Zero Emission From Coal in China

Reproduced with permission from Energy for Sustainable Development
Articles
Toward zero emissions from coal in China

Robert H. Williams
Princeton Environmental Institute, Room 140, Guyot Hall, Princeton University
Princeton, New Jersey 08544-1003, USA
China depends for most of its energy on coal – a situation that is likely to persist in the light of
the abundance of its coal resources, the paucity of its oil and gas resources, and the reluctance of
the government to allow China to become overly dependent on energy imports. The challenge is to
find ways to use coal without the enormous air pollution damage caused by current conversion
technologies and with greatly reduced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. A coal energy system for
China is proposed that could ultimately be characterized by near-zero emissions of both air pollut-
ants and greenhouse gases.
The key enabling technology is oxygen-blown (O2–blown) gasification to generate synthesis gas
from coal. This technology is used in commercially ready integrated gasification combined-cycle
power plants that can provide electricity with air pollutant emissions as low as emission levels for
natural gas combined-cycle plants. O2-blown gasification is not yet used in China’s energy sector,
although the technology is well-established in China’s chemical process industry.
The key enabling strategy, which would often lead to attractive energy costs without further tech-
nological advances, is “polygeneration” – the co-production from synthesis gas of at least electricity
and one or more clean synthetic fuels (e.g., dimethyl ether (DME), Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) liquids,
hydrogen (H2)) and often also chemicals, town gas, and/or industrial process heat. The products
of polygeneration could be used in the near term to serve a wide range of energy needs with
extremely low levels of air pollutant emissions.
In such polygeneration configurations CO2 can often be produced in relatively pure streams as a
co-product as a result of processing to increase the synthetic fuel’s hydrogen-to-carbon ratio. In
the near term this CO2 might be used profitably for enhanced oil recovery or enhanced recovery
of methane from deep beds of unminable coal where resource recovery opportunities exist.
For the longer term the potential exists for evolving the coal energy system to the co-production
primarily of electricity and H2 for serving urban areas, with most of the carbon in the coal ending
up as CO2 that is sequestered in geological reservoirs such as in depleted oil and natural gas fields
and deep saline aquifers at low incremental cost – even where there are no opportunities for using
the CO2 for enhanced resource recovery. The H2 so produced would be used for fueling zero-pol-
luting fuel-cell vehicles, for distributed cogeneration (combined heat and power) applications in
stationary fuel cells, and for cooking and heating applications as well.
A third clean carbon-based synthetic fuel might also be needed for serving rural markets that would
be difficult to serve with H2, unless there are breakthroughs in H2 storage technology. DME is a
strong candidate for becoming the “third” clean energy carrier for China.
Evolving a coal-based energy system that would be characterized ultimately by near-zero emissions
of air pollutants and greenhouse gases would probably involve shifting the center of gravity for
central-station power generation to the chemical process industries that would ultimately be co-pro-
ducing as their major products electricity, H2, and (perhaps) DME. Ongoing structural reforms in
the electric power sector that encourage greater competition in power generation would facilitate
the realization of this vision for coal.
1. Introduction [BP, 2001]. In 2000 China’s coal consumption was 20.3

As a result of energy market reforms, coal consumption EJ/year (22 % of the world total), and China was out-
has been declining in China. In 2000, coal consumption ranked in terms of absolute coal consumption only by the
was reported to be 29 % less than in 1996, when coal United States with 23.7 EJ/year.
accounted for 76 % of China’s primary energy consump- Moreover, coal consumption in China is expected to
tion [BP, 2001][1]. grow significantly in the decades immediately ahead. The
However, China is still one of the world’s leading coal US Energy Information Administration projects that
consumers. In 2000, coal accounted for 63 % of primary China’s coal use will increase 2.4-fold, 1999-2020, to 48
energy consumption in China – compared to a worldwide EJ/year or 40 % of the world’s total [EIA, 2001].
average of 25 %. As a percentage of primary energy in The expectation of substantial growth in coal use as a
2000 coal consumption was higher only in South Africa follow-up to the recent coal market correction reflects the
(76 %), but China consumed almost 6 times as much coal relative scarcity of domestic oil and gas resources in
Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 4 z December 2001 39

Articles
relation to coal, and reluctance on the part of China to al., 1999] have been carried out for the ExternE Pro-
become overly dependent on energy imports. gramme of the European Commission aimed at quantify-
Proved reserves of oil and natural gas in China amount, ing the external social costs of air pollution. These studies
respectively, to 4.3 and 1.6 years of total primary energy found that external social costs are dominated by health
consumption in 2000 [BP, 2001], compared to more than impacts and that the costs of health impacts from fine-
100 years for coal[2]. Median estimates made by the US particle air pollution are especially high. Most fine-parti-
Geological Survey of ultimately recoverable conventional cle air pollution is caused by fossil-fuel burning – both
oil and gas resources amount to 12 and 9 years of supply direct emissions of fine particles and sulfate and nitrate
at the 2000 primary energy consumption rate, respectively particles formed in the atmosphere from gaseous emis-
[Masters et al., 1994], compared to more than 600 years sions of SO2 and NOx.
for coal[3]. Unconventional heavy oil resources might add Rabl and Spadaro [2000] have generated both median
another 3 years of primary energy supply [Rogner, 2000]. estimates of costs and geometric standard deviations; for
Coal bed methane (CBM) resources in China are substan- aggregated morbidity and mortality, they found a geomet-
tial, although the fraction of these resources that might ric standard deviation of about 4, so that the 68 % con-
eventually be exploited is uncertain, and in any case the fidence interval for costs is the range 1/4 to 4 times the
energy content of these resources amounts to less than median cost. Their economic calculations reflect recent
proved reserves of coal[4]. epidemiological studies indicating that: (1) serious
Coal use in China is accounted for by industrial boilers chronic health effects (especially life-shortening) are
and furnaces (almost 1/2), power generation (almost 1/3), strongly correlated with fine particles (PM2.5 particles,
and heating and cooking in residential and commercial with diameters less than 2.5 microns) in the air that can
buildings – with power generation dominating coal de- penetrate into the deep lungs, and (2) the dose-response
mand growth at present. In the future coal may well be functions for health impacts are approximately linear, with
used to make transport fuels as well, because of rapid no evidence of a threshold [Pope et al., 1995; Wilson and
growth in transport energy requirements, limitations of Spengler, 1996].
domestic oil in meeting these needs, and concerns about Although causal factors for the adverse health effects
growth of oil import dependency. are not well established and there is considerable uncer-
tainty relating to the magnitudes of the health impacts
2. Coal, environment, and public health from small-particle air pollution, the economic value of
Although coal is abundant and cheap, its use typically the health impacts is expected to be high in densely popu-
causes major environmental damage. A recent World Bank lated regions of high-income countries. Results of these
study [World Bank, 1997] assessing the costs of local/re- environmental damage cost studies are summarized in Ta-
gional air pollution damage in China estimated total costs ble 1 for alternative fossil-fuel power plants that might
to be $ 48 billion in 1995 (7 % of GDP), including im- be built under typical European siting conditions. This ta-
pacts of acid deposition as well as health effects from air ble shows that new coal steam-electric plants equipped
pollution. The study found that the dominant cost was with best available control technologies (BACT) at typical
associated with the health impacts of both indoor and out- European sites would have environmental damage costs
door air pollution. that are about 2/3 the direct economic costs of producing
Health damage, mainly to women and children, as a this electricity (compare Tables 1, 2a and 2b). Although
result of indoor air pollution in rural areas from cooking health damage costs would typically be much lower today
with coal and biomass fuels was valued in the study at for coal plants equipped with BACT in countries like
about $ 11 billion for 1995, and damage for urban resi- China with low per capita incomes, incomes in China are
dents was valued at $ 32 billion (5 % of GDP). Moreover, rising rapidly, and damage costs will rise much more rap-
the Bank projected that under “business-as-usual” condi- idly than GDP[5], so such findings are relevant to thinking
tions (with a 2.7-fold increase in coal consumption, 1995- about China’s future.
2020) health damage to urban residents would increase to Climate change is another major environmental con-
$ 98 billion by 2020 at current income levels, or $ 390 cern. Coal is problematic in this regard because it is the
billion (13 % of GDP) with adjustment for expected most carbon-intensive fossil fuel, because its conversion
growth in income. (The estimated health costs increase to useful energy is typically not especially efficient, and
with income because the World Bank estimated costs on because China is so dependent on coal. Average (30%-ef-
the basis of the principle of “willingness to pay” to avoid ficient) coal power plants in China emit more than 3 times
adverse health impacts.) as much CO2 as state-of-the art natural gas combined-cy-
Pollution costs in China are high both because coal is cle plants. Only marginal gains are feasible by shifting to
the dominant fossil fuel and because there are relatively more efficient coal steam-electric plants: as shown in Ta-
low levels of pollution control on coal conversion equip- ble 1, new 37%-efficient coal steam-electric plants release
ment. However, even in countries where relatively high 2.6 times as much CO2 per kWh generated as combined-
levels of polluting emission control are mandated and en- cycle plants (see Tables 2a and 2b).
forced, health damage costs from coal steam power plants The US Energy Information Administration [EIA, 2001]
can be high. projects that between 1999 and 2020, China’s CO2 emis-
Recently, studies [Rabl and Spadaro, 2000; Krewitt et sions will increase from 71 % to 150 % of those for
40 Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 4 z December 2001

Articles
Table 1. Emission rates for and estimated costs of environmental damage from air pollutant emissions of
fossil-fuel power plants (valuation for typical European conditions)
Emission rate (g/kWh) Median estimate of environmental Environmental

damage costs (¢/kWh)[1] damage costs
relative to NGCC
Primary air pollutant SO2 NOx PM10 SO2 NOx PM10 Total Total
Average US coal steam-electric plant, 1997 6.10[2] 3.47[2] 0.16[3] 6.36 5.56 0.28 12.2 82
New coal steam-electric plant with best 0.46 0.87 0.15[3] 0.48 1.40 0.24 2.12 14
available control technology[4]
Coal IGCC plant[5] 0.075 0.082 0.0025 0.080 0.132 0.004 0.216 1.5
NGCC plant[6] - 0.092 - - 0.148 - 0.148 1.0

Notes
1. Environmental damage costs from power plant air pollutant emissions are assumed to be 1/4 of the median estimates of Rabl and Spadaro [2000] for typical power plant sitings in
Europe. (The Rabl and Spadaro calculations were carried out under the European Commission’s ExternE Programme. Nearly all the estimated costs of environmental damage are
associated with adverse health impacts; the economic values of health impacts were estimated on the basis of the principle of willingness to pay to avoid adverse health effects.)
Rabl and Spadaro considered a wide range of pollutants, but the only significant damage costs were from SO2, NOx, and PM10, for which their median (geometric mean) estimates
of damage costs (in $/kg) were $ 10.44, $ 16.00, and $ 17.00, respectively. The probability distribution of damage costs is lognormal, with a geometric standard deviation of 4, so
that there is a 68 % probability that the actual cost is in the range 1/4 to 4 times the median estimate.
2. Average emission rates in 1997 for US coal plants, whose average efficiency was 34.7 %
3. In 1990, PM10 emissions from US electric utility coal power plants amounted to 245,000 t [Spengler and Wilson, 1996], when these plants consumed 18.0 EJ of coal [EIA, 1998], so
that the PM10 emission rate was 13.61 g/GJ – the assumed emission rate for all steam-electric cases in this table.
4. It is assumed: that the new coal steam-electric plant is 37.3 % efficient; that the sulfur content of the coal is 477 g/GJ (1.08 % sulfur by weight), the average for US coal power
plants in 1997 [EIA, 1998]; that SO2 emissions are reduced 95 %, a commercially feasible rate; that the NOx emission rate is 90 g/GJ – achievable with advanced low-NOx burners
that will be commercially available shortly.
5. It is assumed: that the coal integrated gasifier combined-cycle (IGCC) plant is 46.5 % efficient, based on use of steam-cooled gas turbines (see Table 2a); that the emission rates
equal the measured values for the Buggenum coal IGCC plant (Netherlands): 10.6 and 0.3 g/GJ of coal, for NOx and particulates, respectively, as well as 99 % sulfur recovery (data
presented by Co van Liere, KEMA, at the Gasification Technologies Conference in San Francisco, 17-20 October 1999); and that the sulfur content of coal is 477 g/GJ.
6. It is assumed: that the natural gas combined-cycle (NGCC) plant is 60.0 % efficient, based on use of steam-cooled gas turbines (see Table 2a); that the NOx emission rate is 9
ppmv (dry volume basis, at 15 % O2), corresponding to an emission rate of 0.092 g/kWh.
Western Europe and from 44 % to 82 % of those for the for ammonia (NH3) manufacture. Interest in modern O2-
United States. Yet, on a per capita basis, China’s CO2 blown gasification technology in China’s chemical proc-
emissions in 2020 would be just 2/5 of those for Western ess industry arises in large part because nitrogen fertilizer
Europe and less than 1/5 of those for the United States. demand is growing and much of existing coal-based NH3
Still, if China is to remain heavily dependent on coal for production involves small, inefficient, and polluting
energy, ways must be found to provide useful energy from plants, many of which are targeted for replacement by
coal with greatly reduced CO2 emissions at affordable larger, cleaner, and more cost-competitive plants.
costs, if the long-term goal of achieving “stabilization of In the next section, the technology of syngas manufac-
the greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere at a ture is described. This is followed by a discussion of how
level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic inter- syngas-based energy systems make it possible to provide
ference with the climate”, as set forth in Article 2 of the energy from coal with extraordinarily low levels of gase-
Framework Convention on Climate Change, is to be re- ous air pollutant emissions and quite manageable liquid
alized. and solid waste disposal problems. The following section
discusses how coal-derived syngas can provide clean en-
3. A syngas-based energy system for coal in China? ergy for essentially all sectors of the energy economy.
In this paper an energy system for China based on coal Then polygeneration is proposed for energy production as
is proposed that could evolve so that ultimately this sys- a strategy for reducing costs of this clean energy to at-
tem would be characterized by near-zero emissions of tractive levels without having to wait for major techno-
both air pollutants and greenhouse gases. The key ena- logical advances. The following section shows that a
bling technology is O2–blown gasification – a technology syngas-based energy strategy for coal offers a low-cost
perhaps most widely known as a component of coal in- approach to climate change mitigation if advanced H2 pro-
tegrated gasifier combined-cycle (IGCC) power plants. duction technologies and end-use technologies such as
The coal IGCC is a commercially ready technology, al- fuel cells enable H2 to become a major energy carrier
though no IGCC plant has been built in China. However, complementing electricity in the energy economy in a
O2-blown gasification technology is well established in greenhouse gas emissions-constrained world – because of
China’s chemical process industry: China has in opera- the favorable outlook for H2 energy strategies based on
tion, under construction, or on order, 25-30 modern O2- coal and the good prospects for sequestering CO2 in geo-
blown gasifiers; many are for gasifying coal and mostly logical formations at low incremental cost under these

Articles
Table 2a. Performance, generation costs, and CO2 emission rates for alternative fossil fuel power plants – for construction in the United States
Performance, costs, emission rates[1] Pulverized coal Coal IGCC plant Natural gas combined cycle
steam-electric (NGCC) plant
plant w/FGD
Air-cooled Steam-cooled Air-cooled Steam-cooled
turbine turbine turbine turbine
Plant capacity (MWe) 500 500 400 506 400
Efficiency (%, LHV basis) 37.3 42.5 46.5 55.8 60.0
Installed capital cost ($/kWe) 1090 1320 1091 468 445
Generation cost elements (¢/kWh)
Capital charges[2] 1.79 2.17 1.79 0.77 0.73
Fixed O&M 0.23 0.28 0.30 0.23 0.23
Variable O&M 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.15 0.15

[3]
Fuel 0.99 0.87 0.80 2.22 2.06
Total generation cost (¢/kWh) 3.21 3.52 3.10 3.37 3.17
CO2 emission rate (gC/kWh)[4] 238 210 193 98 91

Notes
1. Plant capacities, installed capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, and plant efficiencies are for construction in the United States, from Todd and Stoll [1997]. Combined-cycle
plants (both natural gas combined-cycle (CC) and coal integrated gasifier combined-cycle (IGCC)) with air-cooled and steam-cooled gas turbine blades involve use of General Electric
Frame 7F (commercial) and Frame 7H (near-commercial) gas turbines, respectively.
2. Capital charges are for an 80 % average capacity factor, a 10 % discount rate, a 25-year plant life, and an insurance rate of 0.5 %/yr, so that the annual capital charge rate is 11.5 %.
3. Coal and natural gas prices of $ 1.03/GJ and $ 3.44/GJ, respectively, the levelized average prices projected for electric generators in the United States for 2005-2030, assuming that
prices evolve, 2005-2030, at the projected rates of -0.95 %/y for coal and +1.48 %/y for natural gas, as projected by the US Energy Information Administration, from their projected
2005 price levels of $ 1.11/GJ for coal and $ 3.03/GJ for natural gas [EIA, 2000].
4. The carbon content of coal and natural gas are assumed to be 24.3 kg/GJ and 15.2 kg/GJ, respectively.
conditions. The penultimate section discusses why this that required for complete coal combustion (where the ma-
syngas-based energy strategy for coal is overwhelmingly jor products are water (H2O) and CO2 [11] instead of H2
preferable to alternative strategies for coal conversion and CO). Here the heating value[12] of the produced syn-
based on advanced conversion technologies in an environ- gas is 82.5 % of the heating value of the coal from which
mentally-constrained world. Finally, national and interna- it is derived. Notably, this so-called “cold gas efficiency”
tional collaborative strategies and policies for fostering is a net efficiency for gasification. Although making the
this approach to coal utilization in China are discussed. needed O2 from air is a very electricity-intensive process[13],
this electricity and other energy requirements of the gasifi-
4. Syngas manufacture cation process can be fully provided without burning extra
Gasification makes it possible to make use of most of the coal, by generating high-pressure steam from heat that is
energy in coal in a convenient gaseous form that has a recoverable in the gasification process[14].
wide range of potential applications, as will be shown. In
coal gasification, coal is reacted with water and an oxidant 5. Controlling environmental damage with a
– air or O2. In gasification the oxidant is used for partial syngas-based coal energy system
oxidation rather than complete combustion. As will be Coal contains many noxious contaminants. Some end up
clear below, there are great benefits to be exploited if coal as trace constituents of the syngas generated in gasifica-
is gasified not with air[6] but with O2 recovered from air tion – suspended small particles (fly ash), sulfur- and ni-
in an air liquefaction plant – typically at 95 % purity[7]. trogen-containing gaseous compounds, as well as
The product of O2-blown coal gasification is synthesis gas chlorides and other trace compounds. The rest are recov-
(henceforth called “syngas”) – a gaseous mixture made ered in ash removed from the bottom of the gasifier.
up mainly of H2 and carbon monoxide (CO). For example, Despite the nastiness of the chemical cocktail that is
when high-sulfur Appalachian bituminous coal[8] is gasi- coal, syngas-based coal energy systems can be made as
fied in the Destec gasifier (an entrained-flow gasifier[9] clean as natural gas energy systems without incurring
operated at a pressure of 25 bar and having a syngas exit large clean-up cost penalties – as will be shown by con-
temperature of 1040ºC), the overall process[10] can be sidering management issues relating to gaseous and water
summarized as [Simbeck et al., 1993]: effluents and solid wastes.
CH0.8253O0.0582S0.0166 + 0.257 H2O + 0.411 O2 → 5.1. Controlling gaseous effluents
0.630 H2 + 0.840 CO + 0.149 CO2 + 0.0112 CH4 + Removing trace gas contaminants from syngas is typi-
0.0166 H2S cally far easier than removing pollutants from stack gases.
The amount of O2 required for gasification is 1/3 of Consider first fly ash. Entrained-flow gasifiers operate at

Articles
Table 2b. Technical, economic, and environmental performance of alternative coal power plants in China
Coal steam-electric plants built in China[1] (alternative Coal IGCC plants[5]

levels of air pollution controls) (imported technology)
Only ESP ESP + dry ESP + wet ESP + wet FGD Air-cooled Steam-cooled
FGD FGD + NOx controls turbine turbine
Plant capacity (MWe) 300 300 300 300 500 400
Efficiency, LHV basis (%) 34.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 42.5 46.5
Installed capital cost ($/kWe) 600 709 764 788 1320 1091
Levelized generation cost elements (¢/kWh)
Capital charges[2] 0.99 1.16 1.26 1.29 2.17 1.79
Fixed O&M 0.26 0.34 0.41 0.41 0.28 0.30
Variable O&M 0.40 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.20 0.21

[3]
Fuel 1.16 1.20 1.20 1.20 0.95 0.87
Total levelized generation cost (¢/kWh) 2.81 3.20 3.37 3.40 3.60 3.17
SO2 emission rate (g/kWh) 10.9 4.5 1.1 1.1 0.082 0.075
NOx emission rate (g/kWh) 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.2 0.089 0.082
PM10 emission rate (g/kWh) 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.0027 0.0025
Relative air pollution damage cost[4] 77 46 29 16 1.1 1.0

(IGCC with steam-cooled turbine = 1.00)
Relative CO2 emission rate 1.37 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.09 1.00
(IGCC with steam-cooled turbine = 1.00)
Notes
1. Technical, economic, and environmental performance are from Wu et al. [2001], except that the PM10 emission rate is assumed to be 13.61 g/GJ – see Note 3, Table 1.
2. Calculated according to the procedure outlined in Note 2, Table 2a.
3. The assumed coal price is $ 1.12/GJ, the levelized average price for electric generators in China for 2005-2030, assuming that the coal price increases 0.5 %/yr, 2005-2030, from
its 2005 price level of $ 1.07/GJ, as projected in Wu et al. [2001].
4. It is assumed that the value of air pollution damage per kg for SO2, NOx, and PM10 are in the ratio 1.00:1.53:1.63 – the same as for typical European power plant sitings, as presented
in Note 1, Table 1.
5. From Table 2a and Table 1.
temperatures higher than the ash fusion temperature. Most tially harmful trace components [Simbeck et al., 1993].
of this ash is recovered as a molten slag that flows out The sulfur in the coal ends up in the syngas mainly in
of the gasifier through a taphole at the bottom of the gasi- the form of hydrogen sulfide (H2S), along with some car-
fier; slagging coal gasification processes produce little or bonyl sulfide (COS). Higher levels of sulfur removal are
no fly ash. In contrast, fly ash makes up about 80 % of practically achievable when sulfur in these forms is re-
the ash in pulverized coal boilers [Simbeck et al., 1993]. covered from syngas than is feasible with either flue-gas
This distinction gives slagging gasification processes a desulfurization (FGD) or fluidized-bed combustion (FBC)
distinct advantage, because fly ash is more difficult to strategies, and the resulting solid waste disposal chal-
handle, use, and dispose of than slag. Nevertheless, some lenges are typically more manageable (see below).
fly ash containing some unconverted carbon is produced Note that for the coal gasification example described
in gasification. In the Destec gasifier, fly ash is recovered above (coal with 3.2 % sulfur), the H2S content of the
in sintered metal filters after some cooling of the syngas raw synthesis gas is at a concentration of 10,000 ppmv.
exiting the gasifier. This fly ash is recycled back to the These sulfur-bearing gases can be effectively and effi-
gasifier for recovery of the previously unconverted carbon ciently removed from cooled syngas and converted into
and eventually removed as slag. Any residual particles elemental sulfur via processes that are well-established in
that escape filtration are recovered in a wet scrubber. the chemical process industries [Simbeck et al., 1993]. If
Some other gasifiers use cyclones and/or scrubbers for the syngas is cooled to high ambient temperatures (30-
particulate removal. 50ºC), the sulfur-bearing gas concentrations can be re-
The scrubber also removes from the syngas chlorides duced to 10-50 ppmv (more than 99.5 % removal for the
(which could otherwise corrode downstream conversion example discussed above). Cold gas (sub-ambient tem-
equipment), NH3 and hydrogen cyanide (HCN) (trace ni- perature) clean-up systems that are somewhat more capi-
trogen-bearing contaminants that would otherwise form tal-intensive can reduce sulfur levels to 1 ppmv or less[15].
NOx when the coal syngas is burned), and other poten- Removing sulfur and other pollutants from syngas is

Articles
typically much easier and less costly than removing pol- Elemental sulfur is recovered using commercial proc-
lutants from stack gases because the pollutants are highly esses for recovery of sulfurous gases from syngas (see
concentrated in small volumes, undiluted by the large above). Initially this sulfur can be sold profitably in sulfur
amounts of N2 associated with coal combustion in air. If markets. In the United States about 80 % of the 11 million
the coal described above were burned in air at atmospheric tonnes (Mt) of sulfur consumed annually is converted to
pressure, the combustion process would be represented sulfuric acid for use in manufacturing phosphate fertilizer
by[16] – the demand for which is expected to grow as world
CH0.8253O0.0582S0.0166 + 1.691 (O2 + 3.76 N2) → food demand increases. However, it is reasonable to ex-
0.413 H2O + CO2 + 0.497 O2 + 6.358 N2 + pect that eventually the world market for sulfur would
0.0166 SO2; saturate and the sulfur price would collapse if sulfur re-
the concentration of SO2 in the stack gases would be only covery from clean-up of sulfurous fossil fuel-derived
0.2 %, and its partial pressure would be only 0.002 bar. gases were to become commonplace. Under such condi-
In contrast the concentration of H2S in the 25-bar syngas tions sulfur would have to be disposed of as a solid waste.
described above is 1.0 % and its partial pressure is 0.25 However, disposing of sulfur as a solid waste would be
bar. Thus the volume for sulfur recovery from stack gases far easier and would require dealing with much less bulk
is 0.25/0.002 = 125 times as large as that required for material than disposing of wastes associated with FGD or
recovery from syngas. FBC[17].
5.2. Controlling water effluents
Water used to scrub syngas removes various organic and 6. Opportunities for providing clean energy via
inorganic compounds – including residual quantities of coal-derived syngas
coal ash. Water purification removes most of the organic Converting coal to syngas makes it possible to provide
compounds; most of the water is typically recycled, and clean energy from coal for a wide range of potential ap-
a portion (“blow-down”) is sent to disposal to prevent plications – often at higher efficiency and lower cost than
build-up of salts and other dissolved minerals that come by cleaning up conventional conversion technologies with
from the coal feed – in the same manner that blow-down complicated “end-of-pipe” emission control technologies.
is required for water circulating in cooling towers of The possibilities are illustrated by considering in turn: di-
steam-electric power plants to prevent build-up of salts rect use of town gas for cooking and heating; central-sta-
and minerals. For the Destec gasifier, scrub-water exclu- tion power generation via IGCC; large-scale IGCC-based
sive of blow-down is recycled back to the gasifier. The cogeneration; distributed, town gas-based cogeneration;
net process water effluent, usually of higher quality than and the production of clean synthetic fluid fuels.
the blow-down from cooling-towers, is often disposed of 6.1. Syngas as town gas for direct fuel applications
with slag [Simbeck et al., 1993]. Although most potential applications of syngas involve
5.3. Solid waste management its conversion to other energy carriers for use by final
For gasification systems based on entrained-flow gasifi- consumers, syngas can also be used directly – e.g., for
ers, the only solids to be disposed of are ash recovered cooking and heating. In China direct use of coal by urban
as slag from the gasifier and elemental sulfur recovered households accounted for 75 % of residential energy con-
from the H2S and COS in the syngas (see above). These sumption and 9 % of total coal consumption in 1993; 3/4
facts imply an enormous solid waste management advan- of urban households use coal for cooking and heating us-
tage for gasification systems relative to direct combustion ing individual coal stoves [Fang et al., 1998]. These are
systems. perhaps the most environmentally damaging coal-using
As noted above, nearly all the coal ash is recovered as activities in China.
a molten slag at the bottom of the gasifier, where it flows Direct use of coal for cooking and space-heating in ur-
into a water-quench bath and is typically crushed and re- ban residences might be replaced by syngas piped as
moved as a slag/water slurry. If slag is to be disposed of “town gas” to individual residences from a central coal
as a waste material (e.g., in a land-fill), a concern is that conversion facility. If this were done, the use of primary
trace contaminants (e.g., arsenic, barium, cadmium, chro- coal for these applications would be reduced by 1/4 and
mium, lead, mercury, selenium, silver) not be leached into nearly 1/5, respectively[18], while particulate and sulfur
groundwater. However, long-term leaching tests on coal emissions would be reduced to near-zero, and NOx emis-
gasification slag indicate that slag is essentially non-leach- sions would be reduced 80-85 %[19].
able [Thompson et al., 1989]. If the slag is disposed of Using coal-derived gas for such purposes is not a novel
as solid waste, it is common practice to add 20-30 % idea – neither globally nor in China. Coal gas was widely
water by weight to the solid waste for dust control and used for more than a century in Western countries before
optimum bulk density – often blow-down from the syngas natural gas became readily available. And as of 1988
scrubber (see above), which contains small amounts of China’s total coal gas consumption was 19 billion Nm3
salts and minerals recovered from the scrubbed syngas. (Gm3), 9 % of which was used by urban residents [Fang
Because slag is essentially inert, it might be feasible to et al., 1998]. But most technology in use involves pro-
use it for commercial purposes – e.g., as a synthetic ag- viding coal gas without pollution controls. The “new” idea
gregate for use in road construction and concrete and ce- is that extremely clean town gas can be provided using
ment [Simbeck et al., 1993]. modern coal gasification technology together with modern

Articles
gas clean-up technologies that are well established in the from stack gases at very low partial pressures after com-
chemical process industries. Moreover, in the next major bustion (see Box 1).
section a polygeneration strategy is outlined showing how Table 2b shows how the cost of electricity in China
clean town gas might be provided in the near term at with imported IGCC technology would compare with the
attractive fuel prices. cost of electricity from domestically produced coal steam-
6.2. Syngas for central-station power generation electric plants having alternative levels of pollution con-
Consider next central-station power generation – the ac- trol. This table shows that the imported IGCC systems
tivity that dominates coal use throughout the industrial- are much more capital-intensive than the domestic coal
ized world and is the most rapidly growing coal-using plants but that the levelized lifecycle generation cost for
activity in China. O2-blown gasification technology the IGCC plant with steam-cooled turbine blades would
makes it possible to extend to coal, via IGCC power be less than the generation cost for domestically manu-
generating technology, the economic, thermodynamic, and factured coal steam plants equipped with flue gas desul-
environmental benefits of combined-cycle power generat- furization technology – although lifecycle cost savings
ing technology, which has become the technology of would be modest.
choice for thermal power generation throughout the world If China were to adopt coal IGCC technology, it would
wherever natural gas is readily available. probably seek to maximize opportunities for domestic
Since demonstration of IGCC technology with the 94- manufacture rather than import turnkey plants. Doing so
MWe Coolwater Project in Southern California (1984– should lead to reductions in capital cost relative to im-
89), there has been much progress relating to its ported technology. Stoll and Todd [1996] estimate that
commercialisation. Table 3 lists 5 large commercial-scale because of local labor and material cost advantages, an
coal IGCC plants around the world that produce electric- IGCC plant built in China would have an installed cost
ity or electricity and steam (cogeneration), as well as 9 30 % less than for a plant built in the United States – an
other large commercial projects that involve gasification estimate that is consistent with the ratio of installed capi-
of petroleum residues to co-produce electricity with H2, tal costs for coal steam-electric plants with FGD built in
syngas, or steam[20]. If all the syngas capacity in these 14 China and the United States (compare costs for steam-
plants (9,163 MWth) were dedicated to power generation, electric plants in Tables 2a and 2b). Yang carried out a
the equivalent electric generating capacity would be about detailed analysis of an IGCC plant designed for construc-
5,500 MWe. tion in the United States and concluded that if opportu-
Table 1 shows that environmental damage costs asso- nities for Chinese manufacture of components were
ciated with measured emissions at the Buggenum coal maximized, the installed cost in China would be 47 %-
IGCC plant in the Netherlands are less than 2 % of dam- 56 % of the cost in the United States [Yang, 1995]. Ex-
age costs for average coal-fired power plants in the United perience is needed to find out actual realizable savings
States, about 10 % of damage costs for coal steam-electric with efforts to maximize Chinese content of IGCC plants.
plants equipped with best available control technologies, Also, it may be necessary to build several IGCC plants
and comparable to damage costs for natural gas combined before realizing significant advantage from local manu-
cycles (NGCCs). facture. Economic benefits of IGCC technology could
For US-built plants, the electricity cost for IGCC sys- probably be realized sooner if the technology were de-
tems currently sold is somewhat higher than for coal ployed initially, not in stand-alone power plant applica-
steam-electric plants (compare Frame 7F IGCC and tions, but in applications involving the cogeneration of
steam-electric plant costs in Table 2a) when credit is not steam and electricity (see next sub-section) or in polygen-
taken for environmental benefits (which would probably eration applications (see next section).
tip the balance decisively in favour of IGCC – see Table 6.3. Syngas for cogeneration at large industrial plants
1). New turbine technology just now coming into the mar- O2-blown coal gasification probably has a better chance
ket, based on use of steam-cooled turbine blades (Frame of being launched in the market via applications other
7H technology), could tip the balance slightly in favour than power-only – for example, in cogeneration where
of IGCC even without environmental credits (see Table heat for industrial process use is provided as a co-product
2a). However, a shift from steam-electric to IGCC tech- of electricity. Table 4a llustrates the advantages offered
nology would be motivated to a large extent by the cost- by syngas- (IGCC-) based cogeneration. For this system,
effectiveness of the latter in achieving extraordinarily low fuel requirements are reduced 1/5 and and the net elec-
levels of air pollutant emissions. tricity generation cost is reduced 1/4 relative to electricity
IGCC technology also offers a much less costly route and steam production in separate facilities. Of course, co-
for achieving, via fossil fuel decarbonization and CO2 se- generation strategies can also be pursued with conven-
questration in geological reservoirs (see Section 9), deep tional steam turbine technology. However, as illustrated
reductions in CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants by the calculation in Table 4b for the same levels of elec-
than is feasible with coal steam-electric plants. The lower tricity and process steam generation as in the IGCC
cost arises because with gasification the CO2 can be re- case[21], the fuel savings rate (5 %) and the reduction in
moved before combustion at much higher CO2 partial the net cost of electricity (9 %) are far less than for the
pressures and thus much lower cost than is feasible with IGCC case. Moreover, a comparison of Tables 4a and 4b
coal steam-electric plants, where CO2 must be recovered shows that although there is little difference in efficiency

Articles
Box 1. Decarbonization/sequestration costs for alternative coal power-generating technologies

The cost of fuel decarbonization plus CO2 disposal in a geological reservoir is made up of costs for:
• separating out a relatively pure stream of CO2 from the fossil energy system;
• compressing CO2 to a dense (supercritical) state for pipeline transport to the disposal site;
• the CO2 pipeline and associated rights of way; and
• the wells for injecting the CO2 into disposal reservoirs and associated surface facilities.
Most decarbonization studies have focused on recovering CO2 from stack gases of fossil-fuel power plants.
Costs for separation and disposal are dominated by the cost of separating out the CO2 from flue gases – which
is high because the CO2 concentration is low. To see this, note that coal combustion in air for a steam-electric
power plant (with 6 % O2 in the stack) can be represented as:
CH0.91O0.11 + 1.67 (O2 + 3.76 N2) → CO2 + 0.455 H2O + 6.28 N2 + 0.50 O2.
For this system the CO2 makes up 12 % of the stack gas, and the CO2 partial pressure is 0.12 bar. At such
low CO2 partial pressure, CO2 is typically absorbed by reacting with amines (chemical solvents) to form a
weakly-bonded intermediate compound that is heated to recover the CO2 stream and regenerate the original
solvent. If CO2 were recovered from flue gases of a supercritical steam plant, the generation cost would be
60 % (2.0 ¢/kWh) higher than the cost (3.3 ¢/kWh) without CO2 recovery (for US conditions – see Table 8.9
in [Williams, 2000]).
The concentration of CO2 in the stack gases can be increased by burning coal in O2 instead of air and recycling
CO2 back to the combustor – thereby greatly increasing the CO2 partial pressure. But this approach requires
a large and costly air separation plant for O2 manufacture, so that the cost penalty for CO2 removal is not
reduced (for US conditions – see Table 8.9 in [Williams, 2000]).
An inherently superior approach to CO2 removal in power generation involves removing the CO2 not from
“flue gases” of a steam-electric plant but instead from the H2-rich “fuel gas” of a coal IGCC plant (see, for
example, Chiesa and Consonni [1998] and Table 5). The process begins with O2-blown gasification (requiring
only 1/3 as much O2 as for complete combustion) at high temperature and pressure (e.g., 1330ºC and 60 bar):
CH0.91O0.11 + 0.468 O2 + 0.465 H2O → 0.84 CO + 0.16 CO2 + 0.57 H2 + 0.35 H2O
The syngas so produced is cooled to about 350ºC and reacted with steam in a pair of water-gas-shift (WGS)
reactors[31]. The sum of gasification plus WGS reactions can be written as:
CH0.91O0.11 + 0.468 O2 + (0.465 + 1.050) H2O → 0.04 CO + 0.96 CO2 + 1.37 H2 + 0.60 H2O.
The shifted syngas is then cooled to 25ºC and cleaned of impurities, the H2O is condensed out, and the syngas
is sent to a CO2 separation unit – where the CO2 at 40 % concentration and 20-bar partial pressure is recovered
and made ready for disposal. (At such high partial pressures, a physical solvent such as Selexol (dimethyl ether
or polyethylene glycol) is used for CO2 removal, for which costs are less than with amines.) The H2-rich
syngas is then burned in a combined-cycle power plant. With near-commercial technology the cost penalty for
CO2 separation and disposal is less than 1 ¢/kWh – see Table 5.
and cost for IGCC and ultra-supercritical steam turbine offered by IGCC and other high electricity-to-heat ratio
technologies in producing electricity only, IGCC technol- technologies [Williams, 1978].
ogy is a markedly better performer in cogeneration appli- 6.4. Syngas as town gas for distributed cogeneration
cations. The IGCC cogeneration systems described above are suit-
Large industrial firms in China’s rapidly growing basic able for very large plants that produce steam at rates ∼400
materials processing industries (e.g., basic chemicals, pe- MWth or more than 600 tph (tonnes of steam/hour). There
troleum refining), which tend to have high process heat are some sites in China that could host such large facili-
demands, represent attractive markets for IGCC cogenera- ties. But typical coal-fired industrial boilers in China are
tion technologies. much smaller. In 1990 medium- and small-scale boilers
Cogeneration technologies such as gas turbines, com- (defined as producing less than 65 tph) consumed over
bined cycles, and reciprocating engines that are charac- 350 Mt of coal (35 % of total coal use). There are about
terized by high electricity-to-heat output ratios tend to 500,000 industrial boilers in China, over half of which
offer much better economic performance than steam tur- have capacities in the range 1 to 4 tph; the average boiler
bines, which have low characteristic electricity/heat out- capacity is 2.3 tph or 1.5 MWth [GEF, 1996].
put ratios (see Figure 1). When such technologies are Many of the heat loads now served by such small boil-
sized to satisfy the on-site heat demand (often the most ers in small factories, commercial buildings, and apart-
attractive configuration) they typically produce more elec- ment buildings would be good candidates for clean, town
tricity than can be consumed on site. A public policy that gas-based cogeneration technologies having power output
makes competitive electricity prices available to these capacities at scales ranging from less than 100 kWe to a
producers for the electricity they wish to sell into elec- few MW. As in the case of coal-derived town gas targeting
tric grids is key to unlocking the cogeneration potential cooking and heating markets discussed above, the basic

Articles
Table 3. Large commercial gasification projects with electricity as product or co-product
Location Plant owner Technology Syngas out Feedstock(s) Product(s) Start-up

(MWth) year
Spain Repsol and Iberola Texaco 1,543 Vacuum residues Electricity 2004
Italy SARLUX srl Texaco 995 Visbreaker residues Electricity, H2 2000
Italy ISAB Energy Texaco 916 ROSE asphalt Electricity, H2 1999
France Total France, EdF, and Texaco Texaco 835 Fuel oil Electricity, H2 2003
Netherlands Shell Nederland Raffinaderij BV Shell 594 Visbreaker residues Electricity, H2 1997
Czech Republic SUV and EGT Lurgi Dry Ash 593 Coal Electricity, steam 1996
United States Public Service of Indiana Destec 551 Bituminous Coal Electricity 1995
Spain Elcogas SA PRENFLO 548 Coal, petcoke Electricity 1997
United States Motiva Enterprises LLC Texaco 520 Fluid petcoke Electricity, steam 1999
Italy API Raffineria di Ancona S.p.A. Texaco 463 Visbreaker residues Electricity 1999
Netherlands Demkolec BV Shell 435 Bituminous Coal Electricity 1994
United States Tampa Electric Company Texaco 424 Coal Electricity 1996
United States Exxon USA Inc. Texaco 407 Petcoke Electricity, syngas 2000
Singapore Esso Singapore Pty. Ltd. Texaco 339 Residual oil Electricity, H2 2000
Source: Simbeck and Johnson [1999].
idea would be to pipe syngas produced from coal in large natural gas applications the low cost and high efficiencies
centralized facilities to distributed cogeneration facilities of these engines, with much less de-rating. Recent ad-
that might be located up to 30 km from the syngas pro- vances have reduced liquid-spark requirements for dual-
duction facility. Both reciprocating engines and micro-tur- fuel engines to 1 % of system fuel requirements for larger
bines show promise as near-term technologies for town engines. Such engine generator sets are commercially
gas-based cogeneration at such scales and are discussed available at scales of 1-16 MWe with efficiencies of 39-
here. In the future fuel cells offer promise for such dis- 42 %.
tributed cogeneration applications; these are discussed be- Air pollutant emissions, especially NOx, are a concern.
low in the section dealing with H2 technologies. Most lean-burning, spark-ignited natural gas engines and
6.5. Cogeneration using reciprocating engines micro-liquid-spark, dual-fuel engines can achieve NOx
From June 1997 through May 1998, world-wide sales emission of 1.4 g/kWh (100 ppmv at 15 % O2), which is
of reciprocating engines for stationary power markets comparable to the emission rate for central-station coal
totalled about 5,100 units (9.6 GWe of total capacity) – steam-electric plants equipped with NOx emission con-
a five-fold gain from 10 years earlier [Wadman, 1998]. trols but 15-20 times the emission rate for coal IGCC
Although most units use oil, 13 % use natural gas or will plants (see Table 2b). Some vendors now offer systems
be capable of using dual fuels. with half this level of emissions but at an energy effi-
Reciprocating engines can be used for cogeneration by ciency penalty of about 1 percentage point. Air emission
recovering both high-quality heat from engine exhaust and concerns with town gas firing would be similar to those
low-quality heat from engine jacket-cooling water. Like for reciprocating engines operated on natural gas, except
gas turbines and combined cycles, reciprocating engines that NOx emissions might be higher because of higher
are attractive for such applications because of their high adiabatic flame temperatures.
electricity-to-heat output ratios (see Figure 1). Such sys- 6.6. Cogeneration using microturbines
tems designed to satisfy the on-site heat load often pro- The microturbine is a gas turbine just entering the market
duce more electricity than is needed on-site, so that the for applications at scales in the range 25 to 500 kWe. The
key to economic success is often being able to sell excess system involves a low-pressure ratio (3 to 4) gas turbine
power into the electric grid at competitive electricity and compressor mounted on a single shaft[22]. The most
prices. promising models have variable speed generators (the out-
For spark-ignited engines, operation on natural gas or put of which is rectified and converted electronically to
town gas involves significant de-rating. Compression-ig- the AC line frequency), no gear-box, air bearings and thus
nition engines can also be converted to gas, either by add- no need for the lubricating oil that traditional bearings
ing a spark plug or by using a liquid spark (a small would require, and only one moving part. Turbine blades
amount of diesel fuel) for ignition. The latter approach is are not cooled, turbine inlet temperatures are modest
preferable with regard to both first cost and efficiency. (840ºC), but engine speeds are high – 80,000 rpm or
Compression-ignition engines with liquid sparks bring to more. Conversion efficiencies with natural gas-fuelling

Articles
Figure 1. Output ratios of power (kWe) to heat (kWth) for alternative cogeneration technologies.
The figures are for systems producing 10 bar steam. All steam turbines are back-pressure steam turbines with no steam condenser. BPST = back-pressure
steam turbine; MT = micro-turbine; Ind. GT = industrial gas turbine; HRSG = heat recovery steam generator; Aero. GT = aeroderivative gas turbine; RE
= reciprocating engine; FC = fuel cell; Adv. FC = advanced fuel cell.
Source: Simbeck [1999].
are 25 % at full power output – far less than for large producing clean synthetic fuels from coal. Per capita use
reciprocating engines but comparable to reciprocating en- of oil for transportation in China is 4 % of the industri-
gine-generator set efficiencies at scales of tens of kWe. alized-country average and 18 % of the world average
Efficiency falls off at part load – to 75 % of the efficiency [EIA, 2001]. Its low dependence on oil and correspond-
at full output when output falls to a third of the peak level ingly low level of oil-based transportation infrastructure
[Campanari, 1999]. Although electric efficiencies are not development combined with rapid demand growth for
especially high, promoters project that it will do well in transportation services make China a good candidate
emerging highly competitive distributed power markets country for evolving relatively quickly a transportation
[Craig, 1997]. The technology offers four attractive fea- system compatible with the environmental demands of the
tures: potentially low capital costs in mass production, 21st century.
because of the simple design; low maintenance costs Synthetic fuel manufacture from coal via syngas offers
(probably considerably lower than for reciprocating en- good prospects for addressing air pollution and climate
gines, because of the low combustion temperature and the change concerns. And if synthetic fuels are produced via
simple design’s expected higher reliability); suitability for polygeneration strategies, as discussed in the next section,
cogeneration, because all waste heat is of high quality, in there are also good prospects that coal-derived synfuels
the form of hot (230-270ºC) turbine exhaust gas; and the can be provided at attractive costs.
possibility of low NOx emission levels without stack gas What synthetic fuels should be emphasized? Methanol
controls[23]. (MeOH), dimethyl ether (DME), synthetic middle distil-
lates (SMD) produced via the Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) proc-
7. Clean synthetic fluid fuels from coal ess, and hydrogen (H2) are all examples of clean synthetic
Rapid growth in demand for and import of oil in China fuels that can be derived from coal via syngas. Here em-
(see Box 2) plus energy supply insecurity concerns about phasis is given to H2 and DME as leading candidate en-
becoming overly dependent on energy imports suggest ergy carriers that offer good prospects for addressing
that attention be given to making synthetic fluid fuels environmental challenges. The outlooks for MeOH and
from China’s abundant coal resources – especially fuels SMDs are briefly summarized in Boxes 3 and 4.
for transportation and cooking that will be compatible 7.1. Using and making hydrogen manufactured from
with growing environmental concerns. coal-derived syngas
China is well positioned to become a world leader in Dealing effectively with both climate change and air

Articles
that respect its physical and chemical properties (see Box

Box 2. Liquid fuel demand and supply in China
4).
During 1990-1999 oil consumption in China grew Fuel cell technology is approaching commercial readi-
6.8 %/y, compared to 1.9 %/y for total primary en- ness for both mobile [Ogden et al., 2001] and stationary
ergy. Moreover, during 1999-2020 oil consumption power and cogeneration applications [Kreutz and Ogden,
is projected to grow 4.3 %/y overall and 6.7 %/y 2000]. Fuel-cell buses will soon be commercialized in
for transportation applications [EIA, 2001]. The various countries, and a race is under way among all the
demand for LPG, the clean cooking fuel of choice world’s major auto-makers to commercialize fuel-cell
wherever it is available and affordable, has been cars.
growing even more rapidly, at 21.9 %/year, 1990- H2 is the preferred energy carrier for FCVs. Com-
2000, and future LPG demand growth is likely to pressed gaseous storage is the only technically viable on-
be substantial[24]. board H2 storage technology at present, which poses a
But domestic oil production grew only 1.5 %/y challenge because compressed gaseous H2 storage sys-
during 1990-1999, and in 1994 China became a net tems have only 1/10 the volumetric storage density of
oil importer. By 1999 imports accounted for 20 % gasoline. But fuel-cell cars can be made much more fuel-
and 45 % of total oil and LPG consumption, re- efficient than today’s typical ICE cars [Ogden et al., 1998;
spectively. One projection is that oil production 1999], and fuel-efficient cars can be designed to provide
will peak at a level slightly higher than at present adequate range between refuelings without compromising
during 2010-2020 [Wu et al., 2001]; the US Energy passenger or trunk (storage) space[28].
Information Administration projects that China’s Because a H2 supply infrastructure for transportation is
oil production will decline slowly between now not in place anywhere in the world, some auto-makers
and 2020 [EIA, 2001]. and their suppliers are pursuing market-launching FCV-
fueling strategies based on MeOH and gasoline as energy-
carriers delivered to the car[29] – despite the fact that H2
pollution challenges without abandoning coal and other FCVs would be less costly to own and operate than either
fossil fuels requires that H2 be introduced as a major en- MeOH or gasoline FCVs [Ogden et al., 1998; 1999;
ergy carrier [Williams, 1998; 2000]. 2001].
The climate-change mitigation attractions of H2 are Currently, fuel-cell cars are much more expensive than
that, by converting a fossil fuel to H2: (1) much of the today’s cars. However, inherent materials and fabrication
chemical energy in coal can be recovered without releas- costs are not high for the currently favored proton ex-
ing CO2 to the atmosphere if the CO2 co-product of H2 change membrane (PEM) fuel cell, for which large reduc-
manufacture[25] is stored – e.g., in deep geological formations in cost are expected as a result of production at large
tions (see Section 10, “Outlook for disposal of CO2”, be- scales and learning-by-doing (experience) effects, as well
low), and (2) the cost penalty associated with disposal of as continuing incremental technological improvements.
the CO2 co-product of H2 manufacture is relatively modest. Ogden et al. [2001] estimate that with manufacture in
Considerations of health damage costs from automotive large factories (300,000 vehicles/year), costs for H2 PEM
air pollution also provide compelling motivation for fuel-cell cars could fall to market-clearing levels[30] by
evolving to automotive fuel and engine technologies char- the time 1-2 million fuel-cell cars have been produced –
acterized by zero or near-zero pollutant emissions. Studies sometime near the middle of the next decade. They argue
carried out under the ExternE Programme show that that the build-up of cumulative production to the levels
health damage costs associated with operating gasoline needed to “buy down” the technology cost should be car-
and diesel cars in Europe are comparable to or greater ried out in centrally-refueled fleet markets with H2 fueling
than direct fuel costs [Williams, 2000] – similar to the – avoiding altogether the more technically challenging
situation presented in Table 1 for steam-electric power and more costly market-launching based on MeOH or
plants. Recent analyses extending the ExternE findings to gasoline FCVs.
urban areas of the United States show that even for ad- H2 production technology is well established worldwide
vanced liquid-fueled internal combustion engine vehicles for applications in the chemical process and petroleum
(ICEVs) equipped with high levels of pollution controls, refinery industries. Where natural gas is readily available,
health damage costs would still be comparable to direct it tends to be the preferred feedstock for H2 manufacture.
fuel costs [Ogden et al., 2001]. Such high levels of dam- Because its natural gas resources are scant, China is one
age costs from air pollution are what China could look of the few countries where modern coal gasification tech-
forward to if it were to retrace the path of Western coun- nologies are instead used to make H2, mostly as an inter-
tries in expanding its road transportation system. mediate product in NH3 manufacture.
The goal of zero emissions in transportation could be The manufacture of H2 from coal using commercial or
satisfied if H2 fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) could be brought near-commercial technology is essentially the same as the
into widespread use, because H2, the natural fuel for fuel process described in Box 1 for decarbonization of coal
cells, generates only water as a by-product of energy con- for IGCC power applications – except that at the final
version. Although H2 is often perceived as a dangerous stage following CO2 removal, the H2-rich gas is purified
fuel, it can be used safely if procedures are developed (up to 99.999 % purity) in a pressure swing adsorption

Articles
Box 3. Methanol from coal via syngas

Methanol (MeOH) is a high-octane fuel that can replace gasoline in spark-ignited internal combustion engine
vehicles (ICEVs). From the perspective of the ICEV owner, the main drawback of MeOH is its low volumetric
energy density (half that of gasoline) – so that either larger fuel tanks or more frequent refueling would be
required than with gasoline.
MeOH has attractive features relating to use in fuel-cell vehicles (FCVs). It is relatively easily reformed on
board vehicles into a H2-rich gas that fuel cells can use [Steinbugler and Williams, 1998], and, being a liquid,
it is much easier and less costly to store than H2. Moreover, its use in FCVs would lead to marked improvements
in fuel economy and large reductions in air-pollutant emissions relative to use in ICEVs. Several auto manu-
facturers have plans to launch FCVs in the market using MeOH as fuel.
To date MeOH’s role in automotive transport has been mainly in manufacturing MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl
ether, an oxygenate additive to gasoline intended to reduce emissions while ensuring high octane rating), which
is derived from MeOH by dehydration, although modest amounts of MeOH have also been used directly in
blends with gasoline for cars in some regions.
MeOH can be produced from any carbonaceous feedstock via processes that begin with syngas production –
for example, from natural gas via steam reforming or from coal via O2-blown gasification or from biomass
via steam gasification [Williams et al., 1995]. At present nearly all MeOH is produced from low-cost natural
gas resources at remote sites.
Although MeOH use in ICEVs can lead to reduced oil dependence, its use offers little or no air-quality ad-
vantages relative to reformulated gasolines [Calvert et al., 1993]: CO emissions would be reduced and emissions
of volatile organic compounds would be less problematic than for gasoline, but NOx emissions would probably
not be reduced.
If MeOH were to become widely used as an energy carrier for transportation, a concern is its toxicity via direct
ingestion, absorption through the skin, or ingestion as a result of drinking methanol-contaminated groundwa-
ter[26]. Detailed risk assessments indicate that toxicity is not likely to be a significant concern in routine use,
although it might be problematic for accidents involving large spills [HEI, 1987]. In the case of groundwater
contamination, risks are generally much less than for MTBE, because in most situations MeOH would degrade
quickly. However, oil companies – having been burned by recent decisions to ban MTBE after having made
enormous MTBE production investments and concerned about liability issues relating to MeOH’s toxicity –
might be reluctant to make major investments in MeOH, especially if there are promising non-toxic, clean
alternative fuels.
(PSA) unit instead of burned in a combined-cycle power with CO2 sequestration, because the added capital costs
plant. for CO2 separation and compression to make the CO2 dis-
Making H2 from coal is more capital-intensive than mak- posal-ready are offset by capital cost savings from not
ing H2 from natural gas, but coal is typically a less costly having to convert the H2S recovered from syngas into ele-
feedstock. With current natural gas and coal prices in the mental sulfur. Under these circumstances the cost of H2
United States, H2 derived from natural gas is less costly than production increases about 20% relative to the CO2 vent-
H2 from coal, but natural gas prices are expected to rise ing case, to $ 6.7/GJ, which is equivalent, in terms of
slowly and coal prices are expected to fall slowly, so that energy content, to 22 ¢//liter (¢/l) of gasoline. For com-
by 2020 coal-based H2 is likely to be less costly, based on parison, the average U.S. wholesale (refinery gate) gaso-
near-commercial technology [Williams, 2001]. line price was 23 ¢/l in 2000. However, the cost to
Table 5 presents performance and cost estimates (as- consumers includes not just manufacturing costs but also
suming an appropriate Chinese coal price) for gasifica- costs for distribution to refueling stations and for refueling
tion-based systems that produce from high-sulfur coal, stations. The total consumer cost in this example is 51 ¢/l
using the near-commercial technology shown in Figure of gasoline-equivalent energy [Williams, 2001] – com-
2[32], both electricity and H2 plus an electricity by-product. pared to an average U.S. retail gasoline price (excluding
Calculations are presented both for the case where the retail taxes) in that year of 30 ¢/l. This high retail H2 cost
separated CO2 is vented and for the case where the CO2 is not a “show-stopper”, however, because H2 fuel cell
is sequestered in a geological reservoir. The calculations cars would typically be 2-3 times as energy-efficient as
presented for the CO2 sequestration cases are for co-se- typical internal combustion engine cars in use today [Ste-
questration of the H2S recovered from the syngas along inbugler and Williams, 1998], so that the fuel cost per km
with the CO2 – thereby obviating investments in convert- would be less than with today’s typical cars.
ing the H2S to elemental sulfur, as assumed for the CO2 The cost penalty estimated for CO2 disposal in Table 5
venting cases. It is uncertain at present whether this co- is for a case where the CO2 is transported about 100 km
sequestration strategy is viable, but if it is, the result is a from the coal conversion site and disposed of in a geo-
net near-zero capital cost increment for H2 production logical formation (e.g., deep saline aquifer) where there

Articles
tions, many private companies around the world are put-

Box 4. Synthetic middle distillates
ting huge investments into fuel cell and H2 technologies
from coal via syngas
– in effect betting that the H2 fuel cell has a promising
Synthetic middle distillates (SMDs) are straight- future.
chain hydrocarbon fuels (paraffins and olefins) Stationary applications of H2 are likely to come well
produced via the Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) process. before mobile applications and would be especially im-
The F-T process begins with the production of syn- portant in China in the light of the environmental urgency
gas from a carbonaceous feedstock – e.g., from of replacing direct burning of coal in buildings for heating
natural gas via steam reforming or partial oxidation and cooking with the burning of clean alternative fuels.
or from coal via O2-blown gasification or from The option of using coal-derived syngas as town gas for
biomass via steam gasification. these purposes was discussed earlier. Shifting from town
SMDs are good fuels to use in compression-igni- gas (typically 35-40 % H2) to H2 (with essentially the
tion engines, in part because of their high cetane same pipeline infrastructure) for heating and cooking ap-
numbers[27]. Moreover, they contain no sulfur, ben- plications would eliminate the risk of CO poisoning as-
zene, or other aromatic compounds. Measurements sociated with accidental town gas leaks. Moreover, H2
have shown 13-37 % reductions in particulate could be used for space-heating with essentially 100 %
emissions and 6-28 % reductions in NOx emissions efficient catalytic combustors that can be vented directly
relative to diesel fuel [Sirman et al., 1998; into the heating space and generate essentially no NOx
Schaberg et al., 1997; Norton et al., 1998]. Even [Ogden and Williams, 1989].
greater reductions would be likely if the engines Also, distributed cogeneration at scales of 50-500 kWe
were optimized for use with these fuels, including is likely to be an early market opportunity for H2 PEM
exhaust gas after-treatment as well as engine modi- fuel cells – because for this application fuel cell costs
fications. have to fall to market clearing levels of hundreds of dol-
The well-established F-T technology for making lars per kWe [Kreutz and Ogden, 2000], compared to
SMDs can be used with either natural gas or coal much less than $ 100/kWe for automotive applications
as feedstock. Near-term activities will be focussed [Ogden et al., 2001]. PEM fuel cells offer major advan-
mainly on use of low-cost supplies of natural gas. tages over the internal combustion engine and microtur-
Despite high production costs, Shell’s small, natu- bine distributed cogeneration options discussed earlier. In
ral-gas-based Malaysian SMD plant (producing contrast to the high NOx emission levels of internal com-
1700 t per day) has made money by selling SMDs bustion engine systems, PEM fuel-cell cogeneration units
for making blends with ordinary diesel fuel to en- would be pollution-free. And H2 PEM fuel-cell units
able compression-ignition engines to meet the would have electric conversion efficiencies roughly dou-
tough air pollution standards in California and by ble the efficiencies of microturbines [Kreutz and Ogden,
selling high-value co-products (for example, 2000].
waxes) in niche markets. Efforts to reduce costs Most of the technology cost buy-down for H2 fuel cells
will involve building larger plants. For example, will probably take place in industrialized countries during
Exxon is considering building a large (13,500- the coming 10-15 years. Nevertheless, there is much that
27,000 t a day) SMD plant with Qatar as a strategy China and other developing countries might do to prepare
for developing that country’s vast low-cost gas for the prospect that at some time during 2010-2020 H2
supplies [Fritsch, 1996; Corzine, 1997]. Reducing fuel cells might be ready for widespread deployment
costs will also involve pursuing polygeneration worldwide. In particular, China might consider pursuing
strategies (see Section 8, “Polygeneration strategies collaborative R&D and demonstration projects on tech-
for syngas energy”, below). nologies that are likely to be especially important to
China. Consider, for example, that whereas the automo-
bile is the focus of H2 FCV development in the industri-
are no benefits from CO2 disposal other than for clmate alized countries, the dominant modes of transportation in
change mitigation [Williams, 2001]. This cost penalty China and other developing countries are instead small
might be reduced or even eliminated if there were oppor- passenger vehicles (e.g., two- and three-wheeled vehi-
tunities for using the separated CO2 for enhanced oil or cles), buses, trucks, and locomotives – the mix of which
coal bed methane recovery (see Section 9, “Outlook for varies markedly from region to region. All of these, as
disposal of CO2” below). well as cars, would have to become foci of serious inter-
Next-generation technology based on advanced inor- national collaborative developmental efforts during the
ganic membrane reactors for co-producing H2 and elect- next 10-15 years in order to provide a basis for technolo-
ricity might lead to lower costs for making H2 from coal gies characterized by near-zero emissions subsequently
[Williams, 2001]. playing major roles in the transport sectors of China and
7.2. The transition to fuel cell vehicles and H2 as an other developing countries.
energy carrier Also, advanced H2 production technologies might be
Although there is much uncertainty relating to the future exploited well in advance of the introduction of H2 as an
of H2 fuel cells for both mobile and stationary applica- energy carrier – for example, in industrial process markets

Articles
where demand levels are low and demand profiles are

Box 5. Hydrogen safety
peaky (non-diversified).
Hydrogen is widely perceived to be an unsafe fuel, For rural areas, which characteristically have low popu-
because it burns or detonates over a wider range lation densities, an easily storable carbon-based fluid fuel
of mixtures with air than other fuels, and very little will probably be needed – even in the long term. But if
energy is required to ignite H2 mixed with the a new carbon-based fuel is to be introduced, it should
minimum amount of air needed to completely burn probably be far cleaner than today’s hydrocarbon-based
it. Although H2 is flammable in air over a wide liquid fuels, derivable from a wide variety of primary
range of mixtures, when used in unconfined spaces feedstocks, and useful in many applications.
(as will be typical in transport applications), the The only way a carbon-based fuel can be made climate-
lower limits for flammability and detonability mat- change neutral is if it is derived from biomass that is
ter most. In this regard, H2 is comparable to or grown on a sustainable basis[33]. However, where biomass
better than gasoline. Gasoline and natural gas can supplies are unavailable or inadequate to meet needs or
also be easily ignited with low-energy ignition too costly, wide use of modern carbon-based fossil energy
sources such as electrostatic discharges – like those systems in rural areas would often be compatible with
that result from a person walking across a rug. climate constraints because in a climate-constrained world
Moreover, in dilute mixtures with air, the ignition there is no need to reduce CO2 emissions to zero, and
energy for H2 is essentially the same as for meth- overall energy demand levels are typically low in rural
ane. In another regard, H2 has an advantage over areas [Goldemberg, 2000][34].
gasoline: in case of a leak in an unconfined space, A strong candidate for becoming “the 3rd major energy
H2 will disperse quickly in the air because of its carrier for the 21st century” is dimethyl ether (DME), a
buoyancy, whereas gasoline will puddle. sulfur-free oxygenated synthetic fuel (CH3OCH3) that is
An important safety issue for H2 is leaks – preven- super-clean and can be manufactured from any carbona-
tion, detection, and management, particularly in ceous feedstock. Although it has the same atomic compo-
confined spaces. Areas where H2 is stored and dis- sition as ethanol (C2H5OH), DME is a gas at ambient
pensed have to be well ventilated; this means pro- conditions, whereas ethanol is liquid, but DME can be
viding vents at the highest points in ceilings. stored as a liquid in mildly pressurized canisters like those
Considering all these issues, a major study of H2 used for LPG[35].
safety [Ringland, 1994] concluded “... H2 can be Currently produced at a rate of 150,000 t a year, DME
handled safely, if its unique properties – sometimes is used primarily as a propellant in aerosol spray cans[36],
better, sometimes worse, and sometimes just dif- but it is a versatile fuel – well-suited to cooking, transport,
ferent from other fuels – are respected.” and power generation. Several large corporations are con-
sidering DME production/marketing – e.g., Haldor-Topsoe
(Denmark), BP (UK), Air Products (US), and NKK (Ja-
such as NH3 manufacture (especially important in China) pan). Moreover, DME production technology using natu-
that require H2 as an intermediate product. China might ral gas as feedstock is commercially ready.
consider pursuing collaborative R&D and demonstration DME for cooking. About 2 billion people worldwide do
projects with industrialized country partners aimed at not have access to clean cooking fuels and suffer from
bringing advanced coal-based H2-making technologies to horrendous air pollution associated with using biomass
market. and coal for cooking, as well as endure much drudgery if
7.3. Dimethyl ether – the third major energy carrier biomass is used for cooking.
for the 21st century? LPG is the preferred clean cooking fuel where available
The energy system in the long term should involve use and affordable. But, as noted earlier, domestic supplies
of no more than the minimum number of new energy car- are inadequate to meet demand in China and imports are
riers required to satisfy human needs because of the large growing rapidly.
infrastructure investments required to support each addi- Researchers at the Institute of Coal Chemistry of the
tional new energy carrier. Chinese Academy of Sciences are investigating prospects
Without a major breakthrough in electric storage tech- for making DME from coal for cooking applications [Niu,
nology, at least one clean fluid fuel is needed as a com- 2000]. For such applications DME’s combustion proper-
plement to electricity. As argued above, environmental ties are similar to those of LPG, though DME combustion
constraints make H2, which is much easier to store than generates less CO and hydrocarbon air pollution and is
electricity, a strong candidate fluid energy carrier for a safer to use. An important consideration is that the infra-
society reluctant to abandon fossil fuels. Can an energy structure already established for LPG in China and other
system be designed at attractive costs on the basis of only developing countries can be adapted, essentially without
electricity and H2? For densely populated urban areas modification, to DME[37].
most energy needs could probably be satisfied with only DME as a transport fuel. Although H2 fuel cells offer
these two energy carriers. However, the low volumetric great long-term promise for transport applications, inter-
energy density of H2 makes its storage and transport in- nal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) will dominate
frastructure costly in regions of low population density transportation for decades to come, so that China will

Articles
Table 4a. Cogeneration via coal IGCC vs. separate production of electricity and steam[1]
Separate production facilities for electricity and steam IGCC cogeneration

Rates of activity and costs [2]
plant[2]
IGCC plant Industrial boiler Total
Power generation rate (MWe) 400 - 400 400
Process steam production rate, 10–15 bar (MWth) - 400 400 400
Coal input rate (TJ/hr) 3.08 1.59 4.68 3.74
First law efficiency, LHV basis (%) 46.8 90.5 61.6 77.1
CO2 emission rate (t/hr) 274 142 416 333
Capital investment ($ 106) 453 197 650 537

6
Annual energy production cost ($ 10 /yr)
Capital 52.19 22.69 74.88 61.86
O&M (4 % of capital cost/y) 18.12 7.88 26.00 21.48
Fuel 22.44 11.57 34.01 27.21
Total annual energy cost 92.75 42.14 134.89 110.55
Specific cost of energy (¢/kWh) For power: For steam: For power:
Gross cost 3.31 1.50 - 3.94
Credit for steam co-product - - - -1.50
Net cost 3.31 1.50 - 2.44
Table 4b. Cogeneration via coal steam-electric technology vs. separate production of electricity and steam[1]
Separate production facilities for electricity and steam PC cogeneration

Rates of activity and costs [3]
plant[3]
PC power plant Industrial boiler Total
Power generation rate (MWe) 400 - 400 400
Process steam production rate, 10–15 bar (MWth) - 400 400 400
Coal input rate (TJ/hr) 3.27 1.59 4.86 4.51
First law efficiency, LHV basis (%) 44.0 90.5 59.2 63.9
CO2 emission rate (t/hr) 291 142 433 402
Capital investment ($ 106) 453 197 650 612

6
Annual energy production cost ($ 10 /yr)
Capital 52.19 22.69 74.88 70.50
O&M (4 % of capital cost/yr) 18.12 7.88 26.00 24.48
Fuel 23.77 11.57 35.34 32.82
Total annual energy cost 94.08 42.14 136.22 127.8
Specific cost of energy (¢/kWh) For power: For steam: For power:
Gross cost 3.36 1.50 - 4.56
Credit for steam coproduct - - - - 1.50
Net cost 3.36 1.50 - 3.06

Source: Williams [2000]
Notes
1. Based on calculations by Dale Simbeck, SFA Pacific. Engineering/contingencies and general facilities are each 10 % of process capital equipment costs; the annual capital charge
rate is 11.5 %; the coal price is $ 1.04/GJ; the annual average capacity factor is 80 %.
2. The IGCC in both the stand-alone power plant and the cogeneration plant involves a Destec O2-blown coal gasifier coupled to the combined cycle with steam-cooled gas turbine
blades analyzed in Table 2a.
3. The stand-alone PC power plant is an ultra-supercritical unit; the cogeneration plant is a sub-critical unit.

Articles
Table 5. Electricity and H2 production from coal using near-commercial technologies[1]
Electricity only[2] with CO2: H2 + electricity co-product[3] with CO2:

vented sequestered vented sequestered
Coal input rate (MWth) 876 1014 1723 1723
CO2 emission rate 191 gC/kWh 16 gC/kWh 36.9 kgC/GJ H2 2.7 kgC/GJ H2
CO2 disposal rate (tCO2/hr) - 307.8 - 523.2
H2 output rate (MWth) - - 1019.3 1015.6
Electric power balance (MWe)
Gas turbine output 314.7 335.1 0.0 74.4
Steam turbine output 172.2 170.9 154.4 109.5
Syngas expander output 14.1 28.7 31.4 30.7
Air separation unit + O2 compression -42.9 -49.2 -83.5 -83.5
Gasification auxiliaries -8.8 -10.1 -17.2 -17.2
CO2 compression (→ 150-bar) - -25.7 - -43.6
Purge compressor for PSA unit - - - -10.2
N2 compressor -32.3 -27.2 - -
Other auxiliaries - 6.9 - 7.9 -8.2 -6.9
Net power output 410.1 414.6 76.8 53.2
[4] 46.8 40.9 63.6 62.0
1st law efficiency (η1st) (%)
[4] - - 65.4 63.1
Eff. efficiency (ηeff) of H2 production (%)
Plant capacity factor (%) 80 80 80 80
6 [5]
Installed capital cost ($ 10 ) 601.0 667.7 793.2 794.2
Energy production cost by component Electricity cost (¢/kWh) H2 cost ($/GJ)
Capital (ACCR = 11.5 %)[6] 2.41 2.65 3.55 3.57
O&M (4 % of “overnight” capital/year) 0.72 0.79 1.06 1.06
Coal input (@ $ 1.12/GJ) 0.86 0.99 1.89 1.90
CO2 disposal (@ $ 5/tCO2) - 0.37 - 0.72
Electricity co-product credit - - -20.93×PE -14.56×PE
(PE = electricity price in $/kWh)
Total cost with zero carbon tax (CT)[7] 3.99 4.80 5.66 6.67
Total cost with CT = $ 30.4/tC[7] 4.57 4.85 6.67 6.67
Notes
1. Energy balances and material flows were calculated using GS power generation/chemical process software developed at the Dipartimento di Energetica, Politecnico di Milano, Milan,
Italy [Chiesa et al., 2002]. Based on a Texaco O2-blown gasifier with quench (@ 120 bar, 1327ºC). CO2 recovery cases involve CO2 compression to 150 bar for disposal. The disposal
cost (for pipelines, disposal wells, and surface facilities) is assumed to be $5/tCO2.
2. Without CO2 separation/recovery: an IGCC plant with a steam-cooled gas turbine; a glycol solvent removes H2S, which is converted to elemental sulfur. With CO2 separation/recovery:
the same IGCC unit except that shift reactors are added where steam reacts with CO to form CO2 and H2, and Selexol (a glycol solvent) is used to remove simultaneously from the
shifted synthesis gas H2S and CO2 for co-disposal.
3. Without CO2 separation/recovery: gasifier plus shift reactors; a glycol solvent removes H2S, which is converted to elemental sulfur; a pressure-swing-adsorption (PSA) unit separates
out H2; a steam turbine is fueled by PSA purge gas. With CO2 separation/recovery: Selexol is used to remove simultaneously H2S and CO2 from the shifted synthesis gas for
co-disposal; a PSA purge gas compressor compresses the purge gas for combined-cycle use.
4. η1st = (electricity + H2 output)/(coal input); ηeff = (H2 output)/(coal input – coal saved).
5. Includes costs for CO2 separation and compression and interest during construction (assuming a 10 % interest rate, a 4-year construction period).
6. The annual capital charge rate (ACCR) for: a 10 % discount rate, a 25-year plant life, a 0.5 %/y insurance rate.
7. In H2 production cases, the electricity co-product value is the lesser of the costs for making electricity only.
need new ICEV fuel options even if H2 turns out to be 2000; Ogden et al., 2001], so that there is a pressing need
destined to be the transport fuel of choice for the long for cleaner fuels (as well as cleaner engines).
term. DME is well suited[39] for use in compression-ignition en-
Compression-ignition (diesel-type) engine vehicles are gines – offering high cetane number and potentially low
more important in China’s transport sector than in the emissions without tailpipe emission controls. Because it has
United States, where spark-ignited engines dominate[38]. no carbon-carbon bonds, soot emissions from its combustion
Although compression-ignition engines are ∼25 % more are zero; also, NOx emissions can be much less than with
fuel-efficient, air pollution damage costs are far greater, ordinary diesel fuel. Truck engine emissions tests show that
especially from particulate and NOx emissions [Williams, NOx and particle emissions are down 55-60 % and

Articles
Table 6. Alternative coal-based power systems[1]: mine-mouth and near-market options
Combined-cycle[2], coal-derived DME Coal steam-electric[3]
Installed capacity (MWe) 400 300
Installed capital cost ($/kWe) 445 788
Efficiency, LHV basis (%) 60 33

[4]
Total coal consumed (g/kWh) 449 522
[4]
Fuel transported (g/kWh) 211 522
Generation cost (¢/kWh)
Capital[5] 0.585/CF 1.036/CF
Fixed O&M 0.184/CF 0.328/CF
Variable O&M 0.15 0.50

[6]
Fuel (@ mine-mouth prices) 3.13 0.84
Total generation, mine-mouth 3.28 + 0.769/CF 1.34 + 1.364/CF
Fuel transport (2000 km) 0.28[7] 1.22[8]
Total generation near market 3.56 + 0.769/CF 2.56 + 1.364/CF
Generation cost @ CF = 0.595 4.85 4.85

Notes
1. For coal with a heating value of 20.9 MJ/kg and a coal mine-mouth price of $ 0.77/GJ
2. The combined cycle with steam-cooled turbine blades described in Table 2a.
3. The coal steam-electric plant described in Table 2b equipped with ESP, wet FGD, and NOx controls.
4. Per kWh generated, 6.0 MJ or (@ 28.4 MJ/kg) 211 g of DME is needed. It is assumed that the DME is manufactured from coal using the NKK liquid-phase reactor technology (64 %
conversion efficiency) [Adachi et al., 2000], so that the coal input is 9.375 MJ or 449 g/kWh.
5. The annual capital charge rate is 11.5 %. Here CF is the average capacity factor.
6. The DME production cost at a mine-mouth plant producing 910,000 t/yr from coal @ $ 0.77/GJ = $ 5.21/GJ [Adachi et al., 2000].
7. The cost of transporting MeOH by pipeline (1.22 m diameter) at 103×106 t/y is estimated to be $ 6.11/1000tkm (based on optimization to yield @ 15 % internal rate of return) [Kler
et al., 1998] or $ 4.83/1000-km/m3 (for MeOH with a density of 0.791 t/m3). For the same pressure drop per unit of pipeline, the volumetric flow rate for DME, QDME =
QMeOH×(ñMeOH/ñDME)(1/2), where QMeOH = the volumetric flow rate for MeOH, ñMeOH = the mass density of MeOH, and ñDME = the mass density of DME = 0.668 t/m3, so that QDME
= 1.088×QMeOH, and accordingly the DME transport cost = 4.83/1.088 = $ 4.44/1000-km/m3 = $ 6.65/1000 tkm or (since the energy density of DME is 19 GJ/m3), the cost of
transporting DME 2000 km = $ 0.47/GJ.
8. Losses in washing and transporting coal are assumed to be 3 % and the cost of transporting coal by rail is assumed to be $ 11.3/1000tkm, so that the rail transport cost for coal
with a heating value of 20.9 GJ/t is $ 1.11/GJ.
75 %[40], respectively, relative to diesel fuel [Fleisch and tories and transporting it to distant markets for use in
Meurer, 1995]. power generation would help mitigate the coal/rail bottle-
The need for pressurized canisters makes the infrastruc- neck problem that is impeding expanded coal use in
ture challenge greater than for fuels that are liquid at at- China. DME used in a state-of-the-art (60 % efficient)
mospheric pressure, but this should be much less a combined cycle would require only 40 % as much fuel
problem in developing countries (where well-established mass per kWh as a new coal steam-electric plant, and the
LPG infrastructures[41] can be adapted to DME) than in cost per tonne-kilometre (tkm) of transporting DME by
industrialized countries (where LPG infrstructures are large pipeline would be about 60 % as much as for trans-
relatively poorly developed). porting coal by rail, so that the cost of fuel transport per
In the longer term, if FCVs eventually come to domi- kWh would be less than 1/4 as much as for a coal steam-
nate transportation, DME would remain an attractive en- electric plant. This advantage together with the much
ergy carrier for transportation in rural areas where it is lower capital cost for the DME power plant implies that
not practical to establish infrastructure for H 2 (the a DME power plant located 2000 km from the coal mine
preferred energy carrier for FCVs) – because DME is eas- could compete on a lifecycle cost basis with a conven-
ily reformed on board FCVs into a H2-rich gas the fuel tional coal plant at the same site if the average plant ca-
cell can use[42]. pacity factor were 60 % or less without taking any credit
DME for central-station power generation. Use of DME for the environmental benefits of this strategy, even
in modern gas-turbine combined cycles for central-station though at the fuel production site the DME would be al-
power generation is proven technology, for which emis- most 4 times as costly as the coal from which it is derived
sions are as low as for natural gas combined cycles [Basu (see Table 6)! Thus, the DME power option could make
et al., 2001]. remote coal resources much more accessible than at
Moreover, making DME at large coal mine-mouth fac- present, while at the same time enhancing the economic

Articles
Table 7. Economics of polygeneration vs. single product energy production strategies based on coal[1]
Production capacity Total cost (¢/kWh) charged to

(MW)
Heat Electricity Methanol Town gas
Single-product facilities
Process heat 400 1.50
Electricity 400 3.31
Methanol 400 2.71
Town gas 400 1.73
Single-product cost (in “natural” units) $ 4.17/GJ 3.31 ¢/kWh 12 ¢/l $ 4.81/GJ
Polygeneration facilities
Cogeneration 400 + 400 1.50 2.40
Trigeneration 400 + 400 + 400 1.50 2.40 1.55
Quadrigeneration 400 + 400 + 400 + 400 1.50 2.40 1.55 0.93
Cost via polygeneration (in “natural” units) $ 4.17/GJ 2.40 ¢/kWh 7 ¢/l $ 2.58/GJ
Source: Williams [2000]
Note
1. The cogeneration calculations are the same as in Table 4a. The trigeneration and quadrigeneration calculations were developed by Robert Moore (formerly Air Products), building on
the analysis in Table 4a, assuming Air Products’ liquid-phase reactor for MeOH production. Engineering contingencies and general facilities are each 10 % of process capital equipment
costs; the annual capital charge rate is 11.5 %; the coal price is $ 1.04/GJ; the annual average capacity factor is 80 %.
development of the coal-producing region by generating Gas Authority of India, and the Indian Institute of Petro-
far more value added than if coal were simply extracted leum, with the goal of developing, producing, and mar-
and transported to remote markets. keting in India DME derived via Haldor Topsoe
Finally, this DME power option offers greenhouse gas technology from low-cost Middle East natural gas, focus-
mitigation as well as air pollution mitigation benefits, being initially on power markets. In China, a project has
cause the primary coal requirements per kWh of electric- been proposed for building a large coal-to-DME produc-
ity generated from DME are about 1/6 less than for the tion facility in Ningxia Province (800,000 t/y capacity)
coal steam-electric option; the energy losses in DME that would use Shell gasification technology and liquid-
manufacture are more than compensated for by the higher phase DME synthesis technology from Air Products, with
efficiency of power plant conversion (see Table 6). significant investment from a Canadian company.
DME manufacture. Today, DME is produced by catalytic
dehydration of MeOH and is thus more costly than 8. Polygeneration strategies for syngas energy
MeOH. However, an advanced single-step process devel- Just as cogeneration can lead to improved economics rela-
oped by Haldor Topsoe would make it possible to make tive to production of electricity and process steam in sepa-
DME from natural gas at higher efficiency and less cost rate facilities (see Table 4a), so can synthetic fuel
than for MeOH. Haldor Topsoe and BP have estimated production economics be improved by polygeneration –
that if DME were produced in large plants in areas with including as co-products various combinations of electric-
low-cost natural gas, it could be produced at costs not ity, steam, town gas, and chemicals [Williams, 2000; Ni
much higher than comparable diesel prices, taking into et al., 2001].
account the environmental benefits of DME [Hansen et The polygeneration concept is illustrated here by dis-
al., 1995]. cussing synthetic fuel manufacture using new liquid phase
The Haldor Topsoe technology is based on use of gas- reactors in polygeneration configurations.
phase reactors for converting syngas to DME. Both Air As already noted, O2-blown gasification to produce
Products [Peng et al., 1997; 1998] and the NKK Corpo- syngas is the most important single enabling technology
ration [Adachi et al., 2000] are developing DME produc- that can make it possible for China to continue to exploit
tion technology based on the use of liquid-phase its vast coal resources with low (and ultimately near-zero)
reactors[43] that produce DME in a single step with more air emissions. Another important enabling technology is
efficient heat removal than is feasible with gas-phase re- liquid-phase reactor technology for producing clean syn-
actors – especially important for DME in the light of the thetic fuels. This technology is currently commercially
fact that all the major reactions in DME manufacture are available for producing both MeOH and SMDs from coal.
exothermic. As shown below, these reactors offer great Liquid-phase technology for making DME from coal can
promise in “polygeneration” configurations. be commercialized soon, because the same reactor already
In 1998 the India DME Project was launched as a col- developed for MeOH manufacture can be adapted to DME
laboration involving BP, the Indian Oil Corporation, the manufacture. Costs for MeOH produced in liquid-phase

Articles
reactors via once-through processes have been extensively demand is associated with much smaller-scale installa-
analysed [Drown et al., 1997], and the technology is rela- tions. However, to the extent that niche market opportu-
tively well developed[44]. nities exist at all they might be exploited early on as an
No technological breakthroughs are required to launch economically attractive option for launching coal syngas-
polygeneration strategies in the market. There are oppor- burning combined-cycle technology in China’s energy
tunities today for providing clean energy via polygenera- sector.
tion at costs that are competitive with conventional Polygeneration facilities that include town gas as a co-
energy. product could probably do more to reduce urban air pol-
Liquid-phase reactors are especially well suited for lution than any other energy strategy China might pursue
polygeneration applications. Because heat generated in in the near term. In the longer term, the major co-products
exothermic reactions of synthetic fuel manufacture can be of polygeneration facilities would be one or more carb-
effectively removed from these reactors, high conversions on-based liquid fuels (e.g., DME), hydrogen, and electric-
can be realized in a single pass of syngas through the ity. Because of the attractive economics offered and the
reactors, often making it attractive to limit conversion to prospective large market opportunities, polygeneration
what can be realized in a single pass. In such “once- could plausibly become the principal means of electricity
through” processes, the unconverted syngas might be generation from coal in the longer term – a prospect sug-
burned in a combined cycle to generate electricity or de- gesting that the chemical process industry (where gasifi-
livered via pipeline as town gas to distributed users. cation technology in China is already well established)
Polygeneration strategies based on use of liquid-phase might become the center of gravity for large-scale thermal
reactors in once-through configurations can lead to cost power generation in China in the future.
savings relative to single-product strategies both by means The main barriers to adoption of the polygeneration op-
of scale economies and by exploitation of potential syn- tion appear to be institutional rather than technological:
ergisms – notably, avoiding capital investments associated because the most economically attractive options will
with syngas recycling to improve conversion. often involve making electricity as a co-product at rates
Particularly important will be polygeneration configu- in excess of on-site electricity needs, economic viability
rations that include electricity as a major co-product. will often depend on the ability of the polygenerator to
Combined-cycle electricity from coal-derived syngas sell the electricity co-product into the electricity grid at
(which, as noted earlier, can be provided as cleanly as a fair market price. Reforms to promote more competition
electricity generated in natural gas combined cycles) will in power markets will be helpful in nurturing polygenera-
be less costly when generated in polygeneration configu- tion and thus the launching of syngas-based synthetic fuel
rations than in power-only configurations – and can com- technology in the market.
pete today with electricity derived from conventional coal
steam-electric plants equipped with end-of-pipe air pollu- 9. Outlook for CO2 disposal
tion control equipment. Moreover, the non-integrated Conventional wisdom is that effectively addressing the
gasifier/combined-cycle designs offering these economic climate change challenge requires abandoning fossil fuels.
benefits from polygeneration would be less complicated This is not so. As shown above, feasible technologies and
and more reliable than highly integrated IGCC designs strategies exist that make it possible to extract most of
that produce electricity only. the energy contained in fossil fuels while simultaneously
To illustrate polygeneration based on coal-derived syn- recovering the carbon as CO2 and preventing its release
gas, Table 7[45] presents calculations for product costs as- to the atmosphere. Moreover, as shown above, there are
sociated with various levels of polygeneration. advanced fossil energy technologies that can be brought
• The first option (400 MW of heat + 400 MW of elec- to market over the next decade or so that offer near-zero
tricity) presented summarizes the cogeneration calcu- emissions of air pollutants as well as near-zero green-
lations presented in Table 4a. house gas emissions – and such technologies could pro-
• In the second option, 400 MW of MeOH is added to vide energy services while incurring only modest
the first option, leading to a 43 % reduction in pro- increases in energy costs for CO2 disposal.
duction cost relative to producing only MeOH; the But what are the prospects for safe disposal of CO2?
resulting production cost (1.55 ¢/kWh or $ 4.3/GJ) is The options include CO2 storage in both the deep ocean
less than the average US refinery gate (wholesale, un- and porous geological media. Although ocean disposal has
taxed) gasoline price in 1999 ($ 5.3/GJ). received the most attention, environmental concerns and
• The third option adds 400 MW of town gas to the other large uncertainties in its prospects have led to a shift
second option, leading to a 46 % reduction in produc- of focus in recent years to geological (underground) stor-
tion cost relative to producing only town gas; the re- age of CO2 – in depleted oil and natural gas fields (in-
sulting production cost (0.93 ¢/kWh or $ 2.6/GJ) is cluding storage in conjunction with enhanced oil and
less than the average US city-gate price of natural gas natural gas recovery), in uneconomic (e.g., deep) coal
in 1999 ($ 3.2/GJ). beds (in conjunction with enhanced coal bed methane
The polygeneration market opportunities involving large- (CBM) recovery), and in deep saline aquifers [Williams,
scale applications of process steam are limited in 2000; Bachu, 2001].
China[46], where, as noted earlier, most of the process heat CO2 injection for enhanced recovery of oil [Blunt et

Articles
Figure 2. Hydrogen and co-product electricity generation from coal with near-zero emissions.
This is a schematic representation of the process described in the text. Performance and cost estimates are presented in Table 5.
Source: Chiesa et al. [2002]
al., 1993], natural gas [van der Burgt et al., 1992; Blok mostly used for EOR. However, recent analysis suggests
et al., 1997], and coal bed methane [Byrer and Guthrie, that for oil prices of about $ 20 per barrel (1 barrel =
1999; Gunter et al., 1997; Stevens et al., 1999; Williams, 136.4 kg), recovery of CO2 from flue gases of coal power
1999] might become profitable foci of initial efforts to plants and use for EOR in the region would often be prof-
sequester CO2. itable [Edwards, 2000]. It follows that EOR in the region
There are about 74 enhanced oil recovery (EOR) pro- based on CO2 recovered from syngas would typically be
jects worldwide, mostly (66) in the United States, where even more profitable, because separation of CO2 from
in 2000 oil production via EOR reached 29,500 t per day syngas would be less costly. Indeed, one project launched
(4 % of total US oil production), a by-product of which in 2000 involves transporting for EOR applications by-
is the sequestration of 30 Mt of CO2 annually. Most of the product CO2 from a North Dakota (United States) plant
injected CO2 comes from natural reservoirs of CO2 [47], but making synthetic natural gas (from coal) to the Weyburn
5 Mt per year comes from anthropogenic waste CO2 oil field in Saskatchewan (Canada); the 300 km pipeline
sources [Stevens et al.(b), 2000]. carries 1.5 Mt of CO2 annually to this EOR site in the
In western Canada, where natural reservoirs of CO2 are Williston Basin. This analysis and experience suggest that
not available, natural gas rather than CO2 injection is CO2 EOR projects be considered in China for appropriate

Articles
mature oil fields even where natural reservoirs of CO2 are million km2 (two-thirds onshore and one-third offshore)
not available, if economic conditions favor locating coal – more than half the 130 million km2 land area of the
syngas projects within a few hundred km of prospective inhabited continents. Some sedimentary basins offer better
EOR sites. prospects for CO2 storage than others [Hitchon et al.,
Perhaps more important to China is the potential use 1999; Bachu and Gunter, 1999; Bachu, 2001]. To achieve
of CO2 for enhanced recovery of methane from beds of high storage densities, CO2 should be stored at supercriti-
unminable coal. Large amounts of methane are trapped in cal pressures[50], which typically requires storage at depths
the pore spaces of many coals, and, as noted earlier, CBM greater than 800 m[51]. The aquifers at such depths are
resources in China are substantial. Injection of CO2 into typically saline[52] and not effectively connected to the
such coals can sometimes lead to efficient methane re- much shallower (depths less than ∼300 m) freshwater
covery because typically CO2 is twice as adsorbing on aquifers used by people.
coal as is CH4; it can therefore efficiently displace the Up until a few years ago it was generally thought that
CH4 adsorbed on the coal [Gunter et al., 1997]. As CO2 closed aquifers with structural traps would be required for
moves through the reservoir it displaces CH4; the limited effective storage. The potential global sequestering capac-
experience to date indicates that very little of the injected ity in such traps is relatively limited – about 50 GtC [Hen-
CO2 shows up in the production well until most of the driks, 1994], equivalent to less than 10 years of global
CH4 has been produced [Gunter et al., 1997], so that the CO2 production from burning fossil fuel at the current
prospects for permanent sequestration of the injected CO2 rate. However, a growing body of knowledge [Bachu et
appear to be good. Of course, CO2 sequestration in the al., 1994; Holloway, 1996] indicates that many large, re-
coal bed would prevent subsequent mining of the coal. gional-scale open aquifers with good top seals (very low-
However, deep or otherwise unminable coal beds for permeability layers) can provide effective storage, if the
which coal-mining is uneconomic might prove to be at- CO2 is injected sufficiently far from aquifer boundaries
tractive for CBM recovery and CO2 sequestration, and that it either never reaches the boundaries, or if it does,
large amounts of the coal in the ground are unminable[48]. the leakage rate would be sufficiently slow as to be of
Williams [1999] proposed that China consider siting new little consequence with regard to climate change, because
plants for making NH 3 from coal at promising CBM of the extraordinarily slow rates of CO2 migration in such
recovery sites, using the CO2 co-product of NH3 manu- reservoirs (typically of the order of 1 cm/y) – a phenome-
facture for enhanced CBM recovery. Another possibility non called “hydrodynamic trapping” of CO2 [Bachu et al.,
would be to site plants for making DME from coal at 1994]. For large aquifers, the CO2 will eventually dissolve
promising CBM recovery sites, using the CO2 co-product in the water (“dissolution trapping” of CO2). For sand-
of DME manufacture for enhanced CBM recovery[49]. The stone reservoirs containing certain clay minerals (but not
Ordos Basin, China’s largest coal basin, seems to offer carbonate reservoirs), the CO2 will, after dissolving in the
reasonably good prospects for using CO2 for enhanced water, eventually precipitate out as a carbonate mineral
CBM recovery; reservoir characteristics there are very (“mineral trapping” of CO2) [Gunter et al., 1993].
similar to those of the San Juan Basin of the United States If structural traps are not required for effective storage,
[Stevens, 2001], where since 1996 an independent CBM potential aquifer storage capacity might be huge; esti-
producer has been carrying out a commercial pilot appli- mates range from 2,700 GtC [Ormerod, 1994] to 13,000
cation of CO2 injection for enhanced CBM recovery GtC [Hendriks, 1994]. For comparison, estimated remain-
[Stevens et al.(a), 2000]. ing recoverable fossil fuel resources (excluding methane
Sequestration in depleted oil and gas fields is generally hydrates) contain 6,000-7,000 GtC [Rogner, 2000]. The
thought to be a secure option if the original reservoir pres- notion that large aquifers with good top seals can provide
sure is not exceeded [van der Burgt et al., 1992; Sum- effective sequestration is a relatively new idea that has
merfield et al., 1993]. One estimate of the prospective contributed to the growing confidence in the scientific
global sequestering capacity of such reservoirs associated community that long-term sequestration of a significant
with past production plus proven reserves plus estimated fraction of the next several hundred years of global CO2
undiscovered conventional resources is 100 and 400 GtC production from human activities might be feasible [Hol-
for oil and gas fields, respectively [Hendriks, 1994]; other loway, 1996; Socolow, 1997; PCAST Energy R&D Panel,
estimates are as low as 40 and 90 GtC for depleted oil 1997].
and gas fields, respectively, plus 20 GtC associated with There is a growing base of experience with CO2 dis-
enhanced oil recovery [IPCC, 1996]. The range is wide posal in aquifers. One large project being carried out by
because reservoir properties vary greatly in their suitabil- Statoil involves recovering the CO2 contaminant in natu-
ity for storage, and because oil and gas recovery may have ral gas from the Sleipner Vest offshore natural gas field
altered the formations and affected reservoir integrity. in Norway at a rate of 1 Mt of CO2/year and its injection
Much of the prospective sequestering capacity will not be into and sequestration in a nearby aquifer under the North
available until these fields are nearly depleted of oil and Sea [Kaarstad, 1992]. Another large aquifer disposal pro-
gas. ject that will commence in 10 years will involve recovery
Deep saline aquifers are much more widely available of more than 100 Mt/year (equivalent to 0.5 % of total
than oil or gas fields. Such aquifers are present in all global emissions from fossil fuel-burning) from the
sedimentary basins, the total area of which amounts to 70 Natuna natural gas field in the South China Sea (71 %

Articles
of the reservoir gas is CO2) [IEA, 1996]. analogy, like shifting from manual typewriters to laptop
There is also a rapidly growing number of smaller acid personal computers. Just as it makes no sense to limit
gas disposal projects. In Alberta[53] there are 31 such pro- laptop computer use to word processing, it makes no sense
jects[54] that involve recovery of CO2 along with H2S from to limit O2-blown gasification technology to power gen-
natural gas fields and injection of these acid gases (char- eration via IGCC – rather this technology should be used
acterized by a wide range of relative concentrations) un- for polygeneration as suggested in this paper.
derground for storage, in aquifers as well as in depleted Likewise, an alternative to syngas-based synthetic fuels
oil and gas fields. Underground disposal of CO2/H2S is (often referred to as “indirect liquefaction”) is direct coal
pursued in these projects as a less costly strategy for re- liquefaction, which involves adding H2 to coal in a solvent
sponding to sulfur air emission regulations than the alter- slurry at elevated temperatures and pressures. Direct
native of recovering H2S from the natural gas and liquefaction was commercialized in Germany and Japan
converting it to elemental sulfur [Longworth et al., 1996; to provide liquid fuels during World War II. Although in-
Wichert and Royan, 1997]. terest in the technology virtually disappeared when low-
The long history of experience with EOR, the growing cost Middle Eastern oil became available in the 1950s,
body of experience with aquifer disposal, and extensive interest was revived during the oil crises of the 1970s,
historical experience with underground gas storage are when several pilot and demonstration projects were car-
contributing to the growing scientific confidence in the ried out. Interest almost disappeared again with the col-
reliability of geological media for storing CO2. However, lapse of the world oil price in the mid-1980s. Today the
more research, field testing, modeling, and monitoring are technology is again being considered as an option for
needed to narrow the uncertainties relating to CO2 storage making synthetic fuels in natural-gas-poor regions such
in geological media. as China. However, the introduction of aromatic-rich fuels
Regulations that have been evolving for underground that are derived via direct liquefaction would represent a
gas storage provide a good basis for defining the issues step backwards for environmental management, because
associated with formulating regulations for CO2 storage new environmental regulations aim to propel a shift to
[Gunter et al., 1999]. Public acceptability issues are para- inherently cleaner fuels – for example, recent US regula-
mount. Fuel decarbonisation with CO2 sequestration is un- tions limit aromatic content of transport fuels [Williams,
familiar to most people as a strategy for dealing with the 2000]. A review of direct coal liquefaction technology by
climate change challenge. The scientific community has a panel convened by US President Clinton to advise him
a major responsibility to inform the public debates on the on energy research and development needs for addressing
various issues relating to safety and environmental im- the 21st-century challenges posed by conventional energy
pacts. Much can be learned from both natural events [Hol- [PCAST Energy R&D Panel, 1997] found that the tech-
loway, 1997] and from the extensive historical experience nology offered no advantages relative to indirect liquefac-
with use of CO2 injection for enhanced oil recovery and tion, would lead to liquid fuels that generate twice as
with underground gas storage [Gunter et al., 1999]. But much CO2 as petroleum-based fuels, and (in contrast to
more research is needed to clarify the issues. syngas-based strategies that can evolve to where H2 is a
major energy-carrier with low-cost sequestration of the
10. Alternatives to syngas energy for coal in China separated CO2) would provide no obvious path to achiev-
A coal energy strategy based on syngas and polygenera- ing deep reductions in CO2 emissions over the longer
tion has been proposed for China. To be sure, there are term. Because of such considerations, the panel recom-
many other advanced coal technologies that could be pur- mended that the US Department of Energy terminate fed-
sued as well – but all come up short against syngas/poly- eral research and development funding for direct coal
generation in their prospects for addressing the multiple liquefaction and shift the freed-up resources to support
environmental challenges of the 21st century while simul- research and development on syngas-based technologies
taneously keeping clean energy affordable [Williams, that are consistent with a technological evolution over the
2000]. longer term to near-zero emissions for fossil fuels.
Consider that ultra-supercritical steam (USCS), pressur-
ized fluidized-bed combustion (PFBC), and air-blown 11. Conclusion
IGCC options are all major advanced power generating A syngas/polygeneration strategy for coal could put China
technologies that, like O2-blown IGCC, offer with current on an evolutionary path to a future in which coal energy
technology efficiencies in excess of 40 % – compared to systems could one day be characterized by near-zero emis-
the current average efficiency of ∼30 % for China today. sions of both air pollutants and greenhouse gases. Under
But none of these alternative options can offer the envi- this strategy coal could be made as clean as natural gas
ronmental benefits and flexibility inherent in the syn- in terms of air pollution with technologies that could be
gas/polygeneration strategy [Williams, 2000]. Shifting deployed cost-effectively in the near term. And making
from present coal steam-electric plants to coal-based syngas/polygeneration the cornerstone of this strategy
USCS, PFBC, or air-blown IGCC technologies can be lik- would facilitate a shift over the longer term to an energy
ened to shifting from manual typewriters to alternative system based primarily on H2, electricity, and at least one
variants of electric typewriters. But shifting to syn- clean high hydrogen/carbon ratio synthetic fuel such as
gas/polygeneration based on O2–blown gasification is, by DME – with most of the carbon in the coal feedstock

Articles
recovered as CO2 and sequestered in appropriate geologi- R. Dodge Foundation, the Energy Foundation, the W. Alton Jones Foundation, and the
David and Lucile Packard Foundation for research support.
cal formations.
It has been noted that if this syngas/polygeneration ap- Notes
proach to coal were to come to dominate coal conversion, 1. Recent World Bank-sponsored research indicates that the actual reduction in China’s
the center of gravity for power generation in China might coal use since 1996 is less than reported in these statistics, and, according to a news-
shift from the power industry as it is known today to the paper account, China will revise upward its estimates for coal consumption in 1999,
wiping out half the previously reported reduction [Pomfret, 2001].
chemical process industry, which already has considerable
2. Proved reserves of coal in China amount to 166 billion tonnes (Gt) = 119 Gt of coal
experience with O2–blown gasification, the key enabling equivalent (Gtce) = 3,487 EJ = 108 years of primary energy consumption at the 2000
technology. rate of 32.3 EJ/year [Ni and Sze, 1998].
It is also noteworthy that in the world at large the pe- 3. Estimated ultimately recoverable coal resources in China amount to 960 Gt = 685 Gtce
troleum industry is already moving ahead with syn- = 20,070 EJ = 621 years of primary energy consumption at the 2000 rate [Ni and Sze,
1998].
gas/polygeneration. Simbeck and Johnson [1999] have
4. China’s CBM resources to a depth of 2000 m are estimated to be 30-35 trillion Nm3
pointed out that there are already many polygeneration (Tm3) (1,200-1,400 EJ) at depths less than 2000 m [Rice et al., 1993; Sun and Huang,
projects worldwide based on gasification of petroleum re- 1995]; another estimate [Murray, 1996] is that the upper limit of the total CBM in place
siduals at refineries that are being carried out without sub- in China is 75 Tm3 (2,700 EJ), which is less than the energy content of China’s proved
coal reserves.
sidies (see Table 3). Moreover, the co-production of clean
5. For a fixed level of pollution control technologies, health damage costs from coal (in
synthetic liquid fuels and electricity has been identified $/yr)
as an economically attractive option for exploiting remote ∝ [pollutant emission rate (t/yr)] x [specific value of pollutant emissions ($/t)]
natural gas resources if markets are available for the elec- x [density of exposed population (persons/km2)].
Very roughly:
tricity co-product [Choi et al., 1997]. • Pollutant emission rate ∝ primary coal consumption (C)
Such considerations suggest that the way forward for ∝ [gross domestic product (GDP)]α
a syngas/polygeneration strategy in China might be out- • Specific pollutant emissions value measured on basis of “willingness to pay” to avoid
health damage
side the traditional electric power industry and might in- ∝ [per capita gross domestic product (GDP/P)]
volve using petroleum residuals and remote gas as well • Population density typically ∝ [population (P)]
as coal. But because achieving attractive economics in so that health damage costs ∝ (GDP)α+1. The US Energy Information Administration
[EIA, 2001] estimates for the period 1999-2020 that GDP in China will increase 4.1-fold
polygeneration will typically involve electricity as a major
at the same time that coal consumption increases 2.4-fold, so that α = 0.587, which
co-product, public policies that encourage competition in implies that health damage costs would grow 9.4-fold in this period if pollution control
electric power generation would be needed. levels in China are not increased.
Although the syngas/polygeneration approach to coal 6. Air is 20.9 % O2, 78.1 % nitrogen (N2), and 0.9 % argon (Ar).
can be launched in the market with existing technologies, 7. This O2-rich gas also contains 3.6 % Ar and 1.4 % N2.
long-term success will require high rates of technological 8. Coal with: a LHV = 29.6 MJ per kg; sulfur, ash, and moisture content by weight of
innovation. International collaborations in research, devel- 3.2 %, 7.0 %, and 5.5 %, respectively; the distribution of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen,
and sulfur elements in a “mole” of this particular coal that can be represented heuris-
opment, and demonstration, especially via industrial joint tically by the formula CH0.8253O0.0582S0.0166.
ventures involving the oil, gas, and coal industries, would 9. In entrained-flow gasifiers finely-divided coal particles react simultaneously with an oxi-
be desirable to bring the needed innovative capacity to dant (usually O2) and steam at high temperatures (well above the temperatures at
this challenge, with governments enacting policies that which coal slagging occurs). For this type of gasifier coal residence times are very
short. The present analysis is focused on entrained-flow gasifiers.
would facilitate such private-sector-based collaborations
10. The main reactions are: (1) partial oxidation (C + 1/2 O2 → CO, a highly exothermic
[PCAST Panel on ICERD3, 1999]. reaction that provides heat for coal devolatilization and various endothermic reactions
None of this will happen as long as the environmental involved in gasification; the produced CO has 72 % of the heating value of the carbon
problems posed by coal are allowed to fester. But if gov- from which it is derived); (2) the water-gas reaction (C + H2O → CO + H2, a highly
endothermic reaction); and (3) the water-gas-shift reaction (CO + H2O → H2 + CO2,
ernments were to set tough environmental goals for coal, a mildly exothermic reaction; the H2 generated has a slightly lower heating value than
the technology community could respond by transforming the CO consumed).
coal into an environmentally attractive energy source. It 11. Burning this coal with exactly the amount of O2 needed for complete combustion can
is not unreasonable to speculate that conventional wisdom be represented as:
regarding coal, as “the dirtiest of the fossil fuels – away CH0.8253O0.0582S0.0166 + 1.194 O2 → CO2 + 0.4127 H2O + 0.0166 SO2.
from which countries evolve as they get richer”, will be 12. In this paper the energy content of fuels is presented in terms of the lower heating
value.
transformed into a view that coal offers, because of its
13. Providing the needed O2 requires nearly 350 kWh/t of O2, and the fuel-equivalent energy
abundance and low cost and the technological availability required to make this electricity amounts to almost 8.5 % of the energy content of the
of the syngas/polygeneration approach to conversion, “the coal consumed for gasification via the Destec gasifier described above [Simbeck et al.,
least costly route to near-zero emissions for energy”. 1993].
14. For the Destec gasifier, high-pressure steam with an energy content up to nearly 12.5 %
Acknowledgments
of the energy content of the coal consumed can be generated by heat recovered from
The author is indebted to his fellow members of the Working Group on Energy Strategies syngas cooling [Simbeck et al., 1993].
and Technologies of the China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and 15. Removing H2S from syngas lowers its energy value, but even so the LHV of the sul-
Development for the many discussions in recent years on syngas/polygeneration strategies fur-free syngas would be reduced only modestly (e.g., from 82.5 % to 80.8 % of the
for coal in China that helped shape the present analysis. Also, many of the ideas in this coal heating value for the example considered above).
paper were developed in conjunction with preparation by the author of the Advanced Energy
16. In this expression the amount of O2 involved is more than the stoichiometric amount.
Supply Technologies chapter of the World Energy Assessment; in conjunction with that
Typically there is 6 % O2 in combustion product gases (as is assumed here) to ensure
exercise the author is especially grateful to Dale Simbeck for cost estimates relating to
complete combustion as a response to regulations limiting CO emissions.
cogeneration and decarbonization options and to Bob Moore for cost estimates relating to
trigeneration and quadrigeneration. The author thanks Stefan Bachu, Paolo Chiesa, Tom 17. FGD strategies for sulfur removal involve reacting SO2 with limestone to produce cal-
Kreutz, and Ni Weidou for helpful comments on early drafts of this paper, and the Geraldine cium sulfate (gypsum): CaCO3 + SO2 + 1/2 O2 → CaSO4 + CO2, so that 4.25 t of

Articles
calcium sulfate are generated for each t of sulfur removed. In practice, when the calcium gasoline-equivalent fuel consumption is .022 l/km. H2 would be stored on board as a
sulfate is disposed of as a waste, the amount of sulfur-related solid waste (“sludge”) gas compressed to 345 bar in cylinders with an aggregate storage capacity of 3.75 kg
to be disposed is about 75-80 % more than this because of the presence of inerts in of H2 – providing a range of 680 km between refuelings. State-of-the-art system storage
limestone and bound and free water associated with the waste. An alternative to sludge densities for canisters (carbon-fiber-wrapped tanks with aluminum liners) are 7.5 % H2
disposal (e.g., in a land-fill) is to sell the recovered gypsum to wall-board manufacturers storage by weight, so that the loaded storage system weight is 50 kg. It is assumed
– in which case the sulfur-bearing waste volumes to be disposed of can be reduced that the H2 is stored in 3 cylindrical canisters, each of which is 103.4 cm long and has
to what is required for disposal of “off-spec” gypsum. However, under current market an outside diameter of 28.3 cm. The total storage system volume is 195 l. These
conditions the overall economics of FGD with by-product gypsum sales for wall-board cylinders might be stored in a compartment under the car’s roof – as demonstrated for
manufacture are less favorable than the overall economics of sulfurous gas removal the Daimler-Benz NECAR II fuel-cell passenger van.
from syngas with sulfur by-product sales [Simbeck et al., 1993]. 29. For MeOH or gasoline fuel-cell cars, the liquid energy carrier is converted on board the
FBC units make it possible to reduce SO2 emissions by adding limestone to the bed vehicle into a H2-rich gas that the fuel cell can utilize.
of the FBC unit – again according to the reaction: CaCO3 + SO2 + 1/2 O2 → CaSO4
+ CO2. Ideally, 1 mole of CaCO3 is needed to remove 1 mole of SO2. In practice, not 30. From ∼$ 2800/kW for automotive fuel-cell engines manufactured one at a time by hand
all the limestone is effective in removing SO2, so that the limestone added must be today to ∼$ 65/kW for mass produced fuel-cell engines that would make H2 fuel-cell
2.0-2.5 times the stoichiometric amount, so that the sulfur-related solid waste is 6 to cars competitive with gasoline hybrid electric cars [Ogden et al., 2001].
13 times the mass of sulfur removed [Simbeck et al., 1993]. With FBC technology it is 31. So called because in these reactors CO is reacted with steam (“water gas”) and the
not practical to recover gypsum, which is intimately mixed with other wastes. The large chemical energy in CO is “shifted” to H2 in the mildly exothermic WGS reaction: CO +
solid waste disposal problem posed by FBC systems limits the use of this approach H2O(g) → CO2 + H2.
mainly to low-sulfur coals and typical sulfur removal rates of no more than about 90 %. 32. The technology is described as “near-commercial” because the assumed gasifier pres-
18. For this calculation it is assumed that efficiencies are: (1) 80 % for town gas production; sure (120 bar) is higher than pressures for commercially available gasifiers. Texaco
(2) 30 % and 50 % for cooking with coal and natural gas, respectively, and 50 % and offers commercial gasifiers that operate at 70 bar and is exploring prospects for gasifiers
75 % for heating with coal stoves and new natural gas boilers, respectively [Wu et al., operated at up to 120 bar [De Puy et al., 1999].
2001]; and (3) for syngas use in gas-burning equipment, essentially the same efficien- 33. So that CO2 released in combustion is offset by that extracted from the atmosphere
cies as for natural gas.
during biomass growth.
19. According to Wu et al. [2001], NOx emission rates are 0.44 kg/GJ for coal consumed
34. Consider providing clean cooking fuel in the form of coal-derived DME to the 2 billion
in stoves and 0.11 kg/GJ for natural gas consumed in stoves and new boilers. It is people worldwide currently dependent on coal or biomass for cooking. At a clean cook-
assumed that the NOx emission rate for town gas equals that for natural gas. Taking ing fuel demand level of 2.5 GJ/y per capita [Goldemberg, 2000] some 5 EJ of DME
into account conversion efficiencies, NOx emissions would thus be reduced 85 % for would be needed, the manufacture of which from coal would generate (without seques-
cooking and 83 % for space-heating. tering the CO2 co-product of DME manufacture – see Section 9, “Outlook for CO2
20. These large syngas projects that involve electricity as a product or co-product are part disposal”) CO2 at a rate of just 0.2 GtC/yr (3 % of total global CO2 emissions from
of a recent global inventory of syngas projects compiled by Simbeck and Johnson [1999] fossil-fuel burning) – quite a modest environmental externality compared to the enor-
that involves 161 real and planned commercial-scale projects with a combined syngas mous quality-of-life benefits access to such clean cooking fuels would provide.
production capacity of 56,780 MWth.
35. At atmospheric pressure DME boils at -25ºC, so it must be stored in moderately pres-
21. For the cogeneration systems described in Tables 4a and 4b condensing and extraction surized tanks, as is the case for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), which boils at -42ºC.
turbines rather than back-pressure turbines are needed; otherwise the ratio of electricity 36. It was chosen as an ozone-layer safe alternative (it degrades quickly in the troposphere)
to heat production would be less than 1 to 1. (In condensing and extraction systems, to fluorinated hydrocarbons. It is also non-toxic and non-carcinogenic.
some of the steam is bled from the turbine at the pressure appropriate for the process,
and the rest of the steam is used to produce more power and then condensed; for the 37. Athough DME-filled canisters would be heavier (18.7 kg of DME would replace 14 kg
steam that is condensed, there is no cogeneration fuel-saving benefit.) The fraction of of LPG) and contain less energy (532 MJ of DME would replace 645 MJ of LPG).
the steam that must be condensed is much greater in the steam turbine case than in 38. In the transport sector in 1999, diesel fuel use in China was 55 % of gasoline use,
the IGCC case, because of the much lower electricity-to-heat output ratios for steam whereas in the United States diesel fuel use was only 37 % of gasoline use.
turbines compared to combined cycles (see Figure 1). 39. The volumetric energy density of liquid DME (20ºC) is 19 MJ/l compared to 16 MJ/l for
22. Because the temperature of the turbine exhaust is higher than that of the air exiting MeOH and 32 MJ/l for gasoline.
the compressor, the turbine exhaust heat is often recovered to preheat the air exiting 40. Particle emissions are not zero despite absence of carbon-carbon bonds and zero sulfur
the compressor before it is delivered to the combustor, so that moderate efficiencies content. Some particles are apparently generated from engine lubricating oil [Fleisch
are achievable despite the low pressure ratio. and Meurer, 1995].
23. Less than 0.24 g/kWh (9 ppmv at 15 % O2) for the 28-kWe Capstone Model 330 using 41. In some developing countries (e.g., Brazil), LPG is used as a fuel for taxis using the
a non-catalytic staged combustion system. same storage canisters as are used for cooking applications and involving a swapping
24. Continued rapid growth in consumption of LPG (or its market equivalent) is suggested of empty canisters for filled canisters at refueling.
by an international comparison: although total LPG consumption in China in 1999 was 42. As noted earlier, some automobile companies are considering launching fuel-cell vehi-
highest among developing countries (with a consumption rate 20 % higher than in Mex- cles in the market using either gasoline or MeOH as the energy carrier that is reformed
ico, the second highest consumer), the per capita consumption rate in China was only on board the vehicle into a H2-rich gas the fuel cell can use. MeOH is much easier to
13 g/day, compared to 42 in Thailand, 73 in Taiwan, 97 in Malaysia, and 185 in South
reform than gasoline. And DME is even easier to reform than MeOH: both DME and
Korea. Moreover, satisfying just the requirement for clean cooking fuel with LPG implies
MeOH have no carbon-carbon bonds to break, but the first step in reforming MeOH is
a per capita LPG consumption rate of about 150 g/day.
to apply heat to vaporize it – a step that is not needed for DME, a gas at atmospheric
25. The CO2 co-product of making H2 from coal can be recovered in a nearly pure stream pressure.
suitable for geological disposal. With commercially available technology, the production 43. New liquid-phase reactors that involve bubbling syngas through a column of heavy oil
from coal of H2 and co-product CO2 is carried out in a manner similar to that described in which catalysts appropriate to the desired conversion are suspended offer outstanding
in Box 5 for the process involving CO2 removal from the “fuel gas” of a coal IGCC heat removal capability in controlling highly exothermic reactions and can achieve high
power plant. But the H2 production case (unlike the IGCC case) involves using a gase- conversions in a single pass of syngas through the reactor.
ous separation technology such as pressure swing adsorption (PSA) after CO2 removal
to separate out very pure (e.g., 99.999 % pure) H2 from the H2-rich syngas, along with 44. Air Products and Eastman Chemicals tested liquid-phase MeOH production technology
burning the residual syngas (containing CO, H2, and perhaps also some CH4) to make in a process development unit at LaPorte, Texas, which was designed to produce 6.9
power in a steam turbine or combined-cycle power plant. With current technology the kl/day and which operated for 7,400 hours. Following this, a commercial-scale plant
overall efficiency of making H2 from coal is about 63 %, including the energy penalties (designed to produce 288 kl/day) went into operation in January 1997, at Kingport,
for sequestering CO2 in geological reservoirs – see Table 5. Tennessee, under the US Department of Energy’s Clean Coal Technology Program, to
demonstrate the technology during a period of 4 years of expected plant operation.
26. A liter (l) of water would contain a fatal dose if it were contaminated with 2–7 % MeOH
by weight. 45. The calculations presented in Table 7 are based on well-established cost estimates and
cost-scaling exponents for each of the many components of these systems. However,
27. High cetane number (a measure of a fuel’s ability to auto-ignite) is desirable for com- it is assumed in these calculations that each component (for example, the coal gasifier)
pression-ignition engine fuels because it shortens ignition delay, lowering premixed burn- can be built in a single train to the required capacity. The maximum sizes of single-train
ing and resultant NOx emissions and noise. High-octane fuels have low cetane numbers, components that are commercially available today are less than the capacities
and fuels with high cetane numbers have low octane ratings. associated with many of the components for the polygeneration systems presented. To
28. Ogden et al. [1998; 1999] designed a H2 fuel-cell car which, relative to today’s typical the extent that multiple trains instead of single trains would have to be used for practical
cars, would have lower aerodynamic drag, less rolling resistance, and reduced weight systems, the cost savings would be less than indicated here. But these tables illustrate
– without compromising performance and interior space requirements. Its estimated the value of evolving towards systems based on large single-train systems and thus

Articles
represent good targets for development. De Puy, R.A., and Gulko, G.M., (Texaco Power and Gasification), Brdar, D., and Anand, A.,
46. Typically polygeneration strategies that do not produce process steam as a co-product (General Electric Power Systems), and Paolino, J., (Praxair), 1999. “Lower cost of electricity
will still often make economic sense. using IGCC with GE’s 9H gas turbine”, paper presented at the 1999 Gasification Technolo-
47. Most of the EOR in the United States takes place in the Permian Basin of Texas. Most gies Conference, San Francisco, California, October.
of the CO2 for these projects is transported by pipeline from natural reservoirs of CO2 Drown, D.P., Heydorn, E.C., Moore, R.B., Schaub, E.S., Brown, D.M., Jones, W.C., and
in Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming (e.g., via an 800 km pipeline from the McElmo Kornosky, R.M., 1997. “The liquid phase methanol (LPMEOHTM) process demonstration at
Dome in western Colorado – which contains 0.5 Gt CO2). Kingsport”, paper presented at the Fifth Annual DOE Clean Coal Technology Conference,
48. For example, 90 % of the nearly 6 Tt of US coal resources deposited at depths less Tampa, Florida, 7-9 January.
than 1800 m is unminable with current technology, either because the coal is too deep, Edwards, K., 2000. “CO2 in Alberta – a vision of the future”, Journal of Canadian Petroleum
the seams are too thin, or mining would be unsafe [Byrer and Guthrie, 1998]. Technology, 39(9), pp. 48-53.
49. In the manufacture of DME from coal about 1/2 of the carbon in the coal feedstock Energy Information Administration (EIA), 1998. Electric Power Annual 1997, Volume II,
ends up at the conversion facility as a relatively pure stream of CO2. DOE/EIA-0348(97)/2, Washington, D.C., US Department of Energy.
50. The critical point for CO2 is 74 bar and 31ºC. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2000. Annual Energy Outlook 2001, with Projec-
51. Because the hydrostatic pressure gradient is typically about 100 bar per km. tions Through 2020, DOE/EIA-0383(2001), Washington, D.C., US Department of Energy.
52. Deep aquifers (∼800 m or more below the surface) tend to be saline because the Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2001. International Annual Energy Outlook 2001,
contained water is fossil water that has been there over geological time – time sufficient DOE/EIA-0484 (2001), March, Washington, DC, US Department of Energy.
for the water to come into chemical equilibrium with the minerals in the host rock. Fang Dong, Lew, D., Li Ping, Kammen, D.M., and Wilson, R., 1998. “Strategic options for
Dissolved salts typically make the water brackish and often even briny. reducing CO2 emissions in China: improving energy efficiency and using alternatives to
53. Recently an acid gas disposal project was launched in Texas [Whatley, 2000]. In this fossil fuels”, Chapter 3, pp. 119-165, in Energizing China: Reconciling Environmental Pro-
project (for which the CO2/H2S ratio in the acid gas is 2.65 by volume), CO2 is injected tection and Economic Growth, N.B. McElroy, C.P. Nielsen, and P. Lydon, (eds.), Studies of
at a rate of 6,200 t/y into an aquifer at a depth of 1700 m. Phase I of the Harvard University Committee on Environment China Project (1995-1998),
Harvard University Press, 719 pp.
54. Canadian acid gas disposal projects began in 1989; since then the number of projects
has grown rapidly: to 6 by 1995, 22 by 1998, and 31 by 2000 (private communication Fleisch, T.H., and Meurer, P.C., 1995. “DME: the Diesel fuel for the 21st Century?”, paper
from Stefan Bachu, August 2001). presented at AVL Conference on Engine and Environment 1995, Graz, Austria.
Fritsch, P., 1996. “Exxon project to expand use of natural gas, Wall Street Journal, 30
References October, p. A3.
Adachi, Y., Komoto, M., Watanabe, I., Ohno, Y., and Fujimoto, K., 2000. “Effective utilization Global Environment Facility (GEF), 1996. China: Efficient Industrial Boilers, Project Docu-
of remote coal through dimethyl ether synthesis”, Fuel, 79, pp. 229-234. ment, Report prepared by the Environment and Municipal Development Operations Division,
China and Mongolia Department, East Asia and Pacific Regional Office of the World Bank,
Bachu, S., 2001. “Geological sequestration of anthropogenic carbon dioxide: applicability Washington, DC, November.
and current issues”, pp. 285-303, in L.C. Gerhard, W.E. Harrison, and B.M. Hanson (eds.),
Geological Perspectives of Global Climate Change, AAPG Studies in Geology 47, American Goldemberg, J., 2000. “Rural energy in developing countries”, Chapter 10, pp. 367-389, in
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma. World Energy Assessment: Energy the Challenge of Sustainability, (a study sponsored jointly
by the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Department of Social
Bachu, S., and Gunter, W.D., 1999. “Storage capacity of CO2 in geological media in sedi- and Economic Affairs, and the World Energy Council), published by the Bureau for Devel-
mentary basins with application to the Alberta Basin”, pp. 195-200, in B. Eliasson, P. Riemer, opment Policy, United Nations Development Programme, New York.
and A. Wokaun, (eds.), Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies: Proceedings of the 4th
International Conference on GHG Control Technologies, Amsterdam, Pergamon, 1205 pp. Gunter, W.D., Chalaturnyk, R.J., and Scott, J.D., 1999. “Monitoring of aquifer disposal of
CO2: experience from underground gas storage and enhanced oil recovery”, pp. 151-156,
Bachu, S., Gunter, W.D., and Perkins, E.H., 1994. “Aquifer disposal of CO2: hydrodynamic in B. Eliasson, P. Riemer, and A. Wokaun, (eds.), Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies:
and mineral trapping”, Energy Conversion and Management, 35, pp. 269–79. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on GHG Control Technologies, Amsterdam,
Basu, A., Gradassi, M., Sills, R., Fleisch, T., and Puri, R., 2001. “Use of DME as a gas Pergamon, 1205 pp.
turbine fuel”, Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo 2001, New Orleans, Louisiana, 4-7 Gunter, W.D., Perkins, E.H., and McCann, T.J., 1993. “Aquifer disposal of CO2-rich gases:
June. reaction design for added capacity”, Energy Conversion and Management, 34, pp. 941–48.
Blok, K., Williams, R.H., Katofsky, R.E., and Hendriks, C.A., 1997. “Hydrogen production Gunter, W.D., Gentzig, T., Rottenfusser, B.A., and Richardson, R.J.H., 1997. “Deep coalbed
from natural gas, sequestration of recovered CO2 in depleted gas wells and enhanced methane in Alberta, Canada: a fuel resource with the potential of zero greenhouse emis-
natural gas recovery”, Energy, 22(2-3), pp. 161-168. sions”, Energy Convers. Mgmt., 38(Suppl.), S217-S222.
Blunt, M., Fayers, F.J., and Orr Jr., F.M., 1993. “Carbon dioxide in enhanced oil recovery”, Hansen, J.B., Voss, B., Joensen, F., and Siguroardottir, I.D., 1995. “Large-scale manufacture
Energy Conversion and Management, 34(9-11), pp. 1197-1204. of dimethyl ether – a new alternative Diesel fuel from natural gas”, paper presented at the
British Petroleum (BP), 2001. BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June. International Congress & Exhibition of the Society of Automotive Engineers, Detroit, Michi-
Byrer, C.W., and Guthrie, H.D., 1999. “Coal deposits: potential geological sink for seques- gan, 27 February-2 March.
tering carbon dioxide emissions from power plants”, pp. 181-187, in B. Eliasson, P. Riemer, Health Effects Institute (HEI), 1987. Automotive Methanol Vapors and Human Health, Cam-
and A. Wokaun, (eds.), Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies: Proceedings of the 4th bridge, MA.
International Conference on GHG Control Technologies, Amsterdam, Pergamon, 1205 pp. Hendriks, C.A., 1994. Carbon Dioxide Removal from Coal-Fired Power Plants, Ph.D. thesis,
Calvert, J.G., Heywood, J.B., Sawyer, R.F., and Seinfeld, J.H., 1993. “Achieving acceptable Department of Science, Technology, and Society, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Nether-
air quality: some reflections on controlling vehicle emissions”, Science, 261, pp. 37–45. lands.
Campanari, S., 1999. “Full load and part-load performance prediction for integrated SOFC Hitchon, B., Gunter, W.D., Gentzis, T., and Bailey, R., 1999. “Sedimentary basins and green-
and microturbine systems”, paper presented at International Gas Turbine and Aeroengine house gases: a serendipitous association”, Energy Conversion and Management, 40, pp.
Congress and Exhibition, 7–10 June, Indianapolis. 825-843.
Chiesa, P., and Consonni, S., 1998. “Shift reactors and physical absorption for low CO2 Holloway, S., (ed.), 1996. The Underground Storage of Carbon Dioxide, report prepared for
emission IGCCs”, paper presented at ASME Turbo Expo 98, June, Stockholm. the Joule II Programme (DG XII) of the Commission of the European Communities, Contract
Chiesa, P., Kreutz, T.G., and Williams, R.H., 2002. “Techno-economic analysis of hydrogen No. JOU2 CT92-0031, Brussels, February.
and/or electricity production from coal with near-zero pollutant and CO2 emissions using an Holloway, S., 1997. “Safety of underground disposal of carbon dioxide”, Energy Conversion
inorganic hydrogen separation membrane reactor. B: System optimization and comparative and Management, 38, pp. S241–45.
analysis”, draft manuscript, Princeton Environmental Institute, Princeton University. International Energy Agency (IEA), 1996. “CO2 capture and storage in the Natuna NG Pro-
Choi, G.N., Kramer, S.J., Tam, S.S., Fox, J.M., Carr, N.L., and Wilson, G.R., 1997. “De- ject”, Greenhouse Issues, 22, p. 1.
sign/economics of a once-through Fischer-Tropsch plant with power co-production”, paper Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 1996. “Energy supply mitigation op-
presented at the Coal Liquefaction and Solid Fuels Contractors Review Conference, Pitts- tions”, in Watson, R.T., Zinyowera, M.C., Moss, R.H., (eds.), Climate Change 1995: Impacts,
burgh, 3–4 September. Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses, second
Corzine, R., 1997. “Gas into liquid gold”, Financial Times, 4 July, p. 17. assessment report of IPCC, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Craig, P., 1997. “The Capstone turbogenerator as an alternative power source”, ASME Kaarstad, O., 1992. “Emission-free fossil energy from Norway”, Energy Conversion and
Paper 97092, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA. Management, 33(5-8), pp. 781-86.

Articles
Kler, A.M., Saneev, B.G., and Tyurina, E.A., 1998. Energy-Technology Conversion of Coal in The Future of Energy Gases, US Geological Survey Professional Paper No. 1570, US
and Natural Gas to Methanol as a Basic Technology for Long-Distance Transport from Asian Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, pp. 389-404.
Regions of Russia, a preprint of the Energy Systems Institute of the Siberian Branch of the Ringland, J.T., 1994. Safety Issues for Hydrogen-Powered Vehicles, Sandia National Labo-
Russian Academy of Sciences, Irkutsk. ratories, March.
Krewitt, W., Heck, T., Truckenmueller, A., and Friedrich, R., 1999. “Environmental damage Rogner, H.-H., 2000. “Energy resources”, Chapter 5, pp. 135-171, in World Energy Assess-
costs from fossil electricity generation in Germany and Europe”, Energy Policy, 27, pp. ment: Energy the Challenge of Sustainability, (a study sponsored jointly by the United Na-
173-83. tions Development Programme, the United Nations Department of Social and Economic
Kreutz, T.G., and Ogden, J.M., 2000. “Prospective technical and economic assessment of Affairs, and the World Energy Council), published by the Bureau for Development Policy,
natural gas-fueled, PEMFC cogeneration systems for residential applications”, Proceedings United Nations Development Programme, New York.
of the 2000 Fuel Cell Seminar, Portland, OR, October 30-November 2. Schaberg, P., et al., 1997. “Diesel exhaust emissions using Sasol slurry phase distillate
Longworth, H.L., Dunn, G.C., and Semchuck, M., 1996. “Underground disposal of acid gas fuels”, SAE Paper 972898, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA.
in Alberta, Canada: regulatory concerns and case histories, SPE 35584”, paper presented Simbeck, D.R., 1999. “Perspective on the future of distributed generation – hype or reality?”,
at the Gas Technology Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 28 April-1 May. paper presented at Energy Frontiers International Conference on Distributed Generation:
Masters, C.D., Attanasi, E.D., and Root, D.H., 1994. “World petroleum assessment and Microturbines & Fuel Cells, 4–5 May, Orcas Island, WA.
analysis”, Proceedings of the 14th World Petroleum Congress, Stavanger, Norway. Simbeck, D.R., Korens, N., Biasca, F.E., Vejtasa, S., and Dickenson, R.L., 1993. Coal Gasi-
Murray, D.K., 1996. “Coalbed methane in the USA: analogues for worldwide development”, fication Guidebook: Status, Applications, and Technologies, TR-102034, final report, pre-
in Coalbed Methane and Coal Geology, Gayer, R., and Harris, I. (eds.), Geological Society pared by SFA Pacific for the Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California,
Special Publication No. 109, pp. 1-12. December.
Ni Weidou and Sze Niendak, 1998. “Energy supply and development in China”, Chapter 2, Simbeck, D., and Johnson, H.E., (SFA Pacific), 1999. “Report on SFA Pacific gasification
pp. 67-117, in Energizing China: Reconciling Environmental Protection and Economic database and world market report”, paper presented at 1999 Gasification Technologies Con-
Growth, McElroy, N.B., Nielsen, C.P., and Lydon, P., (eds.), Studies of Phase I of the Harvard ference, 17–20 October, San Francisco, CA.
University Committee on Environment China Project (1995-1998), Harvard University Press, Sirman, M., Owens, E., and Whitney, K., 1998. “Emissions comparison of alternative fuels
719 pp. in an advanced automotive Diesel engine”, interim report TFLRF 338, prepared for the US
Ni Weidou, Li Zheng, Ma Linwei, and Zheng Hongtao, 2001. “Polygeneration energy system Department of Energy by US Army TARDEC Fuels and Lubricants Research Facility, South-
based on oxygen-blown gasification”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Power west Research Institute, San Antonio, TX.
Engineering, Xi’an, China, 8-12 October. Socolow, R.H., (ed.), 1997. Fuels Decarbonization and Carbon Sequestration, report of a
Niu Yuqin, 2000. “Dimethyl ether (DME) – clean fuel in the 21st century”, paper presented Workshop by the Members of the Report Committee, PU/CEES Report 302, Princeton Uni-
at the Workshop on Polygeneration Strategies Based on Oxygen-Blown Gasification – Stra- versity, Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, Princeton, NJ, available at
tegic Energy Thinking for the 10th 5-Year Plan, convened by the Working Group on Energy http://www.princeton.edu/∼ceesdoe
Strategies and Technologies, China Council for International Cooperation on Environment Spengler, J., and Wilson, R., 1996. “Emissions, dispersion, and concentration of particles”,
and Development, Beijing, 11-12 May. in R. Wilson and J. Spengler, (eds.), Particles in Our Air: Concentrations and Health Effects,
Norton, P., Vertin, K., Bailey, B., Clark, N.N., Lyons, D.W., Goguen, S., and Eberhardt, J., Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
1998. “Emissions from trucks using Fischer-Tropsch Diesel fuels, SAE Paper 982526”, So- Steinbugler, M.M., and Williams, R.H., 1998. “Beyond combustion. Fuel cell cars for the
ciety of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA. 21st century”, Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, 13(4), pp. 102–07.
Ogden, J.M., Kreutz, T.G., and Steinbugler, M., 1998. “Fuels for fuel cell vehicles: vehicle Stevens, S.H., Kuuskraa, V.A., Spector, D., and Riemer, P., 1999. “CO2 sequestration in
design and infrastructure issues”, Society of Automotive Engineers Technical Paper 982500, deep coal seams: pilot results and worldwide potential”, pp. 175-180, in B. Eliasson, P.
presented at the International Fall Fuels and Lubricants Meeting and Exposition, San Fran- Riemer, and A. Wokaun, (eds.), Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies: Proceedings of the
cisco, CA, 19–22 October. 4th International Conference on GHG Control Technologies, Amsterdam, Pergamon, 1205
Ogden, J.M., Steinbugler, M., and Kreutz, T., 1999. “A comparison of hydrogen, methanol pp.
and gasoline as fuels for fuel cell vehicles”, Journal of Power Sources, 79, pp. 143-168. Stevens, S.H., Kuuskraa, V.A., Spector, D., and Riemer, P., 2000. “CO2 sequestration in
Ogden, J.M., and Williams, R.H., 1989. Solar Hydrogen: Moving Beyond Fossil Fuels, World deep coal seams: pilot results and worldwide potential”, presented at the 5th International
Resources Institute, Washington, DC. Conference on GHG Control Technologies, Cairns, Australia.
Ogden, J.M., Williams, R.H., and Larson, E.D., 2001. “Toward a hydrogen-based transpor- Stevens, S.H., Kuuskraa, V.A., and Gale, J., 2000. “Sequestration of CO2 in depleted oil
tation system”, submitted to Energy Policy. and gas fields: global capacity, costs, and barriers”, pp. 278-283, in D.J. Williams, R.A.
Durie, P. McMullan, C.A.J. Paulson, and A.Y. Smith, (eds.), Greenhouse Gas Control Tech-
Ormerod, W., 1994. The Disposal of Carbon Dioxide from Fossil Fuel Power Stations, nologies: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on GHG Control Technologies
IEA/GHG/SR3, IEA Greenhouse Gas Research and Development Programme, Cheltenham, UK. (GHGT-5), Collingwood, Victoria, Australia, CSIRO Publishing, 1328 pp.
PCAST Energy R&D Panel, 1997. Federal Energy Research & Development for the Chal- Stevens, S.H., 2001. “Carbon dioxide injection for enhanced coalbed methane recovery:
lenges of the 21st Century, Report of the Energy R&D Panel, The President’s Committee San Juan Basin test results and potential for China”.
of Advisors on Science and Technology, November, available at http://www.white-
house.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/html/ISTP_Home.html. Stoll, H., and Todd, D.M., 1996. “Competitive power generation costs for IGCC”, paper
presented at EPRI Gasification Technologies Conference, 2-4 October, San Francisco, CA.
PCAST Panel on International Cooperation in ERD3, 1999. Powerful Partnerships: the Fed-
eral Energy Research & Development for the Challenges of the 21st Century, Report of the Summerfield, I.R., Goldthorpe, S.H., Williams, N., and Sheikh, A., 1993. “Costs of CO2
Panel on International Cooperation in Energy Research, Development, Demonstration, and disposal options”, in Proceedings of the International Energy Agency Carbon Dioxide Dis-
Deployment of the President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, June, posal Symposium, Amsterdam, Pergamon.
available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/html/ISTP_Home.html. Sun, M., and Huang, S., 1995. “Coalbed methane development in China”, in International
Peng, X.D., Toseland, B.A., Wang, A.W., and Parris, G.E., (Air Products and Chemicals, Unconventional Gas Symposium Proceedings, Tuscaloosa, AL, 14-20 May.
Allentown, PA), 1997. “Progress in development of PPMDE process: kinetics and catalysts”, Thompson, C.M., Achord, R.D., and Brownman, M.G., 1989. “Long-term leaching tests with
paper presented at the 1997 Coal Liquefaction & Solid Fuels Contractors Review Confer- coal gasification slag”, Report GS-6439, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA,
ence, Pittsburgh, PA, 3-4 September. July.
Peng, X.D., Toseland, B.A., and Tijm, P.J.A., (Air Products and Chemicals, Allentown, PA), Todd, D.M., and Stoll, H., 1997. “Integrated gasification combined cycle: the preferred power
1998. “Kinetic understanding of the chemical synergy under LPDMETM conditions – once- technology for a variety of applications”, paper presented at Power-Gen Europe ’97, June,
through applications”, paper presented at the 15th International Symposium on Chemical Madrid.
Reaction Engineering, Newport Beach, CA, 13-16 September. Van der Burgt, M.J., Cantle, J., and Boutkan, V.K., 1992. “Carbon dioxide disposal from
Pomfret, J., 2001. “Research casts doubt on China’s pollution claims”, Washington Post, p. coal-based IGCCs in depleted gas fields, Proceedings of the First International Conference
A16, 15 August. on Carbon Dioxide Removal (K. Blok, W. Turkenburg, C. Hendriks, and M. Steinberg, eds.),
Pope, C.A., Thun, M.J., Namboodri, M.M., Dockery, D.W., Evans, J.S., Speizer, F.E., and Energy Conversion and Management, 33(5-8), Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp. 603-610.
Heath, C.W., 1995. “Particulate air pollution as a predictor of mortality in a prospective study Wadman, B., 1998. “A very good year for power generation”, Diesel & Gas Turbine World-
of US adults”, American J. of Resp. Critical Care Med., 151, pp. 669-674. wide, pp. 46–54, October.
Rabl, A., and Spadaro, J.V., 2000. “Public health impact of air pollution and implications for Whatley, L., 2000. “Acid gas injection proves economic”, Oil and Gas Journal, pp. 58-61,
the energy system”, Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 25, pp. 601-627. 22 May.
Rice, D.D., Law, B.E., and Clayton, J.L., 1993. “Coal-bed gas – an undeveloped resource”, Wichert, E., and Royan, T., 1997. “Acid gas injection eliminates sulfur recovery expense”,

Articles
Oil and Gas Journal, pp. 67-72, 28 April. Williams, R.H., 2001. “Toward zero emissions for transportation using fossil fuels”, paper
Williams, R.H., 1978. “Industrial cogeneration”, Annual Review of Energy, 2, pp. 313–56. presented at the VIII Biennial Conference on Transportation, Energy, and Environmental
Williams, R.H., 1998. “Fuel decarbonization for fuel cell applications and sequestration of Policy, Asilomar Conference Center, Monterey, California, 11-14 September.
the separated CO2”, in R.O. Ayres (ed.), Eco-restructuring: Implications for Sustainable Williams, R.H., Larson, E.D., Katofsky, R.E., and Chen, J., 1995. “Methanol and hydrogen
Development, Tokyo, United Nations University Press. from biomass for transportation”, Energy for Sustainable Development, I(5), pp. 18–34.
Williams, R.H., 1999. “Hydrogen production from coal and coal bed methane, using by- Wilson, R., and Spengler, J., (eds.), 1996. Particles in Our Air: Concentrations and Health
product CO2 for enhanced methane recovery and sequestering the CO2 in the coal bed”, Effects, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
pp. 799-804, in B. Eliasson, P. Riemer, and A. Wokaun, (eds.), Greenhouse Gas Control World Bank, 1997. Clear Water, Blue Skies: China’s Environment in the New Century, China
Technologies: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on GHG Control Technolo- 2020 Series, Washington, DC.
gies, Amsterdam, Pergamon, 1205 pp.
Wu Zongxin, DeLaquil, P., Larson, E.D., Chen, W., and Gao, P., 2001. Implications for China
Williams, R.H., 2000. “Advanced energy supply technologies”, Chapter 8, pp. 273-329, in of Future Energy-Technology Choices, report to the Working Group on Energy Strategies
World Energy Assessment: Energy the Challenge of Sustainability, (a study sponsored jointly and Technologies of the China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and
by the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Department of Social Development, June.
and Economic Affairs, and the World Energy Council), published by the Bureau for Devel- Yang Feng, 1995. IGCC and Its Future Market Penetration in China, Master’s thesis, Energy
opment Policy, United Nations Development Programme, New York. and Resources Group, University of California at Berkeley.
Readers’ reactions welcomed

Energy for Sustainable Development would appreciate
correspondence from readers regarding the contents of the
journal and related subjects.
The aim of the journal is to achieve the widest possible
dissemination of information pertaining to renewable sources
of energy, energy efficiency, the shaping of energy policy,
and energy devices, with a focus on solving the energy
problems of developing countries.
Readers who would like to contribute to this dissemination
effort by making brief comments on material that appears in
the journal, or by drawing other readers’ and the editors’
attention to interesting work and developments in the field
of energy would be aiding the work of dissemination.
Please send your commentative or informative letters to:
‘‘Correspondence’’
c/o the Associate Editor
Energy for Sustainable Development
25/5, Borebank Road
Benson Town
Bangalore-560 046
India
Fax: +91 80 353 8426
e-mail: [email protected]

Zero Emission From Coal in China

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zero Emission From Coal in China

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zero Emission From Coal in China

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reproduced with permission from Energy for Sustainable Development

Toward zero emissions from coal in China

1. Introduction [BP, 2001]. In 2000 China’s coal consumption was 20.3

Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 4 z December 2001 39

40 Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 4 z December 2001

Emission rate (g/kWh) Median estimate of environmental Environmental

NGCC plant[6] - 0.092 - - 0.148 - 0.148 1.0

Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 4 z December 2001 41

Plant capacity (MWe) 500 500 400 506 400

Efficiency (%, LHV basis) 37.3 42.5 46.5 55.8 60.0

Installed capital cost ($/kWe) 1090 1320 1091 468 445

Generation cost elements (¢/kWh)

Capital charges[2] 1.79 2.17 1.79 0.77 0.73

Fixed O&M 0.23 0.28 0.30 0.23 0.23

Variable O&M 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.15 0.15

Total generation cost (¢/kWh) 3.21 3.52 3.10 3.37 3.17

CO2 emission rate (gC/kWh)[4] 238 210 193 98 91

42 Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 4 z December 2001

Coal steam-electric plants built in China[1] (alternative Coal IGCC plants[5]

Plant capacity (MWe) 300 300 300 300 500 400

Levelized generation cost elements (¢/kWh)

Capital charges[2] 0.99 1.16 1.26 1.29 2.17 1.79

Fixed O&M 0.26 0.34 0.41 0.41 0.28 0.30

Variable O&M 0.40 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.20 0.21

Relative air pollution damage cost[4] 77 46 29 16 1.1 1.0

Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 4 z December 2001 43

44 Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 4 z December 2001

Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 4 z December 2001 45

Box 1. Decarbonization/sequestration costs for alternative coal power-generating technologies

46 Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 4 z December 2001

Table 3. Large commercial gasification projects with electricity as product or co-product

Location Plant owner Technology Syngas out Feedstock(s) Product(s) Start-up

Italy SARLUX srl Texaco 995 Visbreaker residues Electricity, H2 2000

Italy ISAB Energy Texaco 916 ROSE asphalt Electricity, H2 1999

Spain Elcogas SA PRENFLO 548 Coal, petcoke Electricity 1997

Netherlands Demkolec BV Shell 435 Bituminous Coal Electricity 1994

Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 4 z December 2001 47

48 Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 4 z December 2001

that respect its physical and chemical properties (see Box

Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 4 z December 2001 49

Box 3. Methanol from coal via syngas

50 Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 4 z December 2001

tions, many private companies around the world are put-

Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 4 z December 2001 51

where demand levels are low and demand profiles are

52 Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 4 z December 2001

Separate production facilities for electricity and steam IGCC cogeneration

Power generation rate (MWe) 400 - 400 400

Coal input rate (TJ/hr) 3.08 1.59 4.68 3.74

CO2 emission rate (t/hr) 274 142 416 333

Capital investment ($ 106) 453 197 650 537

Capital 52.19 22.69 74.88 61.86

O&M (4 % of capital cost/y) 18.12 7.88 26.00 21.48

Fuel 22.44 11.57 34.01 27.21

Total annual energy cost 92.75 42.14 134.89 110.55

Gross cost 3.31 1.50 - 3.94

Credit for steam co-product - - - -1.50

Net cost 3.31 1.50 - 2.44

Separate production facilities for electricity and steam PC cogeneration