Is the coal-to-liquids project reasonable in terms of energy accounting?
Thread Content
This post was last edited by jordan569 on 2013-1-6 23:26 Everyone knows that coal-to-liquids projects represented by Shenhua have been launched in various places in the past two years. In addition, many companies are in a wait-and-see attitude, only waiting for Shenhua to produce qualified oil products before launching projects. In terms of efficiency, coal-to-liquids will definitely bring great economic benefits to enterprises, such as: If the Shenhua coal-to-liquids project is successfully completed and put into operation in 2008, its production capacity will be 1 million tons and will reach 5 million tons by 2009. The price of coal in the Shenhua area is about 300 yuan/ton, and the price of oil is 4,500 yuan/ton. , the output ratio is about 4 tons of coal to 1 ton of oil. After excluding other various costs, the profit is also very optimistic. However, from the perspective of energy calculation, is the energy generated by 4 tons of coal plus the energy consumed in the oil production process reasonable compared with 1 ton of oil? Please share your views. This post was last edited by shiyihuajian123 on 2008-1-15 14:27 ] .Note$#, $ $
I think that coal-to-liquid production actually involves petroleum reserves, which mainly involves* * Energy strategy, because we want to develop, energy is the foundation. Only if we have a certain amount of oil reserves can we not be controlled by others. Our country's energy structure, rich in coal, poor in oil, and short of gas, determines that we must carry out coal-to-liquid projects. Although in terms of energy utilization, the utilization rate of producing 1 ton of oil from 4 to 5 tons of coal is very low. If we look at it purely from the perspective of energy consumption, if the large amount of liquefied residues formed from coal-to-liquids cannot be solved, the energy loss will be huge and secondary pollution will occur.
In my opinion, coal-to-liquid production has two meanings:: 1: I won’t talk about the country’s strategic macro-significance. 2: Product refining issues. Coal can be said to be a crude product, while oil can be said to be a better finished product. Although there will be more losses in the intermediate links, the finished product always has greater advantages than the crude product.
Coal is developing towards polygeneration and large-scale development, so that my country's coal resources can be used efficiently and with low pollution.
Opinions from several industry experts: 1. “The biggest disadvantages of coal-to-liquids are low energy utilization efficiency and high carbon dioxide emissions. Preparing 1 ton of diesel requires 3 to 5 tons of high-quality coal. From the perspective of the whole process, the energy consumption is 100% to 200% higher than that of traditional cars, and the carbon dioxide emissions are 50% to 100% higher. ”------Feng Fei, Director of the Industrial Economic Research Department of the Development Research Center of the State Council 2, “Most countries regard coal-to-liquids as a technological reserve. I am not opposed to having coal-to-liquids technology and having a certain scale. Under the conditions of relatively high oil prices and incomplete coal production costs, it may be economically feasible. However, I personally think that it is unrealistic to replace oil with coal resources and then commercialize it on a large scale. Although China's overall coal reserves are not small, per capita coal possession is only 60% of the world average. Coal resources are also limited. It is not economical to use large amounts of coal to develop coal-to-liquids. ”------ * * Zhou Dadi, Director of the Energy Research Institute of the National Development and Reform Commission 3. “Coal-to-liquids is the exchange of one scarce resource for another, and a large amount of resources are wasted during the conversion. If 4 tons of high-quality coal with a specific heat of 5,000 kcal/kg per ton are converted into 1 ton of oil with 10,000 kcal/kg, it can be calculated that nearly half of the energy will be wasted. ”------Lin Boqiang, Director of China Energy Economics Research Center of Xiamen University This post was last edited by zjyang168168 on 2008-1-16 11:09 ]
From the perspective of energy conversion alone, coal-to-oil conversion is definitely not the most reasonable option.； But from a chemical industry perspective, the value of coal-to-oil conversion is still relatively high. personal opinion: After mastering the coal-to-oil technology, just build 1 or 2 factories appropriately. Don't consume a lot of coal quickly. Learn from the United States. My crude oil is not mined on a large scale. It consumes foreign products first and then domestic ones. * * There are so many foreign exchange reserves now, waiting for the dollar to depreciate, and we will lose a lot. Why not buy foreign resources?
The biggest fear is that domestic manufacturers will rush into projects, resulting in a lot of duplication of construction, and the technical level is not high. There are too many lessons in this area.
From the perspective of energy conversion, coal-to-liquid is definitely unreasonable, because the final conversion efficiency into oil is too low, and coal itself can be used to make many high-value chemicals, and the utilization value after being converted into oil becomes single, but from* * Judging from the strategy, we have to do this.
The energy utilization rate is low, the pollution is serious, and the water consumption is quite large!
From an energy perspective, coal liquefaction technology is unreasonable, but from* * Strategic considerations of energy security are reasonable. It is generally believed that the economic benefits of direct liquefaction are higher than those of indirect liquefaction. The direct liquefaction product is rich in naphthenes and can be used to produce gasoline and aviation kerosene and aromatic compounds through upgrading and fraction cutting. ； The main products of indirect liquefaction are alkanes and olefins, with extremely low contents of aromatic hydrocarbons and cycloalkanes. Among them, gaseous hydrocarbon products below C4 are separated and converted by olefin disproportionation to obtain end products such as LPG, polymerization-grade propylene, and polymerization-grade ethylene. Liquid products above C5 are cut through fractions to obtain intermediate products such as naphtha, α-olefins, C14-C18 alkanes and crude wax. Naphtha is further hydrorefined to obtain high-grade ethylene, which can be reformed to obtain gasoline; α-olefins are high-grade detergent raw materials without upgrading treatment, and jet kerosene is obtained after upgrading treatment; C14-C18 alkanes are also high-quality detergent raw materials without upgrading treatment, and through hydrorefining and isomerization pour point reduction treatment, they become high-grade blended diesel (cetane number as high as 75) ； The crude wax is hydrorefined to obtain high-quality soft wax. Therefore, I think that although indirect liquefaction consumes more energy than direct liquefaction, if indirect liquefaction uses a co-production process, it can produce high value-added intermediate chemicals, and the economic benefits are higher than that of direct liquefaction.
“"Coal-to-liquid" should only be regarded as a* * For strategic technology reserves, one or two sets of small devices are enough to operate! If we want to engage in large-scale industrialization, it will violate the basic law of optimal energy utilization, and it may also be the tragedy of my country's coal chemical industry! “The optimal utilization of "coal energy" is only the utilization of "polygeneration". “The optimal utilization of "coal resources" can take the "chemical product-oriented" route.