CO2 implications of coal-to-liquids (CTL) plants

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

Volumn 16, Issue , 2013, Pages 50-60

  Mantripragada, Hari Chandan ^a   Rubin, Edward S ^a  

^a CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Carbon capture and storage; Co production; Coal to liquids

Indexed keywords

CARBON CAPTURE; CARBON DIOXIDE; COAL; COAL GASIFICATION PLANTS; COAL STORAGE; COSTS; CRUDE OIL PRICE; ECONOMICS; ENHANCED RECOVERY; LIQUIDS; PULVERIZED FUEL;

CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE AND STORAGE; CO-PRODUCTION; COAL TO LIQUID; COMMERCIAL TECHNOLOGY; ECONOMIC FEASIBILITIES; ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY; PULVERIZED COAL POWER PLANT; TECHNO-ECONOMIC MODEL;

COAL INDUSTRY;

CARBON DIOXIDE; CARBON EMISSION; CARBON SEQUESTRATION; EMISSIONS TRADING; MODELING; POLLUTION TAX;

EID: 84876403176     PISSN: 17505836     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.03.007     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. AspenTech, 2007. Aspen Technology, Inc. Ten Canal Park, Cambridge, MA 02141-2201.
2. Bartis J.T., et al. Producing Liquid Fuels from Coal: Prospects and Policy Issues 2008, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, MG754.
3. CHE, 2012. Chemical engineering. http://www.che.com/pci.
4. 2 control technology effects on IGCC plant performance and cost. Energy Policy 2008, 37:915-924.
5. DoE/NETL Baseline Technical and Economic Assessment of a Commercial Scale Fischer-Tropsch Liquids Facility 2007, National Energy Technology Lab/U.S. Dept. of Energy, April.
6. DoE/NETL, 2010. Worldwide gasification database.
7. DoE/NETL Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants. Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity, Revision 2. 1397 2010, vol. 1. National Energy Technology Lab/U.S. Dept. of Energy, November.
8. 2 storage resources resulting from the large-scale deployment of a CCS-enabled unconventional fossil fuels industry in the U.S. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2009, 3:720-730.
9. Edmonds, J. The potential role of CCS in climate stabilization. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies 2008.
10. EIA, 2010. Data on coal, petroleum and electricity, U.S. Energy Information Agency. http://www.eia.gov/.
11. EIA Monthly Energy Review 2012, U.S. Energy Information Administration, April.
12. EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012, U.S. Energy Information Administration, June.
13. EIA, 2013. Data on coal, petroleum and electricity, U.S. Energy Information Agency. http://www.eia.gov/.
14. EPRI TAG™ Technical Assessment Guide. Electricity Supply, P-4436-SR 1986, vol. 1. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
15. Farrell A.E., Brandt A.R. Risks of oil transition. Environmental Research Letters 2006, 1:014004.
16. Gray D., Tomlinson G.C. Assessing the Economic Impact of Indirect Liquefaction Process Improvements. Development of the Integrated Indirect Liquefaction Model and Baseline Case 1990, vol. 1. DoE DE91004668.
17. IECM, 2010. Integrated env control model carbon sequestration edition, Carnegie Mellon Univ. Center for Energy and Env. Studies. http://www.iecm-online.com/.
18. Jaramillo, P., 2007. A life cycle comparison of coal and natural gas for electricity generation and the production of transportation fuels. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University.
19. Larsen, J., 2009. A closer look at the American Clean Energy and Security Act. World Resources Institute. July 2. http://www.wri.org/stories/2009/07/closer-look-american-clean-energy-and-security-act%23sthash.aKxj3Pf9.dpuf.
20. Liu G., et al. Making Fischer-Tropsch fuels and electricity from coal and biomass: performance and cost analysis. Energy and Fuels 2011, 25:415-437.
21. Mantripragada H.C., Rubin E.S. Techno-economic evaluation of coal-to-liquids (CTL) plants with carbon capture and sequestration. Energy Policy 2011, 39(5). 2808-2016.
22. 2 reduction potential of CTL plants - effect of gasification technology. Energy Procedia 2011, 4:2700-2707.
23. Mantripragada H.C., Rubin E.S. Performance, cost and emissions of coal-to-liquids (CTLs) plants using low-quality coals under carbon constraints. Fuel 2013, 103:805-813.
24. Marano J.J., Ciferno J.P., 2001. Life cycle greenhouse gas inventory for Fischer-Tropsch fuels. National Energy Technology Lab /U.S. Dept. of Energy. Pittsburgh, PA. June.
25. Mills S.A. Status and future opportunities for conversion of synthesis gas to liquid fuels. Fuel 1994, 73, 8:1243-1279.
26. NRC America's Climate Choices: Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change 2010, National Research Council, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
27. Rubin E.S., Zhai H. The cost of carbon capture and storage for natural gas combined cycle plants. Environmental Science and Technology 2012, 46:3076-3084.
28. Schulz H. Short history and present trends of Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. Applied Catalysis A: General 1999, 186:3-12.
29. SSEB American Energy Security - Building a Bridge to Energy Independence and to a Sustainable Energy Future 2006, The Southern States Energy Board, Norcoss, Georgia.
30. Steynberg A.P., Nel H.G. Clean coal conversion options using Fischer-Tropsch technology. Fuel 2004, 83:765-770.
31. Steynberg A., Dry M. Fischer-Tropsch Technology, Studies in Surface Science and Catalysis, 152 2004, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
32. Williams R.H., et al. Fischer-Tropsch fuels from coal and biomass: strategic advantages of once-through (poly-generation) configurations. Energy Procedia 2009, 1:4379-4386.
33. Williams R.H., et al. Alternatives for decarbonizing existing USA coal power plant sites. Energy Procedia 2011, 4:1843-1850.
34. Wilson R., et al. Carbon Dioxide Price Forecast 2012, Synapse Energy Economics, Inc, MA, October. http://www.synapse-energy.com/.
35. Zuideveld P. Shell coal gasification process using low rank coal. Gasification Technologies Conference 2005.