Energy 239 (2022) 121977

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Opportunities for renewable electricity utilization in coal to liquid

fuels process: Thermodynamic and techo-economic analysis
Shiyue Qin a, *, Ming Wang a, Hongyou Cui a, **, Zhihe Li b, Weiming Yi b
a
School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Shandong University of Technology, Zibo, 255049, China
b
School of Agricultural Engineering and Food Science, Shandong University of Technology, Zibo, 255049, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Renewable electricity has been developed very fast to reduce both the reliance on fossil energy and CO2
Received 25 April 2021 emission, and its utilization for the sustainable production of chemical products is of increasingly in-
Received in revised form terest. In this work, opportunities for renewable electricity utilization in coal to liquid fuels process are
19 August 2021
studied through thermodynamic and techo-economic analysis. Three CPtL (coal and renewable power to
Accepted 31 August 2021
Available online 3 September 2021
liquid fuels) processes are investigated, namely Case GSP þ E, Case Shell þ E and Case Texaco þ E. Exergy
losses of the subsystems are quantitatively analyzed, and measures to reduce exergy losses are proposed.
By integration with renewable electricity, carbon efficiency could be improved by 69.09e99.44%, and life
Keywords:
Renewable electricity
cycle CO2 emission could be reduced by 37.81e44.85%; however, the production cost is raised by 54.18
Coal e94.07% due to the high cost of electricity and electrolyzer. Sensitivity analysis shows that electricity
Coal to liquid fuels price has the most significant impact on the production cost. At present market conditions, CPtL is
Process simulation incompetent with coal to liquid fuels (CtL) process yet from the viewpoint of economics, but it might
Thermodynamic analysis become viable in the future by decreasing electricity price (0.07e0.01 $/kWh), electrolyzer cost (1150
Techno-economic analysis e640 $/kW) and electricity consumption of electrolysis (4.70e4.05 kWh/Nm3 H2).
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction term seasonal storage approaches of renewable electricity with

In 2017, the total energy demand was 13,972 Mtoe in the world,
with coal accounting for 27% and renewable energies for 20% [1].
Coal is the dominant primary energy source in many countries
(such as China, India and South Africa), and is also the major source
of greenhouse gases and air pollutants [2]. To mitigate CO2 emission
and global warming, renewable energies such as solar, wind and
hydropower are expected to play an ever-increasing role in the
future energy scenario. The share of renewable energies in elec-
tricity generation was 25% in 2017, and it is anticipated to increase
to 41% by 2040 [1]. However, there is uncertainty in renewable
electricity utilization because it depends largely on natural condi-
tions and fluctuates hourly, daily or seasonally. An abundance of
renewable electricity has to be curtailed because a real-time bal-
ance must be maintained between the load and generation of
electricity. Moreover, there are no techniques to store the surplus
electricity in an economical way and on large scales. Hence, long-
* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: qinshiyue@aliyun.com (S. Qin), cuihy@sdut.edu.cn (H. Cui).
high capacity, low storage losses and low space demand are
needed.
Liquid hydrocarbons are of high energy density and can be used
as transportation fuels and feedstock for the chemical industry. In
this sense, the production of liquid hydrocarbons is deemed to be
an option to store renewable electricity. The technologies of Power
to Liquid fuels (PtL) have been reviewed by Bailera et al. [3]. Konig
et al. [4,5] modeled a process concept using renewable energy from
fluctuating wind power and CO2 to produce liquid hydrocarbons.
The plant was consisted of water electrolysis, reverse water-gas
shift reaction and Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis. The energy effi-
ciency was 44.6%, and the production cost ranged from 12.41 to
21.35 $/GGE (491e851 $/bbl). Three potential fuel production
routes, i.e. Biomass to Liquids (BtL), Power and Biomass to Liquids
(PBtL) and Power to Liquids (PtL) were compared by Dietrich et al.
[6]. PBtL could increase the fuel yield compared to BtL by a factor of
about 3, and the production cost was 3 V/kg (425 $/bbl). Tremel
et al. [7] carried out a techno-economic analysis to compare the
synthesis routes of liquid fuels based on hydrogen production via
electrolysis. The production costs (2.01 V/kg, or 282 $/bbl) were
significantly above the current market prices, which was due to the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.121977
0360-5442/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Qin, M. Wang, H. Cui et al. Energy 239 (2022) 121977

Nomenclatures PtM power to methane

PtS power to syngas
SOEC solid oxide electrolyzer cell
Abbreviations TCI total capital investment
AGR acid gas removal WE water electrolysis
ASU air separation unit WGS water gas shift
ATR autothermal reformer WWT wastewater treatment
BEOP break-even oil price
BOI balance of indirect costs Notations
BOP balance of plant costs Ex Exergy (kJ/kg)
BtL biomass to liquids H Enthalpy (kJ/kg)
CBtL coal biomass to liquids S Entropy (kJ/kg K)
CCP combined cycle power plant S1, S2 production capacity of the benchmark project and
CCS CO2 capture and storage the planning project
CEPCI chemical engineering plant cost index tn number of trains
CG coal gasification xi mass fraction of component i
CtL coal to liquids yloss ratio of the exergy loss to the total exergy losses
FCI fixed capital investment
FG fuel gas Greek symbols
FT Fischer-Tropsch hx exergy efficiency (%)
FTL FT liquids
HRSG heat recovery steam generator Subscripts and superscripts
HTSE high temperature steam electrolysis 0 reference state
LACCR levelized annual capital charge rate ch chemical
LHV lower heating values e electricity
NG natural gas ex exergy
O&M operating and maintenance in input
PBtL power and biomass to liquids ind indirect
PCtG power and coal to gas out output
PEM proton exchange membrane ph physical
PSA pressure swing adsorption prod product
PtG power to gas th thermal
PtL power to liquids

high cost of hydrogen production via electrolysis and the high
specific cost of small scale chemical plants. Braun et al. [8] pre-
sented a model for high temperature co-electrolysis of carbon di-
oxide and water using solid oxide electrolytic cells (SOEC) for
syngas production and subsequent conversion to liquid fuels by FT
synthesis. The overall system efficiency was 51.0%. The liquid fuels
production costs ranged from 4.4 to 15.0 $/GGE (169e595 $/bbl) for
electricity prices of 0.02e0.14 $/kWh and a plant capacity factor of
90%e40%, respectively. Herz et al. [9] conducted techno-economic
assessment of a sustainable process for the hydrocarbons produc-
tion from CO2 and H2O based on the co-electrolysis. The influence
of availability, electricity price and product fraction is considered
and discussed. Jun et al. [10] proposed a PtL process which converts
CO2 to liquid fuels, and a hybrid PtL/PtG process which converts CO2
to liquid fuels and SNG simultaneously. Both process simulation
and techno-economic analysis were carried out to evaluate the
process performance, and the production cost of the syncrude was
211e220 $/bbl. Hillestad et al. [11,12] investigated electricity input
to a biomass-based FT process to determine the effect on renewable
carbon utilization. The process concept reduced the CO2 release
from conventional BtL plants. The carbon efficiency was increased
from 38% to more than 90%, and the production cost of the PBtL
process was 1.7 $/liter (145 $/bbl), approximately 30% lower that for
the conventional BtL. Seiler et al. [13] reported technical and
economical evaluation of enhanced BtL processes. The PBtL routes
enabled increased fuels production from renewable biomass. The
production costs ranged from 0.7 to 1.1 V/liter (72e113 $/bbl).
Hannula [14] examines the potential to increase fuels production
from a given amount of biomass, by feeding additional hydrogen to
a gasification-based biorefinery. The overall economics were eval-
uated, and the production cost of synthetic gasoline is 85e210
$/bbl. Floquet et al. [15] addressed the integrated design of the high
temperature steam electrolysis (HTSE) and BtL hybrid process. The
use of electrolysis could nearly double the conversion of biogenic
carbon, but the equivalent primary energy efficiency was lower
(39%) than the standard BtL process (42%). HTSE coupling increased
the production cost from 1.4 V/liter (141 $/bbl) to 1.5 V/liter (151
$/bbl). However, most of these studies are related to the gasification
of biomass, which is not straightforward and requires R&D, espe-
cially regarding biomass pre-treatment and feeding. The gasifica-
tion of coal has the advantages large-scale capacities and technical
mature [16], and are widely used for the production of clean
alternative fuels, chemicals and electricity.
The turmoil within the Middle East, insecurity of crude oil
supply, volatile crude oil price, and greenhouse gas emission
challenges are motivating new efforts to find alternative processes
for the production of liquid hydrocarbons with improved energy,
economic and environmental efficiencies. Coal is cheap and
geographically well-distributed, and is prospectively sharing a
great portion in the energy mix. Coal can be readily transformed
into liquid hydrocarbons via FT synthesis. In this process, coal is
gasified to syngas, but this sort of syngas is H2 deficient as it con-
tains a low H2/CO ratio (0.40e0.64) [16,17], which is unqualified for
the demand of FT synthesis [16]. To increase H2/CO ratio, a water
gas shift (WGS) unit is necessary to convert part of CO to CO2 and
H2. In this way, 61.39% of the carbon in coal is lost in the form of CO2

2
S. Qin, M. Wang, H. Cui et al. Energy 239 (2022) 121977

rather than liquid hydrocarbons, and 5.55e7.02 tons of CO2 is economic performance are still unknown for CPtL.
typically generated per ton of FT liquid fuels [16,18]. The low The present study aims to investigate the opportunities for
resource utilization efficiency and high CO2 emission significantly renewable electricity utilization in the CtL process from the
affect the development of the CtL industry. perspective of technical, economic, and environmental perfor-
Several approaches have been reported to reduce CO2 emission mance. Therefore, a novel CtL process integrating with renewable
in the CtL process, such as integration with CCS or biomass. Yu et al. electricity (CPtL) is proposed in this work. The effects of renewable
[18] investigated a combined process of CtL with CCS and found electricity integration and the gasifier type are discussed. Ther-
that increasing the CO2 capture would consume more energy. The modynamic analysis is conducted based on the simulation of the
overall energy efficiency decreased from 48.3% to 34.6% as the ratio CPtL process, and exergy losses of the subsystem are identified and
of captured carbon increased from 58% to 93%. Bassano et al. [19] quantified. Based on current realistic assumptions and future
analyzed the techno-economic performance of the CtL process with technological developments, the techno-economic and the feasi-
and without CCS. In the absence of CCS, the process with capacity of bility analysis are presented.
4500 t/d of coal could produce 1194 t/d of liquid fuels and 90 MWe
of electricity, emitting 7117 t/d of CO2. In contrast, in the presence of
2. Plant description
CCS, the CO2 emission could reduce to 2402 t/d while the electricity
output declined to 74 MWe. Jiang and Bhattacharyya examined a
The block diagram of the conventional CtL process and the novel
coal and biomass to liquids (CBtL) plant. Under identical conditions,
CPtL process is shown in Fig. 1. In the conventional CtL process
with CCS the CO2 emission was reduced from 5.24 to 0.55 t CO2/t FT
(Fig. 1(a)), coal is firstly gasified to produce raw syngas with a H2/CO
liquids, while the BEOP increased from 91.3 to 95.5 $/bbl
ratio of 0.4e0.64, far less than the required ratio of 2.0 for FT syn-
(19.07e19.87 $/GJ) [20e22]. Although integration with CCS can
thesis. Therefore, raw syngas is fed to the WGS unit to adjust H2/CO
remarkably reduce CO2 emission, storing the captured CO2 needs
ratio. Then syngas is transferred to the AGR unit to remove CO2 and
additional cost and energy consumption, and increases the risk of
H2S. The purified syngas with the suitable H2/CO ratio is reacted to
CO2 leakage. In addition, carbon efficiency cannot be improved.
obtain FT liquids. After FT synthesis, the liquid products are
A few studies have been devoted to the conversion of Power and
upgraded to gasoline and diesel. The gas product from FT reactor is
Coal to Gas (PCtG). Silvano Tosti et al. [23] assessed a combination of
composed of H2, CO, CO2 and light hydrocarbons (C1 to C4), and CO2
renewable energy (wind) storage with coal hydro-gasification to
is removed through methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) absorption.
produce SNG. The energy and exergy efficiencies were discussed,
Seventy-five percent of the decarburized FT vapor is transferred to
but the detailed economic analysis was not involved. Steven Chiuta
the ATR unit to convert the light hydrocarbons to H2 and CO, which
et al. [24] analyzed the techno-economic performance of Power to
is merged with the crude syngas from coal gasification and sent to
Methane (PtM) and Power to Syngas (PtS) for CO2 utilization in the
the AGR unit. The other 25% of decarburized FT vapor is mixed with
CtL plant. The syngas production cost of the conventional syngas
light gas coming from the product upgrading unit, and used as fuel
plant was 7 $/GJ, while the production cost for PtM and PtS ranged
gas for the combined cycle unit to supply steam and power. It
from 13 to 39 $/GJ and 9 to 14 $/GJ, respectively. Sensitivity analysis
should be noted that the adjustment of H2/CO ratio by the WGS unit
demonstrated that both PtM and PtS processes might be viable
leads to high CO2 emission, which can account for 44.65e79.43% of
with decreasing the capital investment, operation cost and elec-
the total CO2 emission [16]. The CO2 emission of the CtL process is
tricity price. To utilize CO2 as feedstock for syngas production,
5.55e7.02 t CO2/t FT liquids. This not only leads to a waste of carbon
Buchheit et al. investigated a combined process of renewable en-
resources, but also has a negative impact on the environment.
ergy (wind), coal and nuclear power. In the process, CO2 came from
Therefore, low resource utilization efficiency and high CO2 emis-
coal combustion in pressurized circulating fluidized bed, high
sion significantly reduce the competitiveness of the CtL process.
temperature steam was produced from nuclear reactor, and
The novel CtL process integrating with renewable electricity is
renewable electricity was generated from wind [25]. These studies
developed based on the conventional CtL process (Fig. 1(b)).
are the coal to gas process integrated with renewable electricity
Renewable electricity is introduced to provide the hydrogen and
(CPtG), but the integrated process of CtL with renewable electricity
oxygen source by water electrolysis. Then, oxygen is introduced
(CPtL) are not involved, and the thermodynamic efficiency and
into the gasification unit to produce raw syngas, which is merged

Fig. 1. Block diagram of the conventional CtL process (a) and the novel CPtL process (b).

3
S. Qin, M. Wang, H. Cui et al. Energy 239 (2022) 121977

Table 1 has been widely commercialized as it is mature, economical and

Parameters for calculating the FT liquids production costs. easy to operate. The adopted water electrolysis criteria for
Parameter Value Refs. hydrogen production are power consumption of 4.7 kWh/m3, en-
Coal price 67.5 $/t [32]
ergy efficiency of 74% and operation pressure of 5.0 MPa [26e28].
NG price 0.252 $/m3 [33] For the CtL plant, gasification is very important because it
O&M costs 4% of TCI [31,34] dramatically affects the composition of raw syngas, the investment
Electricity price 75 $/MWh [34] and CO2 emission. The performance of GSP, Shell and Texaco gas-
Alcohols price 345 $/t [35]
ifiers have been compared in Table S3. GSP gasifier produces the
O2 104 $/t [36]
H2 4.28 $/kg [37] largest syngas yield, followed by Shell Gasifier. Texaco gasifier
yields the least amount of syngas per ton of coal because part of
coal is oxidized to CO2 to provide heat for water evaporation.
According to the renewable electricity integration and gasifier
with the reformed gas and fed into the AGR unit to remove the acid
type, six cases are involved, i.e., Case GSP þ E, Case Shell þ E, Case
gases. The purified syngas is mixed with the electrolysis hydrogen
Texaco þ E, Case GSP, Case Shell, and Case Texaco. The symbol “þE”
to adjust the H2/CO ratio and sent to the FT synthesis unit. After
signifies association with renewable electricity. The proposed CPtL
being cooled and separated, the FT syncrude is upgraded to gasoline
process has many advantages, such as high carbon efficiency, low
and diesel. The detailed modeling and simulation can be found in
CO2 emission, omitting ASU and WGS units. As the electrolyzer is
the supporting information. The renewable electricity is used to
added, the electrolysis efficiency and the electrolysis unit cost
generate H2 (for adjustment of H2/CO ratio) and O2 (for gasification
should be considered, so the total energy efficiency, investment and
and autothermal reforming), with ASU and WGS cancelled. The
production cost will be analyzed in the following sections.
cavern can act as the link among the fluctuating renewable elec-
tricity, water electrolysis unit and the CtL plant. Gases (H2 and O2)
are stored in the cavern if excess electricity is available, and used
3. Thermodynamic and techno-economic analysis
when their demands exceed the generation. The capacity of the
cavern is 11% of the annual H2/O2 consumption [4].
3.1. Methodology
There are three kinds of electrolyzers: alkaline electrolyzer,
proton exchange membrane (PEM) and solid oxide electrolyzer cell
The methodology comprises five steps. Firstly, a novel CtL pro-
(SOEC). Among them, PEM and SOEC electrolyzers are relatively
cess integrating with renewable electricity (CPtL) is proposed. The
expensive and still in the development stage. Alkaline electrolyzer
effects of renewable electricity integration and the gasifier type are

Fig. 2. Flowsheet of case GSP þ E.

4
S. Qin, M. Wang, H. Cui et al. Energy 239 (2022) 121977

Fig. 3. Flowsheet of case GSP.

discussed. Secondly, thermodynamic analysis is conducted based

on the simulation of the CPtL process, and exergy losses of the ðT ðT  
cp P
subsystem are identified and quantified. Recommendations with Exph ¼ ðH  H0 Þ  T0 ðS  S0 Þ ¼ cp dT  T0 dT þ RT0 ln
T P0
regard to the improvement of exergy efficiency are given based on T0 T0
exergy analysis. Thirdly, carbon efficiency is conducted to analyze
(1)
the reduction of CO2 emission of the CPtL process, and the life cycle
analysis of CO2 emissions between CPtL-based fuels and X X
petroleum-based fuels are compared. The fourth step contains a Exch ¼ ch
xi Ex;i þ RT0 xi lnxi (2)
techno-economic evaluation. A breakdown of the total capital in-
vestment (TCI) is presented. In order to indicate the influence of where Exph and Exch refer to physical and chemical exergies; H and H0
some important economic parameters on the production cost, and are the enthalpy at the actual and reference condition; S and S0 are
therefore to identify the most crucial techno-economic parameters the corresponding entropy. cp is calculated by Eq. (3):
that determine the production cost, sensitivity analysis is carried
out. Finally, based on current realistic assumptions and future cp ¼ a þ bT þ cT 2 þ dT 3 (3)
technological developments, the techno-economic and the feasi-
bility analysis of the CPtL process in future are presented. For each subsystem, the exergy balance is given by Eq. (4).

Ex; in ¼ Ex;prod þ Ex;loss (4)

3.2. Energy analysis
where Ex,in is the sum of exergies of the input energy in the unit of
MWex, Ex,prod is the exergy in products and byproducts, and Ex,loss is
Energy efficiency is the energy in products divided by the input
the exergy loss, MWex.
energy, and the lower heating value (LHV) is used.
yloss is the ratio of exergy loss in the subsystem to the total
exergy loss of the system.

3.3. Exergy analysis Ex;loss

yloss ¼ P (5)
Ex;loss
The total exergy is the sum of physical and chemical exergies,
and they are calculated by Eqs. (1) and (2), respectively [29]. The exergy efficiency is calculated as Eq. (6):
5
S. Qin, M. Wang, H. Cui et al.
Ex;prod
hx ¼ (6)
Ex;in
3.4. Techno-economic analysis
The equipment cost is calculated by Eq. (7) on the basis shown in
Table S6.
 sf
S2
C2 ¼ C1  (7)
S1
where C1 and C2 are the equipment cost of the benchmark and
planning project, S1 and S2 are the corresponding production ca-
pacity; sf is the scale factor.
The fixed capital investment (FCI) consists of equipment cost,
installation, construction, contingency and other expenses, which
can be determined by Eq. (8) according to the ratios to the equip-
ment cost.
FCI ¼ ð1 þ BOP þ BOIÞ  C  ðtn Þ0:9 (8)
where BOP and BOI are the balance of plant costs and indirect costs,
respectively; tn is the number of trains.
The total capital investment (TCI) is the sum of working capital
(12% of FCI) and the FCI [22], and calculated by Eq. (9).
CEPCI2019
TCI ¼ TCI2007  (9)
CEPCI2007
where CEPCI2019 and CEPCI2007 are 600.8 and 524.2, respectively
[30].
The FTL production cost is calculated according to the EPRI's TAG
report [31]:
LACCR  TCI þ O&M costs þ Feedstock costs  byproducts sales
FTL production costs ð$ = GJÞ ¼
FT liquids production
where LACCR (levelized annual capital charge rate) is 15.41%/yr
[31]. Other parameters are listed in Table 1.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Material and utility of the CPtL process
Considering the limitation of renewable electricity scale, the
production scale of the reference CtL plant is determined as 200 kt/
yr in this work, which is much smaller than our previous work
(2000 kt/yr) [16]. The model of the CPtL and CtL process is devel-
oped via Aspen Plus software. Figs. 2 and 3 show the flowsheets and
the energy flows of Case GSP þ E and Case GSP. Tables 2 and 3
summarize the compositions of the key mass flows, with stream
numbers marked in Figs. 2 and 3. For Case GSP þ E, water elec-
trolysis requires 880 MWe of electricity, with 819 MWe from
renewable electricity and 81 MWe from CCP unit. The renewable H2
is 16.73 t/h, which is merged with cleaned syngas from the AGR unit
for H2 adjustment; on the other hand, the produced O2 is 132.74 t/h,
of which 49.97% (66.33 t/h) is used for coal gasification, 6.57%
6
Energy 239 (2022) 121977
(8.72 t/h) for the ATR unit, and the rest 43.46% (57.69 t/h) can be
sold as byproduct for revenue. The amount of cleaned syngas is
211.19 t/h, which is about twice of Case GSP (116.48 t/h). Finally,
Case GSP þ E yields FT liquids of 55.45 t/h, about twice of that for
Case GSP (27.75 t/h).
4.2. Energy analysis
As shown in Table 4, the renewable electricity demands for Case
GSP þ E, Case Shell þ E and Case Texaco þ E are 819 MWe, 692 MWe
and 537 MWe, respectively. The energy efficiency of the CtL process
is 41.09e50.85%, by contrast, the products/coal energy ratio of the
CPtL process is enhanced to 76.93e98.92% due to the integration of
renewable electricity. The total energy efficiencies of Case GSP þ E,
Case Shell þ E and Case Texaco þ E are 45.41%, 44.60% and 42.83%,
respectively. As GSP gasifier has the highest cold gas efficiency
(86.43% vs. 77.69% and 72.53%), it shows the highest energy effi-
ciency. On the other hand, since GSP gasifier yields the highest CO
content in the syngas (68.15% vs. 66.91% and 50.81%), it requires
more H2 to increase H2/CO ratio, as a result, Case GSP þ E consumes
the largest amount of renewable electricity (819 MWe). For Case
Texaco þ E, H2 is the byproduct instead of O2 for the higher H2/CO
ratio in the syngas.
Case GSP and Case Shell exhibit higher energy efficiencies
(50.85% and 48.18%) than Case GSP þ E and Case Shell þ E (45.41%
and 44.60%), because the energy efficiency of electrolyzer (74.0%) is
lower than those of GSP (86.86%) and Shell (93.27%) gasifiers. The
energy efficiency of Case Texaco (41.09%) is lower than Case
Texaco þ E (42.83%), because of the lower energy efficiency of
Texaco gasifier (71.90%) as compared to electrolyzer (74.0%). Since
few studies on the CPtL process have been reported, the literature
of the PBtL process is used for comparison with this work. The
energy efficiencies of PBtL are 50.25% and 51.40% reported by Seiler
[13] and Dietrich [6], which is higher than this work because
wastewater treatment (gasification wastewater and FT water) is not
taken into account and actually it consumes a large amount of
(10)
steam (Figs. 2 and 3).
Table 5 shows the effect of coal type for Case GSP and Case
GSP þ E. The composition of the syngas depends on the type of coal,
and more CO and H2 are produced for bituminous coal (high rank
coal) than lignite coal (low rank coal) because of higher content of C
and H and lower content of ash in bituminous. The total thermal
efficiency is higher for plants using bituminous coal than lignite
coal. The main reason is the greater quantity of FT-useful compo-
nents (CO and H2) produced for bituminous coal, which transforms
into more FT liquids and power. Mantripragada and Rubin also
reported that efficiency was 2.0e3.1% higher for plants using
bituminous coal than those with lignite coal [38].
4.3. Exergy analysis
The total exergy flows of the CPtL and CtL plants are described in
Fig. 4. In Case GSP þ E, FT synthesis consumes 565.93 MWex of
renewable H2 (78.43% to coal), and the total exergy flow in the clean
syngas is twice as that in Case GSP (1456.32 MWex vs. 707.85
MWex), which is due to the renewable H2 supplement. In Case GSP,
the total exergy of FT products is 352.86 MWex. After integrating
S. Qin, M. Wang, H. Cui et al. Energy 239 (2022) 121977

Table 2
Stream summary for Case GSP þ E.

Stream 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Name Water O2 Coal Steam Raw syngas Raw syngas H2 Clean syngas Syncrude
Temperature, oC 70 31.2 25 251.1 1307.5 212.4 131.2 37.8 39.4
Pressure, kPa 303.98 4490 101 4137 4000 4000 4000 4000 1979
Flowrate, t/h
H2O 149.47 0.00 0.00 7.00 8.90 120.77 0.00 0.00 0.00
CO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 155.02 153.49 0.00 186.98 0.07
H2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.58 4.58 16.73 10.20 0.01
CO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.63 13.26 0.00 12.22 0.41
CH4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01
H2S 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.00
N2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.43 0.00 1.77 0.00
O2 0.00 66.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C2eC5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12
C6eC10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.54
C11eC20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.20
Wax 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.17
Coal 0.00 0.00 94.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total, t/h 149.47 66.33 94.97 7.00 183.71 293.23 16.73 211.19 60.52

Stream 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Name FT vapor Gas to recycle O2 to ATR Recycle gas Gas to PSA FG Gasoline & diesel FT water Mixed alcohols
Temperature, oC 38 38 110 40 38 39.8 25 40 20
Pressure, kPa 1979 1979 1999 4100 1979 137.9 101 1979 100
Flowrate, t/h
H2O 0.35 0.26 0.00 0.33 0.09 0.09 0.00 76.55 0.01
CO 35.75 26.81 0.00 34.63 8.94 8.98 0.00 0.00 0.00
H2 5.13 3.85 0.00 5.66 1.28 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.00
CO2 34.19 0.41 0.00 10.33 0.14 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00
CH4 3.08 2.31 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.00
N2 1.77 1.33 0.00 1.35 0.44 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00
O2 0.00 0.00 8.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C2eC5 2.44 1.83 0.00 0.00 0.61 3.15 0.00 0.00 0.00
C6eC10 3.80 2.85 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00
Gasoline 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.72 0.00 0.00
Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.74 0.00 0.00
Oxygenates 1.15 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 3.05 3.03
Total, t/h 87.65 40.51 8.72 52.29 13.50 16.16 55.45 79.60 3.04

with renewable electricity, the ratio of FT products to coal is
doubled (691.78 MWex).
Table 6 presents the total exergy balances for the CPtL process.
The total exergy efficiencies of Case GSP þ E, Shell þ E and
Texaco þ E are 44.70%, 44.16% and 42.31%, respectively. For Case
GSP þ E, the largest exergy loss happens in the electrolyzer, ac-
counting for 34.98% of the total exergy loss, mainly due to the
electrolysis reaction. Additionally, FT synthesis and gasification
contribute 16.65% and 15.19%, respectively, which are mainly
caused by chemical reactions. For Case Shell þ E and Case
Texaco þ E, the largest exergy loss also occurs in the electrolyzer,
occupying 34.29% and 27.16%, respectively. The second largest
exergy loss is from gasification (21.23% and 27.06%).
4.4. Recommendations from exergy analysis
The exergy losses are mainly caused by electrolyzer, gasifier, FT
synthesis and CCP unit, occupying 76.78e80.99% of the total. To
improve the exergy efficiency of the CPtL process, the following
measures can be taken: (1) decreasing the electricity consumption
or improving the efficiency of electrolyzer as exergy loss from water
electrolysis accounts for 27.16e34.98% of the total exergy loss; (2)
choosing appropriate gasifier or enhancing gasifier performance
because the exergy loss from gasification accounts for
15.19e27.06%; (3) developing new technologies for FT synthesis,
especially for highly efficient conversion catalyst, for exergy loss
from gasification accounting for 14.90e16.65%; (4) using high
pressure and high temperature steam to increase power
7
generation, for exergy loss from CCP accounting for 9.96e11.48%.
4.5. Analysis of CO2 emissions
Fig. 5 shows the carbon flows in Case GSP þ E and Case GSP. For
Case GSP þ E, 75.33% of the carbon in coal (48.61 t/h) is transformed
into FT liquid fuels. In contrast, for Case GSP, only 37.77% of the
carbon in coal (24.38 t/h) is stored into FT liquid fuels.
As shown in Table 7, after integration with renewable electricity,
the carbon efficiencies could be increased up to 75.33% (Case
GSP þ E), 67.91% (Case Shell þ E) and 54.75% (Case Texaco þ E). The
discrepancy in carbon efficiency of the CPtL process can be attrib-
uted to the difference in cold gas efficiency and CO yield of the
gasifier. For Case GSP þ E and Case Shell þ E, the carbon efficiencies
are doubled as compared with Case GSP and Case Shell, benefited
from the storage of carbon into FT products. For Case Texaco þ E,
the carbon efficiency is only increased by 40.86% (from 32.38% to
54.75%) because a lot of CO2 is generated in the gasification unit.
The CO2 emissions of the CPtL process are 1.17e2.76 t CO2/t FT
liquids, which are significantly lower than the CtL process
(5.55e7.02 t CO2/t FT liquids). In the CtL process, CO2 is mainly
generated in WGS and gasification, and 42.51e51.13% of CO is
converted to CO2 in the WGS unit and then discharged in the AGR
unit. WGS accounts for 44.65e79.43% of the total CO2 emission, and
gasification accounts for 8.63e34.40%. In contrast, for the CPtL
process, CO2 emission from FT synthesis accounts for 21.99e51.80%,
and that from gasification accounts for 20.44e51.68%.
The life cycle analysis of CO2 emissions of FT liquids and
S. Qin, M. Wang, H. Cui et al. Energy 239 (2022) 121977

Table 3
Stream summary for Case GSP.

Stream 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Name Air O2 Coal Steam Raw syngas Raw syngas Shifted syngas Clean syngas Syncrude
Temperature, oC 25 31.2 25 251.1 1307.6 210.7 40 38.9 39.4
Pressure, kPa 101.33 4490 101 4137 4000 3850 3900 3026 1979
Flowrate, t/h
H2O 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 8.90 122.63 0.38 0.00 0.00
CO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 155.02 153.55 75.76 90.34 0.03
H2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.58 4.58 10.18 13.07 0.00
CO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.63 13.28 135.49 9.90 0.20
CH4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
H2S 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.70 0.69 0.00 0.00
N2 313.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.44 0.44 1.85 0.00
AR 5.15 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.32 0.00
O2 96.22 66.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C2eC5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06
C6eC10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.74
C11eC20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.62
Wax 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.61
Coal 0.00 0.00 94.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total, t/h 414.66 66.67 94.97 7.00 184.04 295.51 223.28 116.48 30.28

Stream 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Name FT vapor Gas to recycle O2 to ATR Recycle gas Gas to PSA FG Gasoline & diesel FT water Mixed alcohols
Temperature, oC 38 38 110 40 38 39.7 25 40 20
Pressure, kPa 1979 1979 1999 4100 1979 138 101 1979 100
Flowrate, t/h
H2O 0.18 0.13 0.00 0.17 0.04 0.04 0.00 38.35 0.01
CO 17.91 13.43 0.00 15.15 4.48 4.50 0.00 0.00 0.00
H2 2.57 1.93 0.00 2.92 0.64 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00
CO2 17.13 0.20 0.00 8.78 0.07 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00
CH4 1.55 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00
N2 1.85 1.39 0.00 1.39 0.46 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00
AR 1.32 0.99 0.03 1.01 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
O2 0.00 0.00 5.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C2eC5 1.22 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.31 1.58 0.00 0.00 0.00
C6eC10 1.95 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00
Gasoline 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.34 0.00 0.00
Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.41 0.00 0.00
Oxygenates 0.58 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 1.59 1.57
Total, t/h 46.26 22.05 5.15 29.41 7.35 8.68 27.75 39.94 1.58

Table 4
Main results from the modeling and analysis of the six CtL plants.

Item Case GSP Case GSP þ E Case Shell Case Shell þ E Case Texaco Case Texaco þ E

Input t/h MW t/h MW t/h MW t/h MW t/h MW t/h MW

Coal (dry) 85.27 674 85.27 674 85.27 674 85.27 674 85.27 674 85.27 674
NG 1.47 21 1.47 21
Electricity 819 692 537
Output
Gasoline 8.34 100 16.72 200 7.37 88 14.67 176 6.96 83 11.83 142
Diesel 19.41 230 38.74 460 17.25 205 34.17 405 16.33 194 27.56 327
FT liquid fuels 27.75 330 55.45 660 24.62 293 48.85 581 23.29 277 39.39 469
Mixed alcohols 1.58 14 3.04 28 1.47 14 2.97 28 1.40 13 1.40 13
O2 57.69 0.13 35.61 0.08
H2 0.94 37
Electricity 9 18 13
Thermal efficiency
FT liquids (%) 47.51% 43.58% 43.45% 42.55% 41.10% 38.68%
Electricity (%) 1.28% 2.67% 1.96%
Total (%)a 50.85% 45.41% 48.18% 44.60% 41.09% 42.83%
FT liquids/Coal (%) 94.95% 86.18% 69.49%
Products/Coal (%)b 98.92% 90.34% 76.93%

Note.
a Products energy ðMWÞ
Total Energy efficiency ¼
Coal þ renewable electricity ðMWÞ
b Products energy ðMWÞ
Products=coal energy ratio ¼
Coal ðMWÞ

petroleum-based fuels are compared in Fig. 6. The life cycle CO2 (441.66e512.27 g CO2/km). The increase in carbon efficiency of the
emissions of the CPtL process are 246.63e358.20 g CO2/km, CPtL process significantly reduces CO2 emission at the fuels pro-
significantly lower than those from the CtL process duction stage. The life cycle CO2 emissions from electricity

8
S. Qin, M. Wang, H. Cui et al. Energy 239 (2022) 121977

Table 5
Effect of coal type for Case GSP and Case GSP þ E.

Case GSP Case GSP þ E

Bituminous Lignite Bituminous Lignite

Raw gas kmol/h % kmol/h % kmol/h % kmol/h %

CO 5482 36.8 4637 31.8 5482 36.8 4637 31.8
H2 2271 15.2 2193 15.1 2271 15.2 2193 15.1
CO2 302 2 470 3.2 302 2 470 3.2
H2O 6807 45.6 7199 49.4 6807 45.6 7199 49.4

Total 14,861 99.6 14,499 99.5 14861.3 99.6 14,499 99.5

FT liquids (t/h) 27.75 24.41 55.45 48.42
Net electricity (MW) 8.93 2.2 819.05 652.24
Thermal efficiency (%) 50.85% 48.08% 45.41% 43.73%

Fig. 4. Total exergy flows in Case GSP þ E (a) and Case GSP (b) (unit: MWex).

produced by hydropower, wind, and solar PV are 13.2, 46.4 and
76.3 g CO2/kWh [39], respectively, so Case GSP þ Hydro has the
lowest life cycle CO2 emission (246.63 g CO2/km), which is slightly
higher than the petroleum-based fuels (220.23 g CO2/km). Thus,
the CPtL process can be comparable to the OtL process according to
CO2 emission.
4.6. Techno-economic analysis
The total capital investment (TCI) and production cost of FT
liquids are presented in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. With a coal
feeding of 94.97 t/h, the TCI of Case GSP þ E, Case Shell þ E and Case
Texaco þ E are 914.98, 917.42 and 815.02 MM$, and production
costs are 36.00, 37.20 and 37.75 $/GJ (180.83, 187.14 and 190.09
$/bbl), respectively. The TCI increases by 21.79e46.19% as compared
to the conventional CtL plant as the electrolyzer is expensive. The
electrolyzer accounts for 32.79e42.71% of TCI, which is larger than
9
that reported by the literature (30%), because the electrolyzer cost
adopted in this work is higher (1.15 M$/MWe vs. 0.64 MV/MWe) [6].
The gasifier accounts for 18.82e26.93%, which is similar to that
reported by the literature (26%) [6]. The cavern accounts for
2.03e2.76% of TCI, which is in agreement with the literature (2.2%)
[4]. On the other hand, the production cost of CPtL is 54.18e94.07%
higher than that of CtL, because the electricity price and electro-
lyzer investment are high, even though CPtL could produce twice
the amount of FT liquids and the ASU and WGS units have been
cancelled.
4.7. Sensitivity analysis
4.7.1. Influence of economic parameters on the production cost of FT
liquids
Fig. 9 shows the influence of electricity price, LACCR, electro-
lyzer cost, coal price, O&M costs and cavern cost on the production
S. Qin, M. Wang, H. Cui et al. Energy 239 (2022) 121977

Table 6
Exergy balances of the CPtL process.

Option Section Ex,in (MW) Ex,prod (MW) Ex,losses (MW) hx (%) yloss (%)

Case GSP þ E Water electrolysis 883 581 302 65.77% 34.98%

Gasification 769 638 131 82.94% 15.19%
AGR 939 891 49 94.81% 5.64%
FT 1483 1339 144 90.30% 16.65%
Upgrading 831 740 91 89.01% 10.58%
ATR 437 401 36 91.79% 4.15%
WWT 53 28 25 53.22% 2.85%
CCP 219 132 86 60.60% 9.96%
Overall plant 1562 698 864 44.70%

Case Shell þ E Water electrolysis 791 520 271 65.77% 34.29%

Gasification 761 596 165 78.29% 20.94%
AGR 815 780 35 95.72% 4.42%
FT 1315 1198 118 91.06% 14.90%
Upgrading 731 658 73 90.06% 9.21%
ATR 386 362 24 93.73% 3.07%
WWT 48 30 18 62.08% 2.32%
CCP 236 158 86 67.13% 10.87%
Overall plant 1413 624 789 44.16%

Case Texaco þ E Water electrolysis 576 379 197 65.75% 27.16%

Gasification 760 564 196 74.17% 27.06%
AGR 780 737 43 94.52% 5.88%
FT 1056 948 108 89.76% 14.90%
Upgrading 594 532 62 89.63% 8.48%
ATR 310 291 19 93.97% 2.57%
WWT 42 24 18 56.69% 2.48%
CCP 187 104 83 55.53% 11.48%
Overall plant 1259 532 726 42.31%

Fig. 5. Carbon flows in Case GSP þ E and Case GSP (unit: t carbon/h).

10
S. Qin, M. Wang, H. Cui et al. Energy 239 (2022) 121977

Table 7
CO2 emissions and carbon efficiency of the six Cases.

Case GSP þ E Case GSP Case Shell þ E Case Shell Case Texaco þ E Case Texaco

FT liquids (t/h) 55.45 27.75 48.85 24.63 39.39 23.29

CO2 from gasification (t/h) 13.28 13.28 21.25 21.25 56.26 56.26
CO2 from WGS (t/h) 122.22 109.78 73.02
CO2 from ATR (t/h) 10.33 8.78 9.06 7.88 7.34 7.40
CO2 from FT synthesis (t/h) 33.64 16.86 29.69 14.99 23.95 14.19
CO2 from CCP (t/h) 30.01 15.06 26.44 13.36 21.32 12.66
CO2 used as carrier gas (t/h) 22.31 22.31 9.50 9.50
Total CO2 emissions (t/h) 64.95 153.87 76.93 157.77 108.87 163.53
Total CO2 emissions (t CO2/t FT liquids) 1.17 5.55 1.57 6.41 2.76 7.02
Carbon efficiency (%) 75.33% 37.77% 67.91% 34.23% 54.75% 32.38%

Fig. 6. Life cycle CO2 emissions for the CPtL, CtL and OtL processes.

Fig. 7. Total capital investment of various configurations.

Fig. 9. Sensitivity analysis of cost parameters on the production cost and BEOP (Case
GSP þ E).

75 to 45 $/MWh), the production cost would be reduced by 28.97%

Fig. 8. Production costs and BEOP of FT liquids for various configurations.
cost and BEOP. The steeper the slope, the larger the influence on the
economics is. Electricity price and LACCR have the greatest impact
on economics. If the electricity price could be reduced by 40% (from
(from 36.00 to 25.66 $/GJ, or BEOP from 180.83 to 126.12 $/bbl).
Assuming the electricity is supplied by surplus renewable elec-
tricity and free of charge, the production cost and BEOP are 10.14
$/GJ and 44.06 $/bbl, respectively. If LACCR declines by 40% (from
15.41% to 9.25%), the production cost will be reduced by 13.85%
(from 36.00 to 31.02 $/GJ, or BEOP from 180.83 to 154.46 $/bbl). As
mentioned above, the electrolyzer accounts for 32.79e42.71% of
TCI, therefore, decreasing the electrolyzer investment could reduce
production cost. If the electrolyzer investment is reduced by 40%
(from 1.15 to 0.69 MM$), the production cost will be reduced by
4.97% (from 36.00 to 34.21 $/GJ, or BEOP from 180.83 $/bbl to 171.37
$/bbl). When the coal price and O&M costs are reduced by 40%, the

11
S. Qin, M. Wang, H. Cui et al. Energy 239 (2022) 121977

Fig. 10. Installed capacity and electricity price of hydropower, solar PV and wind energy in future in China [40e45].

Table 8 4.7.2. Future CPtL economics

Parameter values for future CPtL economics [26,40e43].
Parameter
Efficiency
Energy requirement
Electrolyzer investment
Renewable electricity price
As shown in Fig. 10, renewable electricity generated from wind,
Current situation 2030 2050 hydropower and solar is developing rapidly in China, especially
solar PV. The electricity price, specific electricity consumption in
% 74% 82% 86%
kWh/Nm3 H2 4.70 4.24 4.05 electrolysis and electrolyzer cost can be expectedly reduced
kWh/kg H2 52.67 47.53 45.32 remarkably due to technical progress and economics of scale. The
$/kWe 1150 800 640 cost parameters employed to assess the future CPtL economics are
$/kWh 0.07 0.04 0.01
given in Table 8, which are collected from the literature [40e45].
The combined effect on the electricity consumption, electrolyzer
cost and electricity price is used to predict the production cost in
the years 2030 and 2050, and Fig. 11 illustrates the results.
At present, the production cost of Case GSP is 18.55 $/GJ (88.54
$/bbl), whereas the production cost of Case GSP þ E is 36.00 $/GJ
(180.83 $/bbl). With the decrease in renewable electricity price,
electricity consumption and electrolyzer cost, the production cost
of Case GSP þ E is expectedly reduced to 20.83 $/GJ (100.57 $/bbl) in
2030 and 10.76 $/GJ (47.32 $/bbl) in 2050. The production cost of
Case Shell þ E could reduce from 37.20 to 12.62 $/GJ (187.14e58.71
$/bbl), and Case Texaco þ E from 37.75 to 14.36 $/GJ (190.09e66.37
$/bbl). It is economically feasible for renewable electricity to be
stored in liquid fuels, as the production cost can be comparable to
petroleum-based liquid fuels.

5. Conclusions

To reduce the CO2 emission of the CtL process, a novel CtL

Fig. 11. Production cost and BEOP of the CPtL process in the future.
production cost is reduced by 2.69% and 2.40%, respectively. If the
cavern cost is reduced by 40%, the production cost is reduced by
0.32%, suggesting the small effect of the cavern cost, which is
similar to the literature [4]. The sensitivity analysis in Fig. 9 shows
that production cost falls in the range of 20.49e51.52 $/GJ, and
BEOP 98.77e262.89 $/bbl. The production cost of the PBtL process
is reported as 119.38e154.16 $/bbl [12,13], which can be compa-
rable to this work (135.29 $/bbl) when the electricity price is set to
50 $/MWh.
12
process integrating with renewable electricity is developed and
evaluated from the aspects of carbon and thermodynamic effi-
ciency, CO2 emission, and economics. The production of FT liquids
can be doubled as renewable electricity is stored into FT liquids. The
total energy efficiencies are 45.41%, 44.60% and 42.83% for Case
GSP þ E, Case Shell þ E and Case Texaco þ E, respectively, and the
total exergy efficiencies are 44.70%, 44.16% and 42.31%. The exergy
loss mainly comes from electrolyzer, gasifier and FT synthesis units.
The measures to improve the exergy efficiency are proposed. The
life cycle CO2 emission of the CPtL process is 246.63e358.20 g CO2/
km, significantly lower than the CtL process (441.66e512.27 g CO2/
km) and close to the petroleum-based fuels (220.23 g CO2/km).
Integration with renewable electricity could improve the carbon
efficiency by 69.09e99.44%, but the production cost is raised by
54.18e94.07% due to the high electricity and electrolyzer cost.
Sensitivity analysis demonstrates the electricity price has the most
significant impact on economics. At present market conditions,
CPtL is incompetent with CtL from the viewpoint of economics.
With the combined effects of decreasing renewable electricity price
(0.07e0.01 $/kWh), electrolyzer cost (1150e640 $/kW) and elec-
tricity consumption in electrolysis (4.70e4.05 kWh/Nm3 H2), the
production cost could be reduced to 10.76 $/GJ (47.32 $/bbl), indi-
cating it might become viable and could be comparable to the
S. Qin, M. Wang, H. Cui et al.
petroleum-based liquid fuels in the future. Thus, the CtL process
integrated with renewable electricity can significantly improve its
carbon efficiency and environmental performance, and might be
economically feasible in the future. This work provides a promising
pathway for the renewable electricity utilization in the coal con-
version industry.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the financial supports from the National Key
Research and Development Program of China (2019YFD1100602)
and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (21978158).
Credit author statement
Shiyue Qin: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
Software, Writing original draft. Ming Wang: Validation, Concep-
tualization, Supervision, Writing review & editing. Hongyou Cui:
Data curation, Resources, Funding acquisition, Editing. Zhihe Li:
Investigation, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Data curation.
Weiming Yi: Writing review & editing, Funding acquisition.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.121977.
References
[1] IEA. World. Energy outlook 2018. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development; 2018. OECD.
[2] Chang SY, Zhuo JK, Meng S, Qin SY, Yao Q. Clean coal technologies in China:
current status and future perspectives. Engineering 2016;2:447e59.
[3] Bailera M, Lisbona P, Romeo LM, Espatolero S. Power to Gas projects review:
lab, pilot and demo plants for storing renewable energy and CO2. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2017;69:292e312.
€nig DH, Freiberg M, Dietrich R-U, Wo € rner A. Techno-economic study of the
[4] Ko
storage of fluctuating renewable energy in liquid hydrocarbons. Fuel
2015;159:289e97.
€nig DH, Baucks N, Dietrich R-U, Wo €rner A. Simulation and evaluation of a
[5] Ko
process concept for the generation of synthetic fuel from CO2 and H2. Energy
2015;91:833e41.
[6] Dietrich RU, Albrecht FG, Maier S, Konig DH, Estelmann S, Adelung S, et al.
Cost calculations for three different approaches of biofuel production using
biomass, electricity and CO2. Biomass Bioenergy 2018;111:165e73.
[7] Tremel A, Wasserscheid P, Baldauf M, Hammer T. Techno-economic analysis
for the synthesis of liquid and gaseous fuels based on hydrogen production via
electrolysis. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2015;40:11457e64.
[8] Becker WL, Braun RJ, Penev M, Melaina M. Production of FischereTropsch
liquid fuels from high temperature solid oxide co-electrolysis units. Energy
2012;47:99e115.
[9] Herz G, Reichelt E, Jahn M. Techno-economic analysis of a co-electrolysis-
based synthesis process for the production of hydrocarbons. Appl Energy
2018;215:309e20.
[10] Zhang C, Gao R, Jun K-W, Kim SK, Hwang S-M, Park H-G, et al. Direct con-
version of carbon dioxide to liquid fuels and synthetic natural gas using
renewable power: techno-economic analysis. J CO2 Util 2019;34:293e302.
13
Energy 239 (2022) 121977
[11] Ostadi M, Rytter E, Hillestad M. Boosting carbon efficiency of the biomass to
liquid process with hydrogen from power: the effect of H2/CO ratio to the
Fischer-Tropsch reactors on the production and power consumption. Biomass
Bioenergy 2019;127:105282.
[12] Hillestad M, Ostadi M, Serrano GDA, Rytter E, Austbo B, Pharoah JG, et al.
Improving carbon efficiency and profitability of the biomass to liquid process
with hydrogen from renewable power. Fuel 2018;234:1431e51.
[13] Seiler J-M, Hohwiller C, Imbach J, Luciani J-F. Technical and economical
evaluation of enhanced biomass to liquid fuel processes. Energy 2010;35:
3587e92.
[14] Hannula I. Hydrogen enhancement potential of synthetic biofuels manufac-
ture in the European context: a techno-economic assessment. Energy
2016;104:199e212.
[15] Bernical Q, Joulia X, Noirot-Le Borgne I, Floquet P, Baurens P, Boissonnet G.
Sustainability assessment of an integrated high temperature steam
electrolysis-enhanced biomass to liquid fuel process. Ind Eng Chem Res
2013;52:7189e95.
[16] Qin SY, Chang SY, Yao Q. Modeling, thermodynamic and techno-economic
analysis of coal-to-liquids process with different entrained flow coal gas-
ifiers. Appl Energy 2018;229:413e32.
[17] Yang Q, Zhu S, Yu P, Yang Q, Zhang D. Thermodynamic and techno-economic
analysis of coal to ethylene glycol process (CtEG) with different coal gasifiers.
Energy Convers Manag 2019;191:80e92.
[18] Yu GW, Xu YY, Hao X, Li YW, Liu GQ. Process analysis for polygeneration of
FischereTropsch liquids and power with CO2 capture based on coal gasifica-
tion. Fuel 2010;89:1070e6.
[19] Bassano C, Deiana P, Girardi G. Modeling and economic evaluation of the
integration of carbon capture and storage technologies into coal to liquids
plants. Fuel 2014;116:850e60.
[20] Jiang Y, Bhattacharyya D. Plant-wide modeling of an indirect coal-biomass to
liquids (CBTL) plant with CO2 capture and storage (CCS). Int J Greenh Gas Con
2014;31:1e15.
[21] Jiang Y, Bhattacharyya D. Modeling and analysis of an indirect coal biomass to
liquids plant integrated with a combined cycle plant and CO2 capture and
storage. Energy Fuel 2015;29:5434e51.
[22] Jiang Y, Bhattacharyya D. Techno-economic analysis of a novel indirect coal-
biomass to liquids plant integrated with a combined cycle plant and CO2
capture and storage. Ind Eng Chem Res 2016;55:1677e89.
[23] Tosti S, Spazzafumo G, Capobianco D, Buceti G, Pozio A, Bartucca S. EU sce-
narios of renewable coal hydro-gasification for SNG production. Sustain En-
ergy Technol Ass 2016;16:43e52.
[24] Chiuta S, Engelbrecht N, Human G, Bessarabov DG. Techno-economic
assessment of power-to-methane and power-to-syngas business models for
sustainable carbon dioxide utilization in coal-to-liquid facilities. J CO2 Util
2016;16:399e411.
[25] Buchheit KL, Smith JD, Guntupalli U, Chen C. Techno-economic analysis of a
sustainable coal, wind, and nuclear hybrid energy system. Energy Fuel
2016;30:10721e9.
[26] IEA., IEA. Technology roadmap: hydrogen and fuel cells. Paris: OECD Pub-
lishing; 2015. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239760-en.
[27] General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of
China, and Standardization Administration of China. Minimum allowable
values of energy efficiency and energy efficiency grades for hydrogen pro-
ducing systems by water electrolysis. GB 32311-2015 [in Chinese].
[28] Zhang BH, Zhang XC, Wu JL. Energy efficiency standards promote upgrading of
technology and equipment of hydrolytic and electrolytic hydrogen making by
water electrolysis [in Chinese] China Stand 2015:102e5. Supplement.
[29] Li HQ, Zhang XF, Liu LF, Zeng R, Zhang GQ. Exergy and environmental as-
sessments of a novel trigeneration system taking biomass and solar energy as
co-feeds. Appl Therm Eng 2016;104:697e706.
[30] Mignard D. Correlating the chemical engineering plant cost index with macro-
economic indicators. Chem Eng Res Des 2014;92:285e94.
[31] Kreutz TG, Larson ED, Liu GJ, Williams RH. Fischer-tropsch fuels from coal and
biomass. 2008.
[32] Pan Y, Liu L, Zhu T, Zhang T, Zhang J. Feasibility analysis on distributed energy
system of Chongming County based on RETScreen software. Energy 2017;130:
298e306.
[33] Yang S, Qian Y, Ma DH, Wang YF, Yang SY. BGL gasifier for coal-to-SNG: a
comparative techno-economic analysis. Energy 2017;133:158e70.
[34] Zhou HR, Yang SY, Xiao HH, Yang QC, Qian Y, Gao L. Modeling and techno-
economic analysis of shale-to-liquid and coal-to-liquid fuels processes. En-
ergy 2016;109:201e10.
[35] Li DS. Technical/economic analysis of the coal-to-SNG process. Coal Chem Idus
2010;38:1e7 [in Chinese].
S. Qin, M. Wang, H. Cui et al.
[36] Michailos S, McCord S, Sick V, Stokes G, Styring P. Dimethyl ether synthesis via
captured CO2 hydrogenation within the power to liquids concept: a techno-
economic assessment. Energy Convers Manag 2019;184:262e76.
[37] Atsonios K, Panopoulos KD, Kakaras E. Investigation of technical and economic
aspects for methanol production through CO2 hydrogenation. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2016;41:2202e14.
[38] Mantripragada HC, Rubin ES. CO2 implications of coal-to-liquids (CTL) plants.
Int J Greenh Gas Con 2013;16:50e60.
[39] Feng K, Hubacek K, Siu YL, Li X. The energy and water nexus in Chinese
electricity production: a hybrid life cycle analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2014;39:342e55.
[40] IEA. Technology. Roadmap: solar photovoltaic energy. Paris: OECD Publishing;
2015. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264238817-en.
14
Energy 239 (2022) 121977
[41] IEA. Technology roadmap: China wind energy development roadmap 2050.
Paris: OECD Publishing; 2012. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264166752-en.
[42] IEA. Technology roadmap: hydropower. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2012. https://
doi.org/10.1787/9789264189201-en.
[43] International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). Renewable energy tech-
nologies: cost analysis series - volume 1: power Sector Hydropower. http://
wwwecowrexorg/system/files/documents/2012_renewable-energy-
technologies_cost-analysis-series_hydropower_irenapdf. 2012.
[44] Zheng T, Qiang M, Chen W, Xia B, Wang J. An externality evaluation model for
hydropower projects: a case study of the Three Gorges Project. Energy
2016;108:74e85.
[45] IEA. World. Energy outlook 2017. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development; 2017. OECD.