Coal To Methanol To Gasoline
Coal To Methanol To Gasoline
Coal To Methanol To Gasoline
DS Sheet Information
Process Name: Coal/Biomass to Methanol to Gasoline
Process Description: The conversion of coal or coal and switchgrass to methanol and then to gasoline
Parameter Scenarios Parameters for various scenarios where the unit process is used
Reference Source Info Referenced citations; citations are referenced by number, listed at the top of the Reference Source Info sheet
DQI Data Quality Index
Plant Feedstock Data Information from the report on the feedstocks and carbon dioxide flows
Calculations
Date Created:
8/22/2013
Point of Contact:
Timothy Skone (NETL), [email protected]
Revision History:
Original/no revisions
How to Cite This Document:
This document should be cited as: NETL (2013). NETL Life Cycle Inventory Data – Unit Process: Coal/Biomass to Methanol to Gasoline -
Version 01. U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory. Retrieved [DATE] from www.netl.doe.gov/LCA
Page 1 413353051.xlsx
Additional Notes:
For the calculations sheets, values highlighted in yellow are also pulled forward into the 'Data Summary' sheet
Bibliographic references & assumptions referenced by number; see 'Reference Source Info' & 'Assumptions' sheets for cross-reference.
Data Summary sheet color coding: white indicates data input by model engineer; blue indicates automatically calculated values
Abbreviations used throughout this DS: INSERT AS RELEVANT
Disclaimer:
Neither the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) nor any person acting on behalf of these
organizations:
A. Makes any warranty or representation, express or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of
the information contained in this document, or that the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this
document may not infringe on privately owned rights; or
B. Assumes any liability with this report as to its use, or damages resulting from the use of any information, apparatus,
method, or process disclosed in this document.
Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not
necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by NETL. The views and opinions of the authors expressed
herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of NETL.
Template Version:
3.0
Page 2 413353051.xlsx
NETL Life Cycle Inventory Data - Detailed Spreadsheet Documentation
Data Module Summary
Process Name: Coal/Biomass to Methanol to Gasoline
Reference Flow: 1 kg of FT Gasoline DQI 2,2,1,1,1 (see DQI sheet for explanation)
Brief Description: The conversion of coal or coal and switchgrass to methanol and then to gasoline
Page 3 413353051.xlsx
Detailed Spreadsheet Lists
Process Type Process Scope Completeness Origin Tracked
<select from list> <select from list> <select from list> <select from list>
Extraction Process (EP) Cradle-to-Grave (End-of-Life) Process (CE) All Flows Captured Measured X
Manufacturing Process (MP) Cradle-to-Gate Process (CG) All Relevant Flows Captured Calculated *
Installation Process (IP) Gate-to-Gate Process (GG) Individual Relevant Flows Captured Literature
Basic Process (BP) Gate-to-Grave (End-of-Life) Process (GE) Some Relevant Flows Not Captured Estimated
Energy Conversion (EC) No Statement No Statement
Transport Process (TP)
Recovery Process (RP)
Waste Treatment Process (WT)
Auxiliary Process (AP)
Page 4 413353051.xlsx
Param
The purpose of this "Parameters Scenarios" worksheet is to provide a flexible method for adjusting parameters within t
populate the adjustable parameters (the cells with yellow shading). The values for the adjustable parameters are linked to
Scenario Descriptions:
Scenario ID
1 100% coal feedstock with CO2 capture
nario ID
3
Methanol to Gasoline
Case 3
4.78E+00
0.00E+00
7.82E-02
1.48E-01
3.42E-02
0.00E+00
5.30E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
ting parameters within this unit process. The above table allows you to select a scenario ID (CELL C4) and uses a lookup function to
parameters are linked to the "Data Summary" sheet.
Description
rameter Scenarios
[Units] Comments
[kg/kg] Powder River Basin coal feedstock input
[kg/kg] Switchgrass feedstock input
[kg/kg] Natural gas combusted in a NGCC unit
[kg/kg] LPG coproduct
[kg/kg] Sulfur coproduct
[kg/kg] Carbon dioxide captured, compressed, and ready to be transported for storage in a saline formation
[kg/kg] Carbon dioxide released to the air from combustion and process sources
[sqm/kg] sqm land use change in Illinois per kg gasoline
[sqm/kg] sqm land use change in Illinois per kg gasoline
[sqm/kg] sqm land use change in Illinois per kg gasoline
hin this unit process. The above table allows you to select a scenario ID (CELL C4) and uses a lookup function to
d to the "Data Summary" sheet.
Description
Field Name
Number 1 2 3
SourceType Separate Publication
Title Baseline Analysis of Subbituminous Calculating Uncertainty in Biomass
Coal and Biomass to Gasoline Emissions Model, Version 2.0 (CUBE
(Indirect Liquefaction by Methanol 2.0): Model and Documentation.
Synthesis)
FirstAuthor NETL NETL
AdditionalAuthors
Year 2013 2011
Date
PlaceOfPublication Pittsburgh, PA
Publisher NETL
PageNumbers
Table or Figure
Number
NameOfEditors
TitleOfAnthology
Journal
VolumeNo
IssueNo
Docket Number
Copyright
Internet Address http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-
analyses/refshelf/PubDetails.aspx?
Action=View&PubId=409.
Internet Access Date
Geographical
Representation
Representativeness
BibliographicText NETL. (2013). Baseline Analysis of NETL. (2011). Calculating Uncertainty
Subbituminous Coal and Biomass to in Biomass Emissions Model, Version
Gasoline (Indirect Liquefaction by 2.0 (CUBE 2.0): Model and
Methanol Synthesis). Documentation. (DOE/NETL-
2012/1538). Pittsburgh, PA: National
Energy Technology Laboratory
Retrieved from
http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-
analyses/refshelf/PubDetails.aspx?
Action=View&PubId=409.
Page 9 413353051.xlsx
Text/Description
Reference Source
Info Lists
Source Type
<select from list>
Undefined
Article
Chapters in Anthology
Separate Publication
Measurement on Site
Oral Communication
Personal Written Communication
Questionnaires
Page 10 413353051.xlsx
4 5 6 7
Page 11 413353051.xlsx
8 9
Page 12 413353051.xlsx
Page 13 413353051.xlsx
Page 14 413353051.xlsx
Page 15 413353051.xlsx
Page 16 413353051.xlsx
Page 17 413353051.xlsx
Page 18 413353051.xlsx
Page 19 413353051.xlsx
Page 20 413353051.xlsx
Page 21 413353051.xlsx
Page 22 413353051.xlsx
Page 23 413353051.xlsx
Page 24 413353051.xlsx
Page 25 413353051.xlsx
Page 26 413353051.xlsx
Page 27 413353051.xlsx
Page 28 413353051.xlsx
Page 29 413353051.xlsx
Page 30 413353051.xlsx
Page 31 413353051.xlsx
Page 32 413353051.xlsx
Page 33 413353051.xlsx
Page 34 413353051.xlsx
Page 35 413353051.xlsx
Page 36 413353051.xlsx
Page 37 413353051.xlsx
Page 38 413353051.xlsx
Page 39 413353051.xlsx
Page 40 413353051.xlsx
Page 41 413353051.xlsx
Page 42 413353051.xlsx
Page 43 413353051.xlsx
Page 44 413353051.xlsx
Page 45 413353051.xlsx
Page 46 413353051.xlsx
Page 47 413353051.xlsx
Page 48 413353051.xlsx
Page 49 413353051.xlsx
Page 50 413353051.xlsx
Page 51 413353051.xlsx
Page 52 413353051.xlsx
Page 53 413353051.xlsx
Page 54 413353051.xlsx
Page 55 413353051.xlsx
Page 56 413353051.xlsx
Page 57 413353051.xlsx
Page 58 413353051.xlsx
Page 59 413353051.xlsx
Page 60 413353051.xlsx
Page 61 413353051.xlsx
Page 62 413353051.xlsx
Page 63 413353051.xlsx
Page 64 413353051.xlsx
Page 65 413353051.xlsx
Page 66 413353051.xlsx
Page 67 413353051.xlsx
Page 68 413353051.xlsx
Page 69 413353051.xlsx
Page 70 413353051.xlsx
Page 71 413353051.xlsx
Page 72 413353051.xlsx
Page 73 413353051.xlsx
Page 74 413353051.xlsx
Page 75 413353051.xlsx
Page 76 413353051.xlsx
Page 77 413353051.xlsx
Page 78 413353051.xlsx
Page 79 413353051.xlsx
Page 80 413353051.xlsx
Page 81 413353051.xlsx
Page 82 413353051.xlsx
Data Quality Index
DQI Determination
Reference (see
'Reference Source Technical
Input/Output Info' worksheet) Source Reliability Completeness Temporal Correlation Geographical Correlation Correlation DQI Recommendations Determinations
PRB 1 2 2 1 1 1 2,2,1,1,1 Requirements met OK
Switchgrass 1 2 2 1 1 1 2,2,1,1,1 Requirements met OK
Natural gas 1 2 2 1 1 1 2,2,1,1,1 Requirements met OK
Sulfur 1 2 2 1 1 1 2,2,1,1,1 Requirements met OK
LPG 1 2 2 1 1 1 2,2,1,1,1 Requirements met OK
Gasoline 1 2 2 1 1 1 2,2,1,1,1 Requirements met OK
0,0,0,0,0 Requirements met OK
Total 2,2,1,1,1
DQI Methodology
DQI Matrix (from NETL LCI&C Guideline Document, adapted from Weidema and Wenaes)
Score
Indicator 1 2 3 4 5
Source Reliability (for source quality guidelines met source quality guidelines not met
most applications, data cross checks, 2 or less data sources available for cross check, or
source quality greater than or equal to data sources available that do not meet quality
guidelines only factor) 3 quality sources standards no data available for cross check
Page 83 413353051.xlsx
Indicator Descriptions
Source Reliability -- This indicator relates to the quality of the data source and the verification of the data collection methods used within the source.
Data Verification -- Source data that have been verified within error bounds by either the source author (with a high level of transparency) or
the LCI modeler. Verification can be done by measurement, including on-site checking, recalculation, or mass or energy balance analysis. If the
source data cannot be verified without making assumptions (i.e., not enough data are available to close the mass/energy balance), then the
score should be a 2 or 3, depending on the number of assumptions. If no source data are available, a qualified estimate from an expert in the
field should receive a score of 4, and an estimate from a non-expert should receive a score of 5. Mostly applicable to primary data.
Source Quality Guidelines -- The highest quality source should be
o From a peer reviewed journal or a government sponsored study. If the source is an LCA, it must meet ISO requirements.
o Publicly available either for free or at cost, or directly representative of the process of interest.
o Written/published by an unbiased party.
o An unbiased survey of experts or process locations.
When the source used for data is a reputable model that does not specifically meet the above criteria, it is the discretion of the modeler to
determine the rank of the source. An example for justification would be if the data have been used in published reports that met the data quality
standards.
Data Cross-Check -- The number of sources that verify the same data point or series, within reason. As a general benchmark, a high standard
is greater than or equal to three data cross checks with quality approved sources. This typically refers to primary data, and if no other data
sources are available, this can be omitted.
Completeness -- This indicator quantifies the statistical robustness of the source data. This ranking is based on how many data points were taken, how representative the
sample is to the studied process, and whether the data were taken for an acceptable time period to even out normal process fluctuations. The following examples are
given to help clarify this indicator.
Temporal Correlation -- This indicator represents how well the time period in which the data were collected corresponds with the year of the study. If the study is set to
evaluate the use of a technology from 2000 to 2040, data from 1970 would not be very accurate. It is important when assigning this ranking to take notice of any
discrepancies between the year the source was published and the year(s) the data were collected.
Geographical Correlation -- This indicator represents the appropriateness between the region of study and the source data region. This indicator becomes important
when comparing data from different countries. For example, technological advances might reasonably be expected to develop differently in different countries, so
efficiency and energy use might be very different. This is also important when looking at best management practices for carbon mitigation.
Technological Correlation -- This indicator embodies all other differences that may be present between the study goals and the data source. From the above example,
using data for a type of biomass that is not being studied in the LCA should result in a lower technological representativeness ranking.
Steps for Applying DQM
1) Calculate score for each unit process (UP) input. If more than one reference source is used for one input, and the score is lower, consider both scores. If an
indicator does not relate to a specific source, assume N/A. If all emissions come from one source, only one score is needed
- when a score is determined for a particular reference source, add to 'Reference Source Info' for future use
2) From the reference scores, determine the data quality indicator (DQI) for the unit process inputs for commissioning/decommissioning operations (when
applicable)*
- the scores are not additive, rather, the lowest score for an indicator of a particular data input is the lowest score for the UP
3) Significant inputs of low quality unit processes (DQI mostly 3-5) should be varied to the minimum and maximum values or 95 percent confidence interval of
the uncertainty range.
- check significance first. If the input is not significant by a long shot (or with the maximum possible value), it is not necessary to include in the UP
4) If the change in the final result from a single unit process is greater than a threshold value, for example, 0.1 g CO2e/MJ, then the processes should be
flagged for possible additional data quality refinement
- for example, if emissions from the total steel inputs are found to be significant during sensitivity, the DQI will be performed on the steel profile. If this is not possible
(because data are not transparent/purchased), it will be listed as a future recommendation
- if, however, the steel inputs are significant due to a large amount of steel needed for a particular process, then the DQI on that input should be performed and the data
refined if needed
5) If the UP input is significant (with or without sensitivity), but no data refinement is possible, this is listed as a data limitation and noted in the report
Page 84 413353051.xlsx
* For NETL LCI&C studies, because data quality for construction is typically low, sensitivity on those inputs is already performed and the DQI does not need to be
calculated. If sensitivity is not performed on construction, or sensitivity shows that a particular input is significant, then the DQI will be performed
Page 85 413353051.xlsx
Coal Pelletized Switchgrass
Rank Subbituminous Fuel Biomass
Montana Rosebud
Seam Type Switchgrass
(PRB)
Western Energy
Source Proximate Analysis (weight %)
Co.
As
Proximate Analysis (weight %)
Received
As
Dry Moisture 8.16
Received
Barium oxide 0
Strontium oxide 0
Manganese dioxide 0
Unknowna 0.84
Trace Components (ppm )
b
Motor (MON)
0 Octane number
82.0
0.51
0.51
0.03
3.36
46.06
Middle
100 Products
Final
Products
100 wt% C-MTG w/ CCS Case 1 30 wt% CB-MTG w/ CCS Case 2
Mole Flow
Mole Flow lbmol/hr Mass Flow lb/hr
lbmol/hr
Wet coal 1,618,190
Wet switchgrass
Dried switchgrass
Flash gas
2,279 90,917 2,225
(for coal drying)
Tail gas from Claus unit (for coal
2,116 61,476 1,530
drying)
PSA exhaust (for coal drying and
4,693 148,223 4,840
power Generation)
Gasoline 3,960 338,841 5,616
LPG 949 50,008 924
Sulfur (S8) 45 11,576 35
CO2 32,930 1,443,280 33,008
Inputs
Natural Gas 20387 18429 12015
Greg Schivley:
These values are from
the stream tables
provided.
961,006
Incinerator air blower 2,680
Case 2 Case 3
6,050 9,090
3,540
1,490 1,940
171,930 179,940
7,390 6,600
1,880 2,680
440 310
750 720
1,040 1,070
50,200 51,270
230 250
70,050 9000
20,880 20,760
2,790 3,370
440 440
140 140
240 240
120 120
29,780 29,710
3,360 3,530
1,810 1,800
9,850 9,110
1,560 1,500
500 360
100 100
5,000 5,000
391,490 339,050
Matthew B. Jamieson:
This value is from the
diagram in the report,
not the table shown to
the left.
1,538,282 -
308,638 1,794,613 lbm/hr
1,846,919 1,794,613 lbm/hr
lb-mol/lb-mol
lb-mol stack/hr
lb-mol co2/hr
lbm/hr
lbm/hr
lbm/lbm
lb-mol/lb-mol
lb-mol stack/hr
lb-mol co2/hr
lbm/hr
lbm/hr
lbm/lbm
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
Costs 100 wt% 30 wt%
100 wt% C-MTG
C- MTG CB-MTG
w/o CCS
w/ CCS w/ CCS
LCA effective carbon
125,556 95,758 222,493
(g-WTW-CO2E/MMBtu LHV)
Plant Output
Auxiliary Load
SCR 10 10 10 kWe
Plant Performance
Net Plant Power -50 -70 50 kWe
Plant Capacity Factor 90 90 90
20,387 18,429
Natural Gas Feed Flow 12,015 (26,489) kg/hr (lb/hr)
(44,946) (40,628)
Thermal Input (HHV)1 297,022 268,491 175,050 kWt
1,730 1,741
Condenser Duty 1,656 (1,570)GJ/hr (MMBtu/hr)
(1,640) (1,650)
42.1 47.0
Raw Water Withdrawal 42.1 (11,109) m3/min (gpm)
(11,109) (12,413)
18.9 25.5
Raw Water Consumption 18.9 (4,994) m3/min (gpm)
(4,994) (6,733)
kg/hr (lb/hr)
J/hr (MMBtu/hr)
m3/min (gpm)
m3/min (gpm)
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
Inputs
PRB 1,618,190 1,270,620 1,618,190 lbm/hr
Switchgrass 0 440,134 0 lbm/hr
Natural Gas 20387 18429 12015 kg/hr
Outputs
Gasoline 338841 338008 338841 lbm/hr
LPG 50008 48867 50008 lbm/hr
Sulfur 11,576 8,901 11,576 lbm/hr
CO2 Product 1545059.07 1538281.53 0 lbm/hr
CO2 Emissions 298887.53355 308637.90504 1794612.705048 lbm/hr
Inputs
PRB 733998.63721 576343.460613 733998.5397124 kg/hr
Switchgrass 0 199641.397659 0 kg/hr
Natural Gas 20387 18429 12015 kg/hr
Outputs
Gasoline 153695.692243 153317.829434 153695.6718276 kg/hr
LPG 22683.2442259 22165.6954005 22683.24422592 kg/hr
Sulfur 5250.78457765 4037.42514907 5250.784577652 kg/hr
CO2 Product 700826.91226 697752.672237 0 kg/hr
CO2 Emissions 135573.086698 139995.780223 814022.5219873 kg/hr
Outputs
Gasoline 1.00 1.00 1.00 kg/kg
LPG 0.15 0.14 0.15 kg/kg
Sulfur 0.03 0.03 0.03 kg/kg
CO2 Product 4.56 4.55 0.00 kg/kg
CO2 Emissions 0.88 0.91 5.30 kg/kg
Assumption [1]
Assumption [1]
Assumption [1]
The plant, as stated in Reference [1] is located in the midwest. Consistent with other NETL reports, the plant is assumed
the biomass is assumed to be located near the plant site. As a result, the model uses switchgrass yield rates consistent w
Assumptions
Note: These yields are based on sm
2
2 These values account for the 30%
2
1 ton 907.18474 kg
1 acre 4046.86 sqm
Conversions
Assumptions
Assumption # Description
1 Assume 90% capacity factor
Coal/Biomass to Methanol to Gasoline: System
PRB coal Boundary
Switchgrass
(NETL)
[Renewable
primary
products]
The conversion of coal or coal and
biomass to methanol and then to
Natural gas gasoline
burned in NGCC
Key
Process FT Gasoline [Valuable substance]
FT LPG [Valuable
of coal or coal and substance]
hanol and then to
oline
Sulfur [Valuable
substance]
luable substance]