routes.
SO2, NOx, CO2, costs and energy efficiency. The following sessions of
Abbreviation Mining Transportation Production Distribution Utilization
the present paper are organized as below. Section 2 introduces the coal-
to-liquid techniques, modeling details and basic equations of the life DCL Coal Coal short Coal direct Truck long Vehicle
cycle analysis. Section 3 compares the emissions, costs and energy ef- mining transportation liquefaction delivery
and
ficiency of several typical technical routes based on CTL with different
dispensing
transportation options. Section 4 concludes the main findings with ICL Coal Coal short Coal Truck long Vehicle
limitations and perspectives. mining transportation indirect delivery
liquefaction and
dispensing
2. Modeling and methods

2.1. Brief introduction of the coal-to-liquid 2.3. Life cycle analysis of energy efficiency

In this section, a brief introduction of the coal-to-liquid technique The total energy efficiency (η) of a given technical route in our life
will be given. Comparing with oil, the percentage of H atom and ratio cycle analysis is defined as:
between H/C atoms of the coal are relatively low while the percentage
Wend
of O atom of the coal is high. Hence, in the coal, the molecular weights η= .
Wtot (1)
of coal (e.g. sometimes larger than 1000) are much larger than those of
oil (with averaged values being 200). Through coal liquefaction, the Here, Wend is the final energy output from internal combustion
chemical structure of coal will be modified and finally various kinds of engine of vehicle in the given technology route (unit: MJ); Wtot is the
the oils (e.g. gasoline and diesel) are achieved with other useful pro- total amount of the input energy in the whole process (unit: MJ), which
ducts (e.g. liquefied petroleum gas and benzene). One of advantages of could be calculated as:
the coal-to-liquid is the remove of hazardous substance e.g. sulfur atom, Wtot = Wmin + Wtra + Wpro + Wdis + Wuti + Wend (2)
which will generate emissions of SO2 during the coal combustion.
Depending on the technique routes, the coal-to-liquid could be ca- Here, the subscripts represent the first three letters of the five pro-
tegorized as direct and indirect techniques. For the direct coal-to-liquid cesses in the technical route including coal mining (“min”), transpor-
technique, the process is simple with low cost. And, the temperature tation (“tra”), production (“pro”), distribution (“dis”) and terminal uti-
and pressure required for the route are high (about 400–450 °C and lization (“uti”) respectively together with the terminal power ("end"). As
20–30 MPa). For the indirect coal-to-liquid technique, the process could the calculation of the energy loss during each process is quite routine,
be utilized for various kinds of coals and the quality of products is high. the calculation of productions (Wpro) is taken as an example as follows:
For example, high‑sulfur coal could be employed in the indirect route PEWpro − 1 + SEWpro + MCWpro
with converting sulfur atom in the coal into the elemental sulfur. Wpro = ,
ηice (3)

2.2. Basics of life cycle analysis with

i
SEW pro
In this section, methods of the life cycle analysis of CTL process are SEWpro = ∑ ηi
(i=electricity, diesel, etc.),
i (4)
presented. In the present paper, the whole process of the coal-to-liquid
techniques is analyzed in detail. Both the energy efficiency and pollu- MCWpro = ∑ [MCpro
j
⋅(mwj + mrwj )] + CWpro + CRWpro (j
tant/CO2 emissions are all considered. The aims of the present analysis j
are the identification of the competitive technical route from the
=steel, cement, etc.). (5)
viewpoint of the full cycle. Fig. 1 shows the detailed processes (from
coal to the vehicle power) involved in the CTL process analyzed here. Here, PEWpro is the direct primary energy (e.g. coal) consumptions
The entire process is divided into five sections: (coal) mining, trans- per unit product in the route; SEWproi is the direct secondary energy
portation, production, distribution and final utilization. For the pro- (electricity, diesel, etc.) consumptions per unit product in the route;
duction process, both direct and indirection coal liquefaction techni- MCWpro is the sum of the three contributions: material consumptions,
ques are considered with two different kinds of positions (local coal equipment/factory building and recovery; ηice is the efficiency of the
mining area and load demand center). For the distribution of the CTL internal combustion engine; ηi is the energy conversion efficiency of the
products, truck through highway and railway are compared. For the secondary energy production; MCproj is the material (steel, cement, etc.)
definition of each technical route, readers are referred to Tables 1 and consumptions per unit product in the route; mwj and mrwj represent the
2. energy consumption per unit material during the material production

Fig. 1. A detailed description of different technical routes of direct coal liquefaction (DCL) and indirect coal liquefaction (ICL). The “CTL” in the figure refers to coal-to-liquid.

43
D. Gao et al. Fuel Processing Technology 169 (2018) 42–49

Table 2
A detailed description of three technical routes for direct coal liquefaction.

Abbreviation Mining Transportation Production Distribution Utilization

DCL_H Coal mining Coal short transportation Coal direct liquefaction Truck long delivery and dispensing Vehicle
DCL_R Coal mining Coal short transportation Coal direct liquefaction Railway long delivery and dispensing Vehicle
DCL_D Coal mining Coal long transportation Coal direct liquefaction Truck short delivery and dispensing Vehicle

and recovery respectively; CWpro represents the energy consumption c = pcoal ⋅δCTL + Ctra⋅δCTL + Cpro + Cdis (11)
per unit product caused by the equipment and factory building in the
Here, δCTL represents the coal consumption per ton CTL in the
production process; CRWpro represents the energy consumption per unit
production process; pcoal is the coal price; Ctra represents the transpor-
product in the recovery process of the aforementioned equipment and
tation cost per ton coal; Cpro and Cdis represent the total cost per ton CTL
factory building.
in the process of CTL production and distribution respectively. Except
railway, the calculations of the above three cost parameters are very
2.4. Life cycle analysis of emissions
similar such as:

In this section, the methods for calculations of the emissions of SO2, TCCpro⋅ε + AOMCpro
Cpro = ,
NOx and CO2 of each technical route are introduced based on the life APpro (12)
cycle analysis. For the analysis of the greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the
with
present paper, we only considered the CO2 because it plays a dominant
role on the effects. For other GHGs (e.g. CH4, N2O), their effects could 1
ε= ,
be easily corrected based on the equivalent parameters. As the values of 1 − (1 + i)n (13)
the direct emissions are significantly larger than those of the indirect
emissions in CTL routes, we do not discuss the direct and indirect AOMCpro = VOMCpro + FOMCpro. (14)
emissions separately. For conciseness, a detailed calculation of SO2 Here, TCCpro is the total capital cost, which is the one-time expense
emissions will be given as follows: of the CTL factory (e.g. land, buildings, construction, and equipment); ε
EStot is the capital recovery factor, calculated by discount rate i (i = 10%)
eSO2 = ,
Wend (6) and life time n (n = 20); AOMCpro is the annual operation and main-
tenance (O & M) cost (AOMC for short), composed with annual variable
with O & M cost (VOMC for short, represented by VOMCpro) and annual fixed
EStot = ESmin + EStra + ESpro + ESdis + ESuti. (7) O & M cost (FOMC for short, represented by FOMCpro and obtained
through multiplying TCCpro with an empirical coefficient); APpro re-
Here, eSO2 represents SO2 emissions per unit product in the full life presents annual product output. VOMC includes annual variable non-
cycle (with unit g/MJ); EStot represents the total amount of SO2 emis- fuel O & M cost (multiplying TCCpro with an empirical coefficient), fuel
sions in the full life cycle of the end product. The calculation of EStot is cost, electricity cost and staff salaries.
similar as Wtot, which consists of five parts in the process (including coal For railway transportation, the cost for coal or CTL will be calcu-
mining, transportation, production, product distribution and terminal lated as follow:
utilization, respectively). For example, ESpro could be calculated as
follows: ctra = tp1 + tp2⋅L (15)

PEESpro + SEESpro + MCESpro Here, tp1 (with unit Chinese Yuan/ton) and tp2 (with unit Chinese
ESpro = , Yuan/ton/km) are both transportation prices, announced by the
ηice (8)
railway transportation company; L (with unit km) is the transportation
with distance.
i
SEESpro = ∑ [SEW pro⋅(desi + iesi )] (i=electricity, diesel, etc.),
3. Results and discussions
j (9)

MCESpro = ∑ [MCpro
j
⋅(mesj + mresj )] + CESpro + CRESpro (j
j coal liquefaction including direct coal liquefaction (DCL) and indirect
=steel, cement, etc.).
Here, PEESpro is the direct SO2 emissions per unit product of the
primary energy (coal) in the route; SEESpro is the direct and indirect SO2
emissions per unit product of the secondary energy (e.g. electricity) in
the route; MCESpro is the SO2 emissions per unit product of the material
production/recovery, equipment and factory building/recovery; desi
and iesi represent the direct and indirect SO2 emissions of the secondary
energy production; mesj and mresj represent the SO2 emissions per unit
material during the material production and recovery respectively;
CESpro and CRESpro represent the SO2 emissions per unit product caused
by the equipment/factory building and the recovery process.
2.5. Cost analysis
The CTL well-to-tank cost (c, with the unit Chinese Yuan/ton) is
introduced as the indicator for the cost analysis in this paper as follows:
In this section, the life cycle analysis of different technical routes of
coal liquefaction (ICL) is presented with the purpose of vehicle power
(10)
supply. For convenience, analysis of other direct coal liquefaction
routes are also presented with comparisons. Tables 3–5 show the
paramount parameters for the life cycle analysis of the energy effi-
ciency, the emission and the costs in the present paper respectively.
3.1. Comparisons between direct and indirect coal liquefactions
In this section, direct and indirect coal liquefactions are both uti-
lized to provide power for the vehicle. Figs. 2 and 3 show the energy
losses and the final power of the DCL and ICL processes. Here, the
energy efficiencies (11.36% in Fig. 2 and 8.3% in Fig. 3) are defined as
the amount of terminal energy divided by the input primary energy as
shown in Eq. (1). For the purpose of comparisons, the distribution of the
coal-to-liquid products is realized by truck for a long delivery for both
DCL and ICL.
Firstly, the emissions of pollutants (e.g. SO2 and NOx) are compared

44
D. Gao et al. Fuel Processing Technology 169 (2018) 42–49

Table 3
Primary parameters in the life cycle analysis of coal-to-liquid technical routes.

Parameter Value Unit Source

Comprehensive energy consumption for coal mining and washing 30.2 kgce/ton [[31], table83]
Electricity consumption for coal mining and washing 25.8 kWh/ton [[31], table83]
Comprehensive energy consumption for railway transportation 4.68 gce/ton/km [32]
Fuel economy for truck 2.6 km/l diesel
Averaged speed for truck 60 km/h
Loss rate of power transmission and distribution 6.64% [[33], p6]
Energy efficiency of passenger cars 21.9% [[34], table2]
Efficiency of coal direct liquefaction 57% [[35], table3.3]
Efficiency of coal indirect liquefaction 42% [[35], table3.3]
Comprehensive energy consumption for steel production 923 kgce/ton [[31], table83]
Comprehensive energy consumption for cement production 125 kgce/ton [[31], table83]
Averaged coal consumption for coal-fired power industry 315 gce/kWh [[33], p6]

Table 4
Key parameters for the calculations of emissions of CO2, SO2 and NOx.

Techniques Emission Value Unit Source and note

coefficient

Electric industry CO2 627 g/kWh [[33], p119]

SO2 0.35 g/kWh [[33], p5–6]
NOx 0.31 g/kWh [[33], p5–6]
Coal direct fired CO2 2.71 ton/tce [[31], Table 141]
SO2 2.80 kg/tce [[36], Table 4430],
[[37], Table 3]
NOx 2.80 kg/tce [[36], Table 4430],
[[37], Table 3]
Coal direct CO2 3.25 ton/ton [[35], Figure 3.14]
liquefaction (oil)
SO2 0.18 kg/ton [[35], Figure 3.15]
(oil)
NOx 0.30 kg/ton [[35], Figure 3.16]
(oil)
Coal indirect CO2 4.79 ton/ton [[35], Figure 3.14] Fig. 2. Energy losses and efficiency of the direct coal liquefaction technical route.
liquefaction (oil)
SO2 0.09 kg/ton [[35], Figure 3.15]
(oil)
NOx 0.13 kg/ton [[35], Figure 3.16]
(oil)

Table 5
Key parameters for the cost calculations. “RMB” in the table represents Chinese Yuan
here.

Parameter Value Unit Source

One-off total capital cost of direct coal 11,600 RMB/(ton/year) [35]

liquefaction
One-off total capital cost of indirect coal 15,800 RMB/(ton/year) [35]
liquefaction
Discount rate 10% – [38]
Life time 20 Years [38]
Empirical coefficient of annual variable 0.5% Per total capital [25]
non-fuel O & M cost cost
Empirical coefficient of annual fixed O & M 3% Per total capital [25]
Fig. 3. Energy losses and efficiency of the indirect coal liquefaction technical route.
cost cost
Coal price 434 RMB/tce [39]
Industrial electricity price in Inner 0.4813 RMB/kWh [40] nearly identical. Among the five processes, the emissions are nearly the
Mongolia
Industrial electricity price in Jiangsu 0.6601 RMB/kWh [41]
same in the two routes except that the emissions in production of “DCL”
Diesel price 6895 RMB/ton [42] are a little higher than those of “ICL”. Among different processes, the
Railway transport price tp1 (refined oil) 26 RMB/ton [43] emissions of SO2 are mainly generated during the coal converting into
Railway transport price tp2 (refined oil) 0.138 RMB/ton/km [43] liquid.
Railway transport price tp1 (coal) 16.3 RMB/ton [43]
Secondly, the CO2 emissions are compared as shown in Fig. 6. It is
Railway transport price tp2 (coal) 0.098 RMB/ton/km [43]
clear that “DCL” is a relatively low‑carbon generation route among the
two routes. As shown in the Fig. 6, the CO2 emissions of “DCL” are 25%
for two different coal liquefaction technical routes as shown in Figs. 4 less than those of “ICL”. Among all processes, the CO2 emissions are
and 5. Comparing the two routes, there is no obvious difference be- mostly generated during the coal-to-liquid conversion.
tween them. For example, the SO2 emissions of “DCL” are only 0.005 g/ Thirdly, the costs of the whole process are shown in Fig. 7. Through
MJ less than those of “ICL”, and the NOx emissions of the two routes are comparisons between the two technical routes, “DCL” is a more

45
D. Gao et al.
Fig. 4. Comparisons of SO2 emissions between the direct coal liquefaction (DCL) and the
indirect coal liquefaction (ICL).
Fig. 5. Comparisons of NOx emissions between the direct coal liquefaction (DCL) and the
indirect coal liquefaction (ICL).
Fig. 6. Comparisons of CO2 emissions between the direct coal liquefaction (DCL) and the
indirect coal liquefaction (ICL).
economical way than “ICL”. Specifically, the cost of “DCL” is one third
less than those of “ICL”. The primary expenses of the two technical
routes are spent on the coal-to-liquid conversion, which covers nearly
half of the expenditure in the whole process.
46
Fuel Processing Technology 169 (2018) 42–49
Fig. 7. Comparisons of costs between the direct coal liquefaction (DCL) and the indirect
coal liquefaction (ICL).
Fig. 8. Comparisons of energy losses and efficiency between the direct coal liquefaction
(DCL) and the indirect coal liquefaction (ICL).
Finally, Fig. 8 shows the comparisons of energy losses of five process
(mining, transportation, production, distribution and utilization) to-
gether with the energy efficiency. Between the two technical routes,
“DCL” provides a relatively high energy efficiency.
Combining the above analysis, one can find that DCL could provide
higher energy efficiency, lower costs and CO2 emissions than those of
ICL. For the pollutants, DCL and ICL are nearly identical. Hence, in the
following sections, our efforts will be focused on the DCL.
3.2. Three technical routes of the direct coal liquefaction
In this section, three technical routes of direct coal liquefaction for
vehicle power supply are compared and discussed. For details of the
aforementioned technical routes, readers are referred to Table 2. For
“DCL_H” and “DCL_R”, the coal is converted to the liquids and then be
transported to the demand center employing highway and railway re-
spectively. For “DCL_D”, the coal is firstly transported to the demand
center through railway and then is converted to the liquid for the fur-
ther usage locally. Figs. 2, 9 and 10 show the energy configuration of
these technical routes.
Fig. 11 shows the comparisons of the emissions of SO2, NOx and CO2
of the three technical routes. The emissions of SO2 and NOx of “DCL_R”
D. Gao et al.
Fig. 9. Energy losses and efficiency of the direct coal liquefaction technical route via
railway distribution (DCL_R in Table 2).
Fig. 10. Energy losses and efficiency of the direct coal liquefaction technical route with
the coal-to-liquid production within the demand center (DCL_D in Table 2).
Fig. 11. Comparisons of SO2, NOx, CO2 emissions among three direct coal liquefaction
technical routes (DCL_H, DCL_R and DCL_D respectively). For the definition of each
technical route, readers are referred to table 2.
and “DCL_D” are both lower than those of “DCL_H”. Specifically, the
NOx emissions of the “DCL_R” and “DCL_D” are one third less than those
of “DCL_H”. As shown Fig. 11, the emissions of CO2 of “DCL_R” and
“DCL_D” are slightly lower than those of “DCL_H”. Among the three
coal-based liquefaction technical routes, “DCL_R” and “DCL_D” are
47
Fuel Processing Technology 169 (2018) 42–49
Fig. 12. Comparisons of costs among three direct coal liquefaction technical routes
(DCL_H, DCL_R and DCL_D respectively). For the definition of each technical route,
readers are referred to Table 2.
much better than “DCL_H” from the viewpoint of the pollutants and
CO2 emissions.
Fig. 12 shows the total costs of the whole coal liquefaction process
together with the costs of four major parts: coal price, (coal) trans-
portation, DCL production and distribution. Among three, “DCL_R” is
the most economical one, the price of which is only two third of
“DCL_H”. For “DCL_H” and “DCL_R”, the price caused by the coal
transportation is negligible due to the short distance. However, for
“DCL_D”, the transportation costs are prominent, occupying nearly 10%
of the total cost. Among all the processes, the CTL production cost is the
primary one for all the technical routes.
Fig. 13 further compares the energy efficiency and losses of three
technical routes. The primary energy losses are caused by the produc-
tion and utilization. For “DCL_D”, its energy loss during the coal
transportation is prominent due to the long distance. The energy effi-
ciencies of the three technical routes are nearly identical with “DCL_R”
a little bit higher than the other two.
Fig. 13. Comparisons of energy efficiency and losses among three direct coal liquefaction
technical routes (DCL_H, DCL_R and DCL_D respectively). For the definition of each
technical route, readers are referred to Table 2.
D. Gao et al.
Fig. 14. Sensitivity analysis of costs of oil of three direct coal liquefaction technical routes
(DCL_H, DCL_R and DCL_D respectively) versus transportation distance. For the definition
of each technical route, readers are referred to Table 2.
3.3. Sensitivity analysis
In this section, the sensitivity analysis of the aforementioned three
direct coal liquefaction technical routes is investigated. The primary
factors include the transportation distance (e.g. the distance between
the coal mining area and the demand center) and the vehicle internal
combustion engine efficiency. Figs. 14 and 15 show the sensitivity
analysis of CTL product price (e.g. costs of oil) and total energy effi-
ciencies versus the transportation distance. Among three routes, the
cost of oil of “DCL_R” shows the minimum sensitivity with the trans-
portation distance while cost of “DCL_H” is prominently sensible with
the transportation distance. Those findings indicate that “DCL_R” is
more economical and competitive for the cases with long transportation
distance. The sensitivity of “DCL_D” on the transportation distance is
similar like one of “DCL_R” with higher cost. From the viewpoints of the
total energy efficiencies, “DCL_R” is the best while “DCL_D” is the
worst. Fig. 16 shows the variations of LCA total energy efficiencies of
three direct coal liquefaction routes versus the vehicle internal com-
bustion efficiency. As shown in the figure, all the three technical routes
are of the same sensitivity with the vehicle internal combustion
Fig. 15. Sensitivity analysis of total energy efficiencies of three direct coal liquefaction
technical routes (DCL_H, DCL_R and DCL_D respectively) versus transportation distance.
For the definition of each technical route, readers are referred to Table 2.
48
Fuel Processing Technology 169 (2018) 42–49
Fig. 16. Sensitivity analysis of total energy efficiencies of three direct coal liquefaction
technical routes (DCL_H, DCL_R and DCL_D respectively) versus the vehicle internal
combustion engine efficiency. For the definition of each technical route, readers are re-
ferred to Table 2.
efficiency.
Before the closure of this section, a brief discussion of oil price on
the CTL is given. If the oil price is high (over 8000 Chinese Yuan/ton),
the price of the CTL is quite competitive because of the lower cost of the
production process based on the coal. However, if the oil price is low
(below 5000 Chinese Yuan/ton), the economics of CTL will be seriously
reduced. One advantage of CTL is relative low cost of coal in China with
abundant resource. And, the disadvantages of the CTL include the
higher emissions of CO2 and complex system with prominent invest-
ments. Hence, in China, the government setup a series of strict rules for
the development of CTL projects with continuous monitoring and rig-
orous regulations.
4. Conclusions
In the present paper, life cycle analysis of several typical coal li-
quefaction technical routes are discussed with focuses on the emissions
of SO2, NOx, CO2, costs of the process and energy efficiency. Technical
routes of direct coal liquefaction and indirect coal liquefaction have
been compared. Other influential parameters (e.g. transportation
methods and conversion locations) have been also discussed. Based on
our LCA analysis, the primary conclusions include:
1. Comparing with the indirect coal liquefaction, the direct coal li-
quefaction could significantly reduce the emissions of the green-
house gas and the cost with high efficiency.
2. Generally speaking, product distribution through railway is the most
economical choice especially for long distance.
3. About the coal liquefaction factory locations, our analysis suggests
that the coal-to-liquid conversion should be accomplished in the
coal mining area to minimize the costs and energy losses.
The CTL techniques are being intensively investigated in China with
rapid updating, leading to the enhancement of efficiency and lower
cost. For example, bubble-assisted chemical reaction [44–46] and par-
ticle flotation [47–49] are being intensively investigated among many
other advanced techniques. In the future, our analysis will be further
performed based on the latest research output and industrial practice in
order to provide a more comprehensive evaluation among different
technical routes. In the present paper, the scale of the ICL and DCL are
assumed to be a constant due to only a limited number of the related
projects commissioned now. In the future, with more CTL projects built
D. Gao et al.
in China, effects of the scale will be discussed in detail.
Acknowledgement
This work was financially supported by National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Project No.: 51506051), National Key R & D
Program of China (2016YFB0600401-04), the Open Research Fund
Program of State key Laboratory of Alternate Electrical Power System
with Renewable Energy Sources (Project No.: LAPS16014) and the 111
Project (Project No.: B12034).
References
[1] Y. Zhang, N. Tang, Y. Niu, X. Du, Wind energy rejection in China: current status,
reasons and perspectives, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 66 (2016) 322–344.
[2] Y. Zhang, K. Liu, H. Xian, X. Du, A review of methods for vortex identification in
hydroturbines, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. (2018), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.
2017.05.058.
[3] Y. Zhang, T. Chen, J. Li, J. Yu, Experimental study of load variations on pressure
fluctuations in a prototype reversible pump turbine in generating mode, ASME
Journal of Fluids Engineering 139 (7) (2017) 074501.
[4] Y. Zhang, Y. Zhang, Y.L. Wu, A review of rotating stall in reversible pump turbine,
Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. C J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 231 (7) (2017) 1181–1204.
[5] B. Niu, L. Jin, Y. Li, Z. Shi, Y. Li, H. Hu, Mechanism of hydrogen transfer and role of
solvent during heating-up stage of direct coal liquefaction, Fuel Process. Technol.
160 (2017) 130–135.
[6] P. Hao, Z.Q. Bai, Z.T. Zhao, J.C. Yan, X. Li, Z.X. Guo, J.L. Xu, J. Bai, W. Li, Study on
the preheating stage of low rank coals liquefaction: product distribution, chemical
structural change of coal and hydrogen transfer, Fuel Process. Technol. 159 (2017)
153–159.
[7] Z.C. Wang, Y. Ge, H.F. Shui, S.B. Ren, C.X. Pan, S.G. Kang, Z.P. Lei, Z.J. Zhao,
J.C. Hu, Molecular structure and size of asphaltene and preasphaltene from direct
coal liquefaction, Fuel Process. Technol. 137 (2015) 305–311.
[8] J. Feng, J. Li, W. Li, Influences of chemical structure and physical properties of coal
macerals on coal liquefaction by quantum chemistry calculation, Fuel Process.
Technol. 109 (2013) 19–26.
[9] H. Liu, S.S. Jiang, H.S. Guo, S. Han, C. Yang, J.Z. Jiang, A new kind of pour point
depressant: diesel from direct coal liquefaction, Fuel Process. Technol. 149 (2016)
285–289.
[10] H. Mälkki, K. Alanne, An overview of life cycle assessment (LCA) and research-
based teaching in renewable and sustainable energy education, Renew. Sust. Energ.
Rev. 69 (2017) 218–231.
[11] P.T. Benavides, D.C. Cronauer, F. Adom, Z. Wang, J.B. Dunn, The influence of
catalysts on biofuel life cycle analysis (LCA), Sustain. Mater. Technol. 11 (2017)
53–59.
[12] N. von der Assen, A. Bardow, Life cycle assessment of polyols for polyurethane
production using CO2 as feedstock: insights from an industrial case study, Green
Chem. 16 (6) (2014) 3272–3280.
[13] M.G. Varanda, G. Pinto, F. Martins, Life cycle analysis of biodiesel production, Fuel
Process. Technol. 92 (5) (2011) 1087–1094.
[14] C.A.A. Altamirano, L. Yokoyama, J.L. de Medeiros, O.D.Q.F. Araújo, Ethylic or
methylic route to soybean biodiesel? Tracking environmental answers through life
cycle assessment, Appl. Energy 184 (2016) 1246–1263.
[15] Z. Wang, T. Lei, M. Yang, Z. Li, T. Qi, X. Xin, X. He, A. Ajayebi, X. Yan, Life cycle
environmental impacts of cornstalk briquette fuel in China, Appl. Energy 192
(2017) 83–94.
[16] Y.F. Huang, X.J. Gan, P.T. Chiueh, Life cycle assessment and net energy analysis of
offshore wind power systems, Renew. Energy 102 (2017) 98–106.
[17] H. Cherif, G. Champenois, J. Belhadj, Environmental life cycle analysis of a water
pumping and desalination process powered by intermittent renewable energy
sources, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 59 (2016) 1504–1513.
[18] I. Bartolozzi, F. Rizzi, M. Frey, Are district heating systems and renewable energy
sources always an environmental win-win solution? A life cycle assessment case
study in Tuscany, Italy, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 80 (2017) 408–420.
[19] A. Mastrucci, A. Marvuglia, U. Leopold, E. Benetto, Life cycle assessment of building
stocks from urban to transnational scales: a review, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 74
(2017) 316–332.
[20] S. Geng, Y. Wang, J. Zuo, Z. Zhou, H. Du, G. Mao, Building life cycle assessment
research: a review by bibliometric analysis, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 76 (2017)
176–184.
[21] L.F. Cabeza, L. Rincón, V. Vilariño, G. Pérez, A. Castell, Life cycle assessment (LCA)
and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: a review,
Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 29 (2014) 394–416.
49
Fuel Processing Technology 169 (2018) 42–49
[22] X. Ou, X. Yan, X. Zhang, Z. Liu, Life-cycle analysis on energy consumption and GHG
emission intensities of alternative vehicle fuels in China, Appl. Energy 90 (1) (2012)
218–224.
[23] X. Ou, X. Zhang, S. Chang, Alternative fuel buses currently in use in China: life-cycle
fossil energy use, GHG emissions and policy recommendations, Energ Policy 38 (1)
(2010) 406–418.
[24] Z. Qin, G. Zhai, X. Wu, Y. Yu, Z. Zhang, Carbon footprint evaluation of coal-to-
methanol chain with the hierarchical attribution management and life cycle as-
sessment, Energy Convers. Manag. 124 (2016) 168–179.
[25] Z. Li, D. Gao, L. Chang, P. Liu, E.N. Pistikopoulos, Coal-derived methanol for hy-
drogen vehicles in China: energy, environment, and economic analysis for dis-
tributed reforming, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 88 (1) (2010) 73–80.
[26] X. Ou, Y. Xiaoyu, X. Zhang, Life-cycle energy consumption and greenhouse gas
emissions for electricity generation and supply in China, Appl. Energy 88 (1) (2011)
289–297.
[27] R. Zhai, C. Li, Y. Chen, Y. Yang, K. Patchigolla, J.E. Oakey, Life cycle assessment of
solar aided coal-fired power system with and without heat storage, Energy Convers.
Manag. 111 (2016) 453–465.
[28] S. Li, L. Gao, H. Jin, Life cycle energy use and GHG emission assessment of coal-
based SNG and power cogeneration technology in China, Energy Convers. Manag.
112 (2016) 91–100.
[29] Q. Yi, W. Li, J. Feng, K. Xie, Carbon cycle in advanced coal chemical engineering,
Chem. Soc. Rev. 44 (15) (2015) 5409–5445.
[30] C. Wang, Y. Chang, L. Zhang, M. Pang, Y. Hao, A life-cycle comparison of the en-
ergy, environmental and economic impacts of coal versus wood pellets for gen-
erating heat in China, Energy 120 (2017) 374–384.
[31] Q. Wang, 2014 Energy Data[R]. Energy Foundation, (2014).
[32] National Railway Administration, Railway Bulletin of 2015[EB/OL], http://www.
moc.gov.cn/tongjishuju/tielu/201603/t20160314_1999755.html, (2017-5-9).
[33] China Electricity Council, Annual Development Report of China's Electric Power
Industry in 2016[M], China Market Publishing House, Beijing, 2016.
[34] X. Cao, Q. Zhao, Study of electric vehicle efficiency based on WTW [J], Forest
Engineering 30 (1) (2014) 154–156.
[35] Shenhua Group, Study on Important Problems in Coal Clean and Efficient
Development [R], (2014).
[36] The First National Pollution Source Census Leading Group Office, Sewage Discharge
Handbook of Industrial Pollution Source Production in The First National Census of
Pollution Sources[Z], (2009).
[37] Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People 's Republic of China, GB 13271-
2014 Emission Standard of Air Pollutants for Boiler [S], China Standard Press,
Beijing, 2014.
[38] L. Chang, Z. Li, D. Gao, H. Huang, W. Ni, Pathways for hydrogen infrastructure
development in China: integrated assessment for vehicle fuels and a case study of
Beijing, Energy 32 (2007) 2023–2037.
[39] China Coal Market Online, Forecast of Coal Industry Development and Price Trend
of Coal in China in 2016. [EB/OL], http://www.sohu.com/a/113862991_316086,
(2017-6-3).
[40] Inner Mongolia Development and Reform Commission, The Power System Electric
Rate Schedule of Western Inner Mongolia Autonomous [EB/OL], http://www.
nmgfgw.gov.cn/fggz/jggl_14670/201504/t20150419_107276.html, (2017-6-3).
[41] The Price Bureau of Jiangsu Province, The Power System Electric Rate Schedule of
Jiangsu Province. [EB/OL], http://www.zhejiang.gov.cn/art/2016/1/11/art_
13013_257361.html, (2017-6-3).
[42] National Development and Reform Commission of the People's Republic of China,
Domestic Refined Oil Prices are Raised in Accordance With the Mechanism. [EB/
OL], http://www.ndrc.gov.cn/xwzx/xwfb/201705/t20170525_848901.html,
(2017-6-3).
[43] National Development and Reform Commission The People's Republic of China, The
Railway Transporting Price for the Goods of All Types, [EB/OL], http://www.ndrc.
gov.cn/zcfb/zcfbtz/201501/t20150130_662877.html, (2017-6-3).
[44] A. Attar, Bubble nucleation in viscous material due to gas formation by a chemical
reaction: application to coal pyrolysis, AICHE J. 24 (1) (1978) 106–115.
[45] Y. Zhang, Y. Gao, X. Du, Stability mechanisms of oscillating vapor bubbles in
acoustic fields, Ultrason. Sonochem. (2018), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.
2017.08.030.
[46] Y. Zhang, Z. Guo, Y. Gao, X. Du, Acoustic wave propagation in bubbly flow with
gas, vapor or their mixtures, Ultrason. Sonochem. (2018), http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.ultsonch.2017.03.048.
[47] Z.A. Zhou, Z. Xu, J.A. Finch, J.H. Masliyah, R.S. Chow, On the role of cavitation in
particle collection in flotation–a critical review, II. Minerals Engineering 22 (5)
(2009) 419–433.
[48] Y. Zhang, Y. Zhang, Z. Qian, B. Ji, Y. Wu, A review of microscopic interactions
between cavitation bubbles and particles in silt-laden flow, Renew. Sust. Energ.
Rev. 56 (2016) 303–318.
[49] Y. Zhang, Y. Gao, Z. Guo, X. Du, Effects of mass transfer on damping mechanisms of
vapor bubbles oscillating in liquids, Ultrason. Sonochem. 40 (2018) 120–127
(Part A).