Guangjian Liu

Co-production of decarbonized synfuels and electricity from coal + biomass with CO2 capture and storage: an Illinois case study

Energy, carbon, and economic performances are estimated for facilities co-producing Fischer–Tropsch Liquid (FTL) fuels and electricity from a co-feed of biomass and coal in Illinois, with capture and storage of by-product CO2. The estimates include detailed modeling of supply systems for corn stover or mixed prairie grasses (MPG) and of feedstock conversion facilities. Biomass feedstock costs in Illinois (delivered at a rate of one million tonnes per year, dry basis) are

Near-term mega-scale CO2 capture and storage demonstration opportunities in China

3.8/GJHHV for corn stover and

Coal and Biomass to Fuels and Power

7.2/GJHHV for MPG. Under a strong carbon mitigation policy, the economics of co-producing low-carbon fuels and electricity from a co-feed of biomass and coal in Illinois are promising. An extrapolation to the United States of the results for Illinois suggests that nationally significant amounts of low-carbon fuels and electricity could be produced this way.

Making Fischer-Tropsch Fuels and Electricity from Coal and Biomass: Performance and Cost Analysis

China is unique in the large number (nearly 400) of existing and planned projects for making ammonia, methanol, and other fuels and chemicals from coal. A natural by-product of these processes is a nearly pure CO2 stream. Collectively, these facilities will emit (once all are operating) some 270 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Taking advantage of the relatively low cost of capturing these CO2 streams (as compared with capturing CO2 from power plant flue gases), some of the 20 large-scale CO2 capture and storage (CCS) demonstration projects called for by the leaders from the G8 to be deployed during the next decade might be expeditiously located in China. Our analysis identifies 18 coal-chemicals/fuels facilities, each emitting one million tonnes/year or more of CO2, that are within 10 km of prospective deep saline aquifer CO2 storage sites and an additional 8 facilities within 100 km. The potential CO2 storage basins are identified based on work by others. We adapted two published cost models for CO2 compression and transport to develop preliminary estimates of prospective costs for potential CCS projects in China. Our “Nth plant” cost estimates for the 18 projects where the CO2 source is within 10 km of a sink, are between

Fischer-Tropsch Fuels from Coal and Biomass

9 and

Fischer–Tropsch fuels from coal and biomass: Strategic advantages of once-through (“polygeneration”) configurations

13/tonne of CO2. (The highest cost estimate among all evaluated projects was less than

Design/economics of low-carbon power generation from natural gas and biomass with synthetic fuels co-production

21/tonne of CO2.) The 10-year net-present value cost for projects ranged from

Co-production of synfuels and electricity from coal + biomass with zero net carbon emissions: an Illinois case study

89 million to

Alternatives for Decarbonizing Existing USA Coal Power Plant Sites

1.15 billion, with more than 75% of the projects having net present value costs of

Gasoline from Coal and/or Biomass with CO2 Capture and Storage. 1. Process Designs and Performance Analysis

200 million or less. These relatively modest CCS costs suggest that there would be mutual value in international cooperation to support CCS demonstrations in China.