The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
Amreica’s Enery Future: Technology and Transformation
TABLE 5.4 Fuel Costs and CO2 Emissions for Thermochemical Conversion of Coal and Biomass
Coal-to-Liquid FT
Coal-to-Liquid FT
Coal-to-Liquid MTG
Coal-and-Biomass-to-Liquid FT
Biomass-to-Liquid FT
Without CCS
With CCS
With CCS
With CCS
With CCS
Inputs:
Coal (tons per day as received)
26,700
26,700
23,200
3,030
0
Biomass (dry tons per day)
0
0
0
3,950
3,950
Biomass (mass %)
0
0
0
57
100
Biomass energy (%, low heating value)
0
0
0
42
100
Outputs:
Gasoline (bbl/d)
21,290
21,290
50,000
4,260
Diesel (bbl/d)
28,700
28,700
0
5,750
Total liquid fuels (bbl/d)
50,000
50,000
50,000
10,000
4,410
Economic metrics:
Specific total plant cost ($/bbl per day)
97,600
98,900
80,400
134,000
147,000
Total liquid fuels cost ($/gal of gasoline equivalent)
Note: CCS = carbon capture and storage; FT = Fischer-Tropsch; MTG = methanol-to-gasoline.
aIncludes the costs of CO2 transport and geologic storage and is expressed as dollars per tonne of CO2 equivalent avoided.
10,000 bbl/d of fuels with close to zero CO2 emissions. Note that the case shown is for FT, but the economics would look similar if MTG were used. FT primarily produces diesel; MTG produces gasoline. The economics show that the capital costs of coal-and-biomass-to-liquid fuel plants are higher than the costs of coal-to-liquid fuel plants.
The CO2 emissions are near zero on a life-cycle basis because the biomass in the feedstock is a carbon sink, offsetting some of the coal carbon. The key assumption in this case is that biomass availability is limited to 4000 tons per day by regional harvesting and transportation considerations. In those sites where locally sustainable biomass densities are higher (see Figure 5.1), larger plants—perhaps as many as 100 nationwide—could be built at similar biomass-to-coal
