Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Coal Gasification: At the Crossroads. Economic Outlook

  • STEAM BOILERS, POWER-PLANT FUELS, BURNER UNITS, AND BOILER AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT
  • Published:
Thermal Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Economic aspects of implementing coal gasification technology are considered. Many objective causes hindering the comparison of economic characteristics of the considered coal gasification technologies are outlined. The energy and economic efficiencies of producing synthesis gas (syngas) from coal are estimated. The factors having the most pronounced effect on the efficiency, such as gasifier type, specific oxygen consumption, and initial fuel cost, are found. According to the calculations, the cost of produced syngas is two to three times higher than the price of natural gas for consumers. Therefore, the use of syngas and hydrogen produced from it for the centralized generation of power and heat will not be economically feasible in the foreseeable future. Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) units are still not competitive with conventional coal-fired power plants, basically due to high specific capital expenditures, which are responsible for more than 2/3 of the price of delivered electricity. The issues of economic competition for hydrogen production from coal using alternative production processes are discussed in detail. It is demonstrated that hydrogen produced from cheap local coals (in Russia, these are coals from large coal deposits in Siberia and the Far East) can win the competition with hydrogen from natural gas. Nevertheless, activities should be continued to improve coal gasification processes and associated technologies, first of all, oxygen production technologies, to cut down capital and operating expenditures. Further development of coal chemical technologies involves high risks associated with the new global climate policy aimed at a drastic decrease in CO2 emissions and the replacement of fossil fuels in the global fuel and energy balance by renewable energy sources. State support for the development of new coal technologies and for coal chemistry science is necessary to retain the domestic coal industry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. World Energy Outlook 2019 (International Energy Agency, Vienna, 2019).

  2. S. P. Filippov and A. V. Keiko, “Coal gasification: At the Crossroads. Technological factors,” Therm. Eng. 68 (3), 209–220 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Assessment of Technical and Economic Potential of Deep Processing of Coal of “Karakanskii-Zapadnyi” Open Cast Mining Site (Technische Univ. Bergakademie Freiberg, Inst. für Energieverfahrenstechnik und Chemieingenieurwesen, Freiberg, Germany, 2017) [in Russian]. http://www.karakan-invest.ru/investor/perspective/Otchet-FGA.pdf. Accessed March 21, 2020.

  4. Characteristics of Coal Mined at Karakanskii-Zapadnyi Open-Pit. http://www.karakan-invest.ru/en/buyer/ features/. Accessed March 30, 2020.

  5. “Karakan’s unique coal,” Nedra TEK Sib., No. 2, 10–12 (2017).

  6. S. Fusselman, “Compact gasification development and test status,” in Proc. Gasification Technologies Council Annual Conf., San Francisco, Cal., Oct. 9–18, 2011 (Gasification Technologies Council, 2011).

  7. A. Duckett, “GTI will demo R-GAS gasification in China,” Chem. Eng., June 27 (2017). https://www. thechemicalengineer.com/news/gti-will-demo-r-gas-gasification-in-china-1/. Accessed February 20, 2020.

  8. The Future of Hydrogen. Seizing Today’s Opportunities (International Energy Agency, Vienna, 2019).

  9. M. El-Shafie, S. Kambara, and Y. Hayakawa, “Hydrogen production technologies overview,” J. Power Energy Eng. 7 (1), 107–154 (2019). https://doi.org/10.4236/jpee.2019.71007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. M. Kayfeci, A. Kecebas, and M. Bayat, “Hydrogen production,” in Solar Hydrogen Production: Processes, Systems, and Technologies, Ed. by F. Calise, M. D. D’Accadia, M. Santarelli, A. Lanzini, and D. Ferrero (Elsevier, London, 2019), pp. 45–83.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hydrogen: A Renewable Energy Perspective (International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi, 2019).

  12. O. S. Popel’, A. B. Tarasenko, and S. P. Filippov, “Fuel cell based power-generating installations: State of the art and future prospects,” Therm. Eng. 65, 859–874 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1134/S0040601518120078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. S. Filippov, “New technological revolution and energy requirements,” Foresight STI Governance 12 (4), 20–33 (2018). https://doi.org/10.17323/2500-2597.2018.4.20.33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hydrogen Economy Outlook: Key messages (Bloomberg NEF, 2020). https://data.bloomberglp.com/professional/ sites/24/BNEF-Hydrogen-Economy-Outlook-Key-Messages-30-Mar-2020.pdf. Accessed July 14, 2020.

  15. Energy Technology Perspectives (International Energy Agency, 2020).

  16. Path to Hydrogen Competitiveness: A Cost Perspective (Hydrogen Council, 2020). https://hydrogencouncil.com/ wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Path-to-Hydrogen-Competitiveness_Full-Study-1.pdf. Accessed August 15, 2020.

  17. M. Khzouz, E. I. Gkanas, J. Shao, F. Sher, D. Beherskyi, A. El-Kharouf, and M. Al Qubeissi, “Life cycle costing analysis: Tools and applications for determining hydrogen production cost for fuel cell vehicle technology,” Energies 15, 3783 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/en13153783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. J. Eichman, A. Townsend, and M. Melaina, Economic Assessment of Hydrogen Technologies Participating in California Electricity Markets, Technical Report NREL/TP5400-65856 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2016).

  19. D. A. Ali, M. A. Gadalla, O. Y. Abdelaziz, and F. H. Ashour, “Modelling of coal-biomass blends gasification and power plant revamp alternatives in Egypt’s natural gas sector,” Chem. Eng. Trans. 52, 49–54 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1652009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Engineering-Economic Evaluations of Advanced Fossil Fuel Power Plants, EPRI Report No. 3002016284 (Electric Power Research Inst., 2019).

  21. Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Volume 1B: Bituminous Coal (IGCC) to Electricity, NETL Report No. DOE/NETL-2015/1727 (National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2015).

  22. G. Aranda, A. Van der Drift, and R. Smit, The Economy of Large Scale Biomass to Substitute Natural Gas (bioSNG) Plants, ECN Report No. ECN-E-14-008 (ECN, 2014).

  23. Capital Cost Study. Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric Power Generating Technologies, Report of Sargent & Lundy to US EIA, Rev. 1 (U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, 2020).

  24. Updated Capital Cost Estimates for Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2013).

  25. Updated Capital Cost Estimates for Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2016).

  26. Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2020 (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2020).

  27. H.-T. Oh, W.-S. Lee, Y. Ju, and Ch.-H. Lee, “Performance evaluation and carbon assessment of IGCC power plant with coal quality,” Energy 188, 116063 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116063

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. “Duke hit hard by exorbitant O&M costs at Edwardsport IGCC facility,” Power, Sept. 27 (2018).

  29. S. J. McKenzie, “Electric, basin electric at odds over rates, synfuels plant,” Minot Daily News, Feb. 4 (2020).

  30. “Coal on the way out of South Australia,” New Daily, June 11 (2015).

  31. A. S. Kosoi, Yu. A. Zeigarnik, O. S. Popel, M. V. Sinkevich, S. P. Filippov, and V. Ya. Shterenberg, “The conceptual process arrangement of a steam–gas power plant with fully capturing carbon dioxide from combustion products,” Therm. Eng. 65, 597–605 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1134/S0040601518090045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. O. N. Favorskii, V. M. Batenin, and S. P. Filippov, “Energy development: Choice and implementation of strategic decisions,” Herald Russ. Acad. Sci. 90, 283–290 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1019331620030016

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Energy Research Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, 117186, Moscow, Russia

    S. P. Filippov & A. V. Keiko

Authors
  1. S. P. Filippov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. V. Keiko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. P. Filippov.

Additional information

Translated by T. Krasnoshchekova

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Filippov, S.P., Keiko, A.V. Coal Gasification: At the Crossroads. Economic Outlook. Therm. Eng. 68, 347–360 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1134/S0040601521050049

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S0040601521050049

Keywords:

Search

Navigation