Techno-economic performance of the coal-to-olens process with CCS

Dong Xiang
1
, Siyu Yang
1
, Xia Liu, Zihao Mai, Yu Qian

School of Chemical Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510640, PR China
h i g h l i g h t s
Conduct a techno-economic analysis of the coal-to-olens (CTO) with CCS.
Analyze effects of key factors on the CTO with appropriate capture rate 80%.
Present strengths and weaknesses of the CTO compared to the methanol-to-olens.
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 5 September 2013
Received in revised form 21 November 2013
Accepted 23 November 2013
Available online 28 November 2013
Keywords:
Energy efciency
Cost
Coal-to-olens
CCS
Methanol-to-olens
a b s t r a c t
Coal-to-olens (CTO) has been attracting more attention of the chemical process industry, in the light of
the scarcity of oil resources and richness of coal in China. However, it is inherently accompanied with the
problem of severe greenhouse gas emissions. CTO processes therefore face increasing challenges from
other alternative processes, especially methanol-to-olens (MTO) process. This paper conducts a detailed
techno-economic analysis of the CTO process with CCS. The effect of carbon capture is studied. The CTO
process with 80% carbon capture is slightly less thermodynamically efcient than the conventional CTO
process. The corresponding mitigation cost of the process is 150 RMB/t, which is roughly equivalent to
the current carbon price. Thus, the effect of energetic and economic penalties on this carbon capture con-
guration is negligible. In comparison to the MTO process, the CTO process with CCS is competitive in
product cost even considering carbon tax and it is capable of resisting to market risk. CTO processes with
appropriate CO
2
reduction are more applicable to olens industry in China.
2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
As the backbone of the petrochemical industry, olens produc-
tion scale is critical to development of national economy. As more
and more oil-to-olens projects launched in China, the production
grows quickly, and the self-sufcient rate of ethylene and propyl-
ene will increases up to 53% and 74% by 2015 [1]. However, there
is still a big gap between the domestic supply and demand, which
is in urgently needed to be lled by olens based on alternative re-
sources. From 2005 to 2011, coal accounted for 75.1% of the total
energy production of China, oil for 15.2%, and natural gas for
2.8%, as shown in Fig. 1. The oil import dependence was ap-
proached to 57% in 2012. Thus, development of the coal-based ole-
ns industry is favorable in the context of increasingly severe oil
supply shortage. There are now three coal-to-olens (CTO) projects
under operation and other two CTO projects in plan in the next
there years in China. These installations are going to approach a
capacity of 3 Mt/y [3].
However, CTO is facing the problem of high CO
2
emissions.
There have been a number of techniques of CO
2
mitigation devel-
oped from chemical and physical methods [4]. For chemical meth-
ods, CO
2
is reused mostly as feedstock to produce valued chemical
products. Although these methods enable us to exploit CO
2
as a
valuable feedstock in many different applications such as the pro-
duction of urea and methanol, their contribution to CO
2
mitigation
is nite. Physical methods are generally regarded as geologically
storing CO
2
underneath. In recent years, carbon capture and stor-
age (CCS) technology has received increasing attention because
of its large capacity of reducing CO
2
emissions. It is a more eco-
nomical and efcient method compared to developing renewable
energy, retrotting major equipments, and improving energy inte-
gration for resource and energy saving [5].
A CCS process in general involves three stages: separating CO
2
from ue gas, compressing CO
2
for pipeline transport, and inject-
ing CO
2
into geologic reservoirs. For carbon capture, there are
mainly three technologies developed, including post-combustion
capture, oxy-fuel combustion capture, and pre-combustion
1385-8947/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.11.051

Corresponding author. Address: Center for Process Systems Engineering, School

of Chemical Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou
510640, PR China. Tel.: +86 20 87113046, +86 13802902300.
E-mail address: ceyuqian@scut.edu.cn (Y. Qian).
URL: http://www2.scut.edu.cn/ce/pse/qianyuen.htm (Y. Qian).
1
Dong Xiang and Siyu Yang contributed equally to this paper.
Chemical Engineering Journal 240 (2014) 4554
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Chemical Engineering Journal
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ cej
capture [6]. These technologies are usually applied in pulverized-
coal power plants and some chemical plants [7]. Introducing a
CCS will bring penalties on both energetic and economic perfor-
mance [810]. For example, in most coal-based power plants, the
CO
2
avoidance cost is about 250330 RMB/t, which is much
higher than the current carbon price. The penalties brought by
the CCS on chemical processes is, however, lower than those
on power generation processes [11,12]. It demonstrates that it
is necessary to assess the impact of CCS on the whole perfor-
mance of CTO processes.
Planning a sound development roadmap for alternative olens
production requires a broad and comprehensive assessment. Tech-
no-economic analysis is an essential part of this process. More
importantly, the role of CCS in CTO development is needed to be
analyzed to nd the trade-off among environmental protection, en-
ergy penalty, and economic performance. There have been some
studies on techno-economic analysis of CTO processes [1318].
However, the literatures on analyzing CTO processes with CCS from
techno-economic point of view could not be found. Besides, some
views back up developing methanol-to-olens (MTO) processes
since they have the advantages of low capital investment and envi-
ronmental impact. There are now 1 MTO project under operation
and other 10 MTO projects in plan in the next three years in China,
which will approach to a capacity of 6.8 Mt/y [3]. With the poten-
tial challenge of the MTO process, how should people congure
CCS on the CTO process? We answer this question by the techno-
economic comparison of the CTO process with CCS and the MTO
process in this paper.
2. Process modeling
As a base of techno-economic analysis, major units of a CTO
process are modeled, including an air separation unit (ASU), a coal
gasication unit (CG), an acid gas removal unit (AGR), a carbon
capture and storage unit (CCS), a water gas shift unit (WGS), a
methanol synthesis unit (MS), and a methanol-to-olens unit
(MTO). For a plant with given capacity and specied operating con-
ditions, the model calculates all mass and energy ows. The details
of the modeling are described in the following sections.
2.1. Coal-to-olens process
The ow diagram of the CTO process, including the MTO pro-
cess, is shown in Fig. 2. Coal and water are gasied with the oxygen
agent from the ASU, to produce syngas in the CG. The hot syngas is
quenched in a radiant cooler and a convection condenser, where
heat is recovered to generate steam. The syngas is then fed into
the WGS to increase the ratio of H
2
/CO for the methanol synthesis.
Before methanol synthesis, the syngas is cleaned in the AGR to re-
move H
2
S and CO
2
. The clean syngas is then sent to the MS to pro-
duce methanol. The crude methanol solution is concentrated to
90% (moral fraction) before fed into the MTO. Prior to olens sep-
aration, there are a serial of steps: quenching, washing, drying, and
compression. The front-end depropanization separation technique
is applied to separate olens into ethylene and propylene [18].
2.1.1. Coal gasication unit
In the CG, Texaco gasication technique was adopted. For mod-
eling, coal is rstly divided into three kinds of nonconventional
matter as coke, ash, and unburned carbon. Then nonconventional
matter is decomposed in RYield model in Aspen Plus by element
Nomenclature
Abbreviations
AGR acid gas removal
ASU air separation unit
CCS carbon capture and storage
CG coal gasication
CTO coal-to-olens
LHV lower heating value
MS methanol synthesis
MTO methanol-to-olens
RMB ren min bi
WGS water gas shift
Notations in formulation
h domestic-made factor
C
AC
administrative cost (RMB/t)
CCF cumulative cash ow (RMB)
CCR carbon capture rate (%)
C
D
depreciation cost (RMB/t)
C
DSC
distribution and selling cost (RMB/t)
CF
i
cash ow of year i (RMB)
C
O&M
operating & maintenance cost (RMB/t)
C
POC
plant overhead cost (RMB/t)
C
R
raw material cost (RMB/t)
C
TS&M
cost of CO
2
transportation, sequestration and monitor-
ing (RMB/t)
C
U
utilities cost (RMB/t)
EI equipment investment (RMB)
EI
r
J
reference equipment investment of unit j (RMB)
E
wCCS
quantity of CO
2
emitted from the CTO plant with CCS
(Mt/y)
E
w/oCCS
quantity of CO
2
emitted from the CTO plant without CCS
(Mt/y)
MC mitigation cost (RMB/t)
OP olens price (RMB/t)
OY
i
olens yield (Mt/y)
PC product cost (RMB/t)
PC
w CCS
product cost of the CTO plant with CCS (RMB/t)
PC
w/o CCS
product cost of the CTO plant without CCS (RMB/t)
RF
i
ratio factor of component i (%)
S
j
practical scale of unit j
S
r
J
reference scale of unit j
sf scale factor
TCI total capital investment (RMB/t/y)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
M
t
Year
Hydro,Nuclear,Wind
Natural gas
Crude oil
Coal
Fig. 1. Prole of major energy production in China [2].
46 D. Xiang et al. / Chemical Engineering Journal 240 (2014) 4554
analysis [19]. After this, decomposed components, O
2
, water, etc.
are all fed into RGibbs reactor, which calculates chemical equilib-
rium by Gibbs energy minimization. The composition of gaseous
mix was determined according to the property of the input coal
as shown in Table 1. The simulation was veried by comparing
the composition of the output syngas with that of Zheng and Furin-
skys work [21]. The simulated composition is similar to the refer-
ence composition with only a small relative error less than 1.5%
[22].
2.1.2. Methanol synthesis unit
For modeling of methanol synthesis, Lurgi synthesis reactor was
used and modeled by using the Requil model in Aspen Plus. In gen-
eral, there are several major reversible reactions in the methanol
synthesis reactor. CuZnAl catalyst was used for this reaction
with its suitable temperature 513 K and pressure 8.2 MPa [22,
23]. The main reactions are shown in Eqs. (1 and 2):
CO 2H
2
!CH
3
OH 1
CO
2
3H
2
!CH
3
OHH
2
O 2
The raw syngas from the CG is cleaned in the AGR presented in
the CCS and then shifted into syngas with the molar ratio between
hydrogen and carbon monoxide of about 2 [24]. The clean syngas is
put into the MS as the feedstock. Following the synthesis reaction,
the unreacted syngas are separated out fromthe chemical products
and recycled back to the MS to increase the methanol production
[6]. RadFrac model was used to simulate the separation columns
and Peng-Rob was selected as the thermodynamic method. Details
of the simulation refer to the authors previous work [22].
2.1.3. Methanol-to-olens unit
Methanol with molar fraction 90% is converted into product gas
in MTO reactor. The hot product gas is cooled in the quenching
tower and cleaned in the alkaline tower with NaOH solution to re-
move H
2
S and CO
2
. After then, ethylene and propylene are ex-
tracted by the front-end depropanization seperation technique.
DMTO technique was used to synthesize olens. The main reac-
tions in the synthesis reactor could be summarized as follow:
2CH
3
OH !C
2
H
4
2H
2
O 3
3CH
3
OH !C
3
H
6
3H
2
O 4
4CH
3
OH !C
4
H
8
4H
2
O 5
An attrition resistant SAPO-34 was employed as the catalyst.
According to the specication of the catalyst, the temperature
and pressure were xed at 763 K and pressure 0.22 MPa. In this
condition, the methanol conversion has reported to be close to
Mill
Water
Screen
Coal
Water & slag
Gasifier
&
Cooler
Radiant
Water
Steam
Convective
Cooler
Raw syngas
Steam
Scrubber
Water
Regenerator
Methanol
Crude methanol
Purge gas
Lurgi
methanol
reactor
Methanol
Methanol
Unreacted
gas
Bottom liquid
Pressure
distillation
column
Atmospheric
distillation
column
DMTO
reactor
Tail gas
H2S
Air
S
Tail gas
Quenching
tower
Alkaline
tower Water
scrubber
Waste water
Dryer
Water Water
Water
NaOH
C2 splitter
C4
=
Ethylene Fuel gas
Propane
Clean syngas
Ethane
Propylene
Water
Acid gas
absorber
C3 splitter
N2
H2S concentration
tower
Waste water
Depropanizer Demethanizer Dethanizer
WGS reactor
!
?
3
Oxygen
from ASU
+

8
9

b
!0
!!
!?
!3
Fig. 2. Process ow diagram of the CTO process.
Table 1
Properties of coal in Yanzhou, China [20].
Proximate analysis (wt.%) Ultimate analysis (wt.%, dry)
Moisture content 5.81 Ash 7.53
Fixed carbon 49.85 Carbon 73.64
Volatile matter 37.24 Hydrogen 5.24
Ash 7.10 Nitrogen 1.13
Sulfur 2.63
Oxygen 9.83
D. Xiang et al. / Chemical Engineering Journal 240 (2014) 4554 47
100%. The olens synthesis was modeled by Rstoic model in Aspen
Plus. The composition of product gas was calculated according to
the Ref. [25]. RadFrac model was used to simulate rectifying col-
umns. The process compressors were modeled by assuming com-
mon isentropic and mechanical efciency. The NRTL, ELECNRTL,
and RKS-BM were adopted as the thermodynamic methods of
water scrubber, alkaline tower, and separation tower, respectively.
Details of the simulation referred to the authors previous work
[18,26].
2.2. Carbon capture and storage process
The CCS includes carbon capture, compression, transportation,
and storage. The process ow diagram is shown in Fig. 3. The crude
syngas from the gasifer consists of impurities that are mainly ash
and acid gases. It is necessary to remove these impurities before
methanol synthesis. We employed Rectisol method in this paper.
The syngas from the WGS is fed into the water scrubber to remove
ammonia and y ash. After ash dehydration, it is fed into the bot-
tom of the acid gas absorber and absorbed by top-down low tem-
perature methanol, which is obtained from the regeneration tower
and cooled through multistage cooling to 223 K. The upper part of
the absorber mainly removes CO
2
while the lower part removes
sulfur containing compounds. Without CO
2
capture process, CO
2
is separated and exhausted to environment by using N
2
as the
stripping gas. In this case, the exhausted gas is a mixture of N
2
and CO
2
. For CO
2
capture process, a desorber and a companying
ash are introduced to purify CO
2
to the high concentration of
about 98%. The capture rate of CO
2
could be increased by changing
the temperature and pressure of the ash. The H
2
S separated from
methanol regenerator is placed into CLAUS conversion process for
sulfur recovery.
For modeling, RadFrac model was used to simulate the acid gas
absorber, the desorber, the H
2
S concentration tower, and the
regenerator. Flash model and Compr model were adopted for sim-
ulating ashes and compressors, respectively. PSRK was selected as
the thermodynamic method. The described CCS referred to the CCS
demonstration of coal-to-liquild process installed by Shenhua
group in Ordos, China [27]. Different from this CCS, we use pipeline
to transport CO
2
in our model. Puried CO
2
is rstly compressed to
15 MPa and then transported to and injected into underground
reservoirs. 20 km for transportation distance and the saline aquifer
at 2 km deep as the geological position of the reservoirs was
conducted.
3. Analysis methodology
In this section, we mainly analyze the CTO process with CCS
from technical and economic points of view. A few indexes are se-
lected involving energy efciency, capital investment, product cost,
and cumulative cash ow.
The energy efciency is dened as the product energy gener-
ated by all input energy, as shown in Eq. (6). The energy of coal,
methanol, and olens is calculated based on their lower heating
values. The all input energy involves both the energy of feedstock
and utilities.
Energy efficiency
Product energyMW
All input energyMW
6
Another technical factor is carbon capture rate (CCR) which is
dened as the mass ow of captured CO
2
divided by CO
2
emissions,
as shown in Eq. (7).
CCR
Captured CO
2
mass flow Mt=y
CO
2
emissions Mt=y
7
For economic indexes, the capital invested for manufacturing
and plant facilities is dened as the xed capital investment, while
those for the plant operation is dened as the working capital. The
sum of the xed capital investment and the working capital is de-
ned as the total capital investment. In order to evaluate these in-
dexes of olens production processes, it is necessary to know the
capital investment of the basic equipments of the CTO process that
could be calculated according to the benchmark case shown in Ta-
ble 2. The detailed calculation of these equipments follows Eq. (8).
While the equipment investment of CO
2
transportation and storage
was calculated by the Ref. [30]. The other components of the total
capital investment could be determined according to their ratios to
Waste water
Regenerator
Methanol
Tail gas
H
2
S
Air
S
Tail gas
Acid gas
absorber
H
2
S concentration
tower
Clean syngas
Desorber
CO
2
transport
(Pipeline)
CO2 storage
(Saline acquifer)
Crude syngas
Water
N
2
CO
2
Water
scrubber
Fig. 3. Process ow diagram of the CCS process.
48 D. Xiang et al. / Chemical Engineering Journal 240 (2014) 4554
the equipment investment. The ratios are shown in Table 3 and the
calculation follows Eq. (9) [3133]. In this paper, the capital invest-
ment was updated to 2012 prices by using the Chemical Engineer-
ing Plant Cost Index [34,35]. The currency exchange rate between
US$ and RMB was 6.2 in 2012 and the olens price was set to be
10,000 RMB/t [36].
EI
X
J
h EI
r
j

S
j
S
r
j
!
sf
8
TCI EI 1
X
i
RF
i
!
9
where EI is the equipment investment, h is the domestic-made fac-
tor, EI
r
j
is the reference equipment investment of unit j, S
j
is the
practical scale of unit j, S
r
j
is the reference scale of unit j, sf is the
scale factor, TCI is the total capital investment, RF
i
is the ratio factor
of capital investment of component i.
For calculation of the product cost, we made some assumptions
as listed in Table 4. The consumption of raw materials and utilities
was determined according to simulation results. Their correspond-
ing costs were calculated on the basis of the average prices of 2012
in China [18]. Operating labor cost was calculated referring to
Hans work [13]. A straight-line method was adopted to calculate
the depreciation cost under the assumption of 20 years life time
and 4% salvage value. CO
2
TS&M cost was calculated by Mantri-
pragada and Rubins work [11]. The rest part of product cost was
calculated according to the ratio to product cost [31,32]. The prod-
uct cost is dened as the sumof the above components as shown in
Eq. (10).
PC C
R
C
U
C
O&M
C
D
C
POC
C
AC
C
DSC
C
TS&M
10
where PC is the product cost, C
R
is the raw material cost, C
U
is the
utilities cost, C
O&M
is the operating & maintenance cost, C
D
is the
depreciation cost, C
POC
is the plant overhead cost, C
AC
is the admin-
istrative cost, C
DSC
is the distribution and selling cost, C
TS&M
is the
cost of CO
2
transportation, sequestration, and monitoring.
The cost related to CO
2
emissions reduction should also be con-
sidered during product cost estimation. In this paper, we used mit-
igation cost (MC) to evaluate the cost according to Refs. [37,38]. MC
represents the difference of cost per ton of CO
2
emissions avoided
between the plant without CCS and the plant with CCS expressed
in Eq. (11).
MC
PC
wCCS
PC
w=oCCS
E
w=oCCS
E
wCCS
11
where PC is the product cost of the CTO plant, E is the quantity of
CO
2
emitted from the CTO plant, the subscripts w CCS and w/o
CCS are referred to the plant congurations with and without CCS.
Besides the capital investment and the product cost, there is an-
other important economic factor-plant cash ow. It is usually con-
sidered as the cumulative ow over the life of the project.
Cumulative cash ow was calculated by adding all of the cash
ows from the inception of projects, as shown in simplied Eq.
(12). As project life, 23 years was used in this paper, of which
3 years for plant construction and 20 years for operation. Assump-
tions were made for construction phase that the expenditure factor
was 80% for the rst 2 years and 20% for the last year [37].
CCF
X
i
CF
i

X
i
OP PC C
D

i
OY
i
12
where CCF is the cumulative cash ow, CF
i
is the cash ow of year i,
OP is the olens price, PC is the product cost, C
D
is the depreciation
cost, OY
i
is the olens yield of year i.
Table 2
Summary of investment data for main equipment components.
Unit Benchmark Scale (S
r
J
) Size factor (sf) Domestic-made factor (h) EI
r
J
(M$) Refs.
ASU Oxygen supply 21.3 kg/s 0.50 0.50 45.70 [22]
Coal handing Daily coal input 27.4 kg/s 0.67 0.65 29.10 [22]
CG Daily coal input 39.2 kg/s 0.67 0.80 78.00 [22]
WGS Material caloric value 1377 MW 0.67 0.65 39.80 [28]
AGR Sulfur output 29.3 mol/s 0.67 0.65 67.30 [28]
Pure CO
2
captured 2064.4 mol/s 0.67 0.65 32.80 [28]
MS Syngas input 10,810 mol/s 0.67 0.65 20.40 [22]
MTO Methanol input 62.5 kg/s 0.60 1.00 223.06 [29]
Table 3
Ratio factors for capital investment.
Component Ratio factor (RF, %)
(1) Direct investment
(1.1) Equipment 100
(1.2) Installation 48
(1.3) Instruments and controls 24
(1.4) Piping 57
(1.5) Electrical 29
(1.6) Buildings(including services) 71
(1.7) Land 5
(2) Indirect investment
(2.1) Engineering and supervision 48
(2.2) Construction expenses 43
(2.3) Contractors fee 19
(2.4) Contingency 33
(3) Fixed capital investment 477
(4) Working capital 80
(5) Total capital investment 557
Table 4
Assumptions for the estimation of product cost.
Component Basis
(1) Coal Coal price 620 RMB/t; methanol 2,400 RMB/
t
(2) Utilities Water 2 RMB/t, electricity 0.7 RMB/kWh,
steam 42 RMB/GJ
(3) Operating & Maintenance
(3.1) Operating labor CTO 300 labors, MTO 100 labors, 100,000
RMB/labor/year
(3.2) Direct supervisory and
clerical labor
20% of operating labor
(3.3) Maintenance and repairs 2% of xed capital investment
(3.4) Operating supplies 0.7% of xed capital investment
(3.5) Laboratory charge 15% of operating labor
(4) Depreciation Life period 20y, salvage value 4%
(5) Plant overhead cost 60% (3.1 + 3.2 + 3.3)
(6) Administrative cost 2% of product cost
(7) Distribution and selling
cost
2% of product cost
(8) CO
2
TS&M 64 RMB/t CO
2
(9) Product cost (1) + (2) + (3) + (4) + (5) + (6) + (7) + (8)
D. Xiang et al. / Chemical Engineering Journal 240 (2014) 4554 49
4. Results and discussion
This section reports the mass and energy data as well as com-
pares the different cases of CTO processes with CCR ranging from
60% to 95%. A MTO process is also involved in this comparison,
aiming to get which alternative olens production should be devel-
oped in large-scale. In the end of this section, we analyze three
important parameters, plant scale, carbon tax, feedstock price to
nd their effects on economic performance.
4.1. Energy efciency analysis
The CTO plant with CCS and the MTO plant producing the same
0.7 Mt/y olens were simulated in Aspen Plus, which produce all
process data needed to assess the techno-economic and environ-
mental performance of cases studied. As an illustrative example
for mass and energy balance, Table 5 presents the main stream
properties in key points of the CTO plant diagram, and Table 6 pre-
sents properties of N
2
stream, CO
2
stream, and tail gas stream of
CCS at CCR 60%, 80%, and 95%. The properties of shift syngas stream
and clean syngas stream of CCS can be found in Table 5.
The total material and energy consumption of MTO and CTO
plants at different CCRs is shown in Table 7. The energy consump-
tions or generations of ASU, CG, WGS, CCS, MS, and MTO are also
placed in this table. Producing 0.7 Mt/y of olens needs about
1.8 Mt/y methanol for the MTO plant and 2.87 Mt/y coal for the
CTO plant. The resulting CO
2
emissions of the CTO plant are close
to 4.05 Mt/y. The energy efciency to olens product in Table 5
is calculated according to Eq. (6). With shorter conversion route,
the energy efciency of the MTO plant is around 80.98%, much
higher than that of the CTO plant which is only 36.16%.
CTO processes with CCS have two scenarios divided by CCR 80%.
In the rst scenario, the CTO process has a low CCR between 60%
and 80%. The corresponding energy efciency ranges from 35.86%
to 35.69% since the electricity consumption changes from
172.54 MW to 187.58 MW. In the second scenario, the CTO process
has a high CCR between 80% and 95%. The corresponding energy
efciency ranges from 35.69% to 35.38% since the electricity con-
sumption changes from 187.58 MW to 215.93 MW. It is clear that
the increasing rate of electricity consumption of CCS in the second
scenario is about 2 times larger than that in the rst scenario
shown in Fig. 4. The decrease of energy efciency is caused by
the increase of electricity consumption of the CCS. On the one
hand, we should raise the ash temperature and reduce the ash
pressure in order to increase CCR and cool the methanol out of
the ash to 223 K for recycling use. Correspondingly, the increas-
ingly temperature difference leads to bigger ammonia cold energy
consumption when CCR changing from 60% to 95%. On the other
hand, with increasing CCR, CO
2
processing capacity and the com-
pression energy consumption increase linearly, as shown in Fig. 4.
4.2. Economic analysis
4.2.1. Capital investment, product cost, and cumulative cash ow
The breakdown of total capital investment of CTO plants is
shown in Fig. 5. The MTO takes 45.6% of the total capital invest-
ment, followed by the ASU and CG (about 37.3%). It is seen that
additional investment for CCS makes the total capital investment
increase from 2.52 10
4
RMB/t/y to 2.71 10
4
RMB/t/y when
CCR is as high as 95%.
On the other hand, the product cost of MTO and CTO plants are
calculated and shown in Fig. 6. For the CTO plant, most of capital is
expended on purchasing coal, accounting for 39.5% of the product
cost. The second largest is the cost for utilities, about 24.8% of the
product cost. The total capital investment is involved in the prod-
uct cost as the form of depreciation, amounting to 16.8% of the
Table 5
Simulation results of main streams in the CTO process.
Stream
a
Coal (1) Water
(2)
Oxygen
(3)
Syngas
(4)
Shift
syngas
(5)
N
2
(6) Tail gas
(7)
Clean
syngas
(8)
Methanol
(9)
Product
gas (10)
C
4
=
(11)
Ethylene
(12)
Propylene
(13)
Molar fraction (%)
N
2
1.39 0.87 0.85 100.00 30.21 1.00 0.11
O
2
95.00
AR 3.61 1.03 0.98 0.99 0.81
H
2
O 100.00 19.07 01.61 10.18 69.59
CO 40.47 18.71 0.66 27.29
CO
2
11.67 31.56 67.10 3.46 0.01 0.06
H
2
S 0.34 0.32
H
2
26.55 45.97 1.02 67.44 0.44
C 3.16
CH
4
1.11
CH
3
OH 0.02 89.70 0.12
C
2
H
6
0.25 0.18
C
2
H
4
13.75 99.82
C
3
H
8
0.57 0.74 0.38
C
3
H
6
8.90 3.50 99.62
C
4
H
10
0.04 2.56
C
4
H
8
1.63 92.61
C
4
H
6
0.21
C
5
H
12
0.38 0.38
Molar ow
(kmol/hr)
10,708 10,358 36,359 37,676 4893 16,410 25,433 8017 11,002 148 1499 883
Mass ow
(kg/hr)
358,295 192,926 333,886 771,303 794,423 137,070 633,439 283,069 245,440 245,440 8253 42,064 37,184
Temperature
(K)
314 314 383 425 363 293 302 302 318 763 326 182 315
Pressure
(Mpa)
0.1 0.1 4.1 2.76 5.00 0.2 0.2 2.78 0.40 0.22 0.55 0.20 1.73
Enthalpy
(MW)
1128.52 842.74 6.58 1347.27 1535.44 0.22 1206.44 308.34 542.73 463.06 0.30 19.74 4.68
a
In order to simplify the table, some minor streams are not included, such as water & slag stream in CG unit, S stream in AGR unit, and purge gas stream in MS unit.
50 D. Xiang et al. / Chemical Engineering Journal 240 (2014) 4554
product cost, which is the next major contributor to product cost.
By introducing the CCS process, a large amount of CO
2
is mitigated,
ranging from 7360 t/d to 11,660 t/d.
However, there is additional cost required for CCS energy use,
geological sequestration, and monitoring. For the scenario with
low CCR, the product cost increases from 6911 RMB/t to
7131 RMB/t, leading to an increase of 3.2%. For the scenario with
high CCR, the product cost increases to 7437 RMB/t, leading to an
increase of 7.6%. It is obvious that the big change happens at the
Table 6
Simulation results of CCS at CCR 60%, 80%, and 95%.
Stream CCR 60% CCR 80% CCR 95%
N
2
CO
2
Tail gas N
2
CO
2
Tail gas N
2
CO
2
Tail gas
Molar fraction (%)
N
2
100.00 0.04 34.93 100.00 0.03 32.12 100.00 0.03 48.98
AR 0.02 2.34 0.02 4.98 0.02 17.39
CO 0.75 0.82 0.59 1.66 0.54 5.31
CO
2
98.50 60.18 98.90 57.30 99.00 14.73
H
2
0.69 1.73 0.43 3.94 0.38 13.59
CH
3
OH 0.03 0.03 0.03
Mole ow (kmol/hr) 2350 6958 6909 1478 9255 3240 391 10,984 925
Mass ow (kg/hr) 65,832 303,295 258,877 27,397 404,681 119,068 10,953 480,601 26,715
Temperature (K) 293 293 302 293 293 302 293 293 302
Pressure (Mpa) 0.2 15 0.2 0.2 15 0.2 0.2 15 0.2
Enthalpy (MW) 0.10 773.01 436.40 0.04 976.51 195.44 0.02 1226.38 14.29
Table 7
Mass and energy performance results from the techno-economic model for MTO and CTO plants at different CCRs.
Item MTO plant CTO plant with CCS
CCR 0% CCR 60% CCR 70% CCR 80% CCR 90% CCR 95%
Input
Coal (Mt/y)/(MW LHV)
a
2.87/2800.24 2.87/2800.24 2.87/2800.24 2.87/2800.24 2.87/2800.24 2.87/2800.24
Methanol (Mt/y)/(MW LHV)
b
1.80/1250
Net Electricity input (MW
e
)
c
36.61 146.21 172.54 179.10 187.58 204.14 215.93
Net Steam input (MW
th
)
c
123.98 212.75 212.75 212.75 212.75 212.75 212.75
ASU (MW
e
/MW
th
) 144.57/ 144.57/ 144.57/ 144.57/ 144.57/ 144.57/
CG (MW
e
/MW
th
) 70.74/ 70.74/ 70.74/ 70.74/ 70.74/ 70.74/
WGS (MW
e
/MW
th
) /15.10 /15.10 /15.10 /15.10 /15.10 /15.10
AGR or CCS (MW
e
/MW
th
) 9.86/26.59 36.19/26.59 42.75/26.59 51.23/26.59 67.79/26.59 79.58/26.59
MS (MW
e
/MW
th
) 25.91/77.28 25.91/77.28 25.91/77.28 25.91/77.28 25.91/77.28 25.91/77.28
MTO (MW
e
/MW
th
) 36.61/123.98 36.61/123.98 36.61/123.98 36.61/123.98 36.61/123.98 36.61/123.98 36.61/123.98
Total energy input (MW) 1410.59 3159.20 3185.53 3192.09 3200.57 3217.13 3228.92
Output
Ethylene (Mt/y)/(MW LHV)
b
0.33/538.54 0.33/538.54 0.33/538.54 0.33/538.54 0.33/538.54 0.33/538.54 0.33/538.54
Propylene (Mt/y)/(MW LHV)
b
0.30/489.57 0.30/489.57 0.30/489.57 0.30/489.57 0.30/489.57 0.30/489.57 0.30/489.57
C
4
=(Mt/y)/(MW LHV)
b
0.07/114.24 0.07/114.24 0.07/114.24 0.07/114.24 0.07/114.24 0.07/114.24 0.07/114.24
Product energy (MW LHV) 1142.35 1142.35 1142.35 1142.35 1142.35 1142.35 1142.35
CO
2
emissions (Mt/y) Negligible 4.05 1.39 1.04 0.69 0.35 0.17
Energy efciency (%, LHV basis) 80.98 36.16 35.86 35.79 35.69 35.50 35.38
a
The LHV is based on Ref. [39].
b
The LHV is based on Ref. [16].
c
MW
e
represents the energy of electricity and MW
th
represents the energy of steam. The symbol of are used to make a distinction between generated and consumed
energy.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
C
O
2

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

(
M
t
/
y
)
E
n
e
r
g
y

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

(
M
W
)
CCR (%)
Electricity consumption for ammonia cold
Electricity consumption for compression
CCS electricity consumption
CO
2
emissions
Fig. 4. The relationship between CCR and electricity consumption.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 60 70 80 90 95
T
o
t
a
l

c
a
p
i
t
a
l

i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t

(
1
0
0
0

R
M
B
/
t
/
y
)
CCR (%)
Increase of CCS MTO MS
WGS AGR CG
ASU
Fig. 5. Distribution of total capital investment for CTO plants at different CCRs.
D. Xiang et al. / Chemical Engineering Journal 240 (2014) 4554 51
CCR 80%, which divides CTO plants with CCS into low capture con-
guration and high capture conguration. The big change could
also be found in the mitigation cost and energy consumption of
CCS, as shown in Figs. 7 and 4. Thus, CTO with this carbon capture
conguration is appropriate choice for olens production consider-
ing energy penalties, economic performance, and environmental
protection. The product cost of the MTO plant is about
7896 RMB/t, which is much higher than that of the CTO plant with
CCS. The methanol cost is the biggest part, amounting to 78.1%, fol-
lowed by the utilities cost of 6.7% and depreciation cost of 6.0%.
As shown in Fig. 8, the plant with the highest cumulative cash
ow is the CTO plant without CCS, followed by the ones with
CCS and the MTO plant. The cumulative cash ow decreases from
5.0 10
9
RMB to 3.5 10
9
RMB as CCR increasing from 0% to
95%. While the cash ow of the MTO plant is only 2.9 10
9
RMB.
Although the capital investments of CTO plants are about 2 times
larger than that of MTO plant, the ratio of cumulative cash ow
to the MTO plant is 1.21.7. In Fig. 8, we could also nd the
break-even point and the payback period. The payback period is
about 8 y for the plant without CCS, about 9 y for the plant with
CCS, and about 7 y for the MTO plant.
4.2.2. Effects of plant scale, carbon tax, and feedstock price
As discussed above, we select an appropriate CCR equal to 80%
for case study of the effect of production scale, carbon tax, and
feedstock price on its economic performance.
As production scale is one of the most important factor for eco-
nomic performance, we therefore study the effect of this factor on
the capital investment and the product cost of the CTO plant with
CCS. According to the results, it is clear to nd that the capital
investment will decrease as the plant capacity varies from
0.3 Mt/y to 2.0 Mt/y, as shown in Fig. 9. The total capital invest-
ment of a 2.0 Mt/y plant is about 46.8% of a 0.3 Mt/y plant. Since
depreciation is a important factor, the product cost also decreases
with increasing plant capacity. However, the production scale
shows less effect on product cost. For example, the product cost
of a 2.0 Mt/y plant is about 19.3% less than a 0.3 Mt/y plant, as
shown in Fig. 10. For the MTO plant, the effect of economies of
scale is relatively small since the capital investment of the MTO
plant is less than half of the CTO plant.
As the largest developing country, China is facing increasing
criticism for the largest greenhouse gas emissions. Chinas 12th
ve-year plan clearly promised that a carbon trading market would
be gradually established and CO
2
emissions intensity be reduced at
the same time. The city of Shenzhen launched a carbon trading
scheme on 18 June 2013, Chinas rst market for compulsory car-
bon trading. The scheme covers 635 industrial companies and
some public buildings accounting for about 40% of the citys emis-
sions [40]. This means that there will be an explicit cost associated
with CO
2
emissions in the near future in China.
The effect of increasing carbon tax on the product cost is shown
in Fig. 11. It is obvious that when carbon tax exceeds 250 RMB/t
the product cost of the CTO plant without CCS is higher than that
of the MTO plant, while the product cost of the CTO plant with
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
MTO CCR 0% CCR 60% CCR 70% CCR 80% CCR 90% CCR 95%
P
r
o
d
u
c
t

c
o
s
t

(
R
M
B
/
t
)
CO2 TS&M Distribution and selling cost
Administrative cost Plant overhead cost
Depreciation Operating & Maintenance
Fig. 6. Distribution of product cost for MTO and CTO plants at different CCRs.
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t

(
R
M
B
/
t

C
O
2
)
CCR (%)
Fig. 7. Relationship between CCR and mitigation cost.
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
5 10 15 20 23
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

c
a
s
h

f
l
o
w

(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n

R
M
B
)
Year
CTO without CCS
CTO with CCR 80%
CTO with CCR 95%
MTO
Fig. 8. Cumulative cash ow of MTO and CTO plants at different CCRs.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.0
T
o
t
a
l

c
a
p
i
t
a
l

i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t

(
1
0
0
0
R
M
B
/
t
/
y
)

Capacity (Mt/y)
Incremental investment of CCS
CTO without CCS
Fig. 9. Total capital investment of the CTO plant with CCS varying with different
capacities.
52 D. Xiang et al. / Chemical Engineering Journal 240 (2014) 4554
CCS is much lower than that of the MTO plant when carbon tax is
as high as 400 RMB/t. For the CTO plant with CCS, the break-even
carbon tax between CTO plants with and without CCS is about
150 RMB/t, roughly equivalent to the current carbon price. Thus,
the CTO plant with CCS could be rstly built to demonstrate the
potential application of CCS technologies from the aspects of envi-
ronmental protection and overall economic performance. It is
important to underline that, if the carbon price increases up to
300400 RMB/t in the next few years, the application of CCS tech-
nologies for large-scale CTO plants will become very protable.
The effect of feedstock price on product cost of the MTO plant is
about 2 times that of the CTO plants with and without CCS, as
shown in Fig. 12. This means that the product cost of the MTO
plant is highly affected by feedstock price and that for CTO plants
the inuence is relatively small. Besides, coal price is more stable
than methanol which is mostly determined by oil price in the past
several years [18]. Although MTO plants have advantages of low
capital investment and low environmental impact, their economic
performances are easily intervened by methanol price. In other
words, MTO plants have less anti-risk capability of market uctu-
ation than CTO plants in China. Expanding development of CTO
plants with CCS should be encouraged since it could relieve the
conict between the supply and demand of olens, meanwhile re-
duce CO
2
emissions, and manifest a strong anti-risk capability to
the raw material market.
5. Conclusions
Techno-economic performance of the CTO process with CCS was
analyzed in this paper. The CTO process was also compared with
the MTO process. The performance results indicate that the CTO
plant with CCS is slightly less thermodynamic efcient than the
conventional CTO plant without CCS. For the CTO plant with 80%
carbon capture compared to the CTO plant, the total capital invest-
ment increases by 6%, from 2.52 10
4
RMB/t/y to 2.69 10
4
RMB/
t/y, and the product cost rises nearly 11%, from 6442 RMB/t to
7131 RMB/t.
The effects of economies of scale and carbon tax were also ana-
lyzed. It was found that production scale has more effect on capital
investment than product cost. If the scale of the CTO plant with CCS
increases from 0.3 Mt/y to 2.0 Mt/y, the total capital investment
and product cost will drop approximately 53.2% and 19.3%. The
mitigation cost of CTO with CCS is about 150 RMB/t, roughly equiv-
alent to the current carbon price.
On the other hand, the product cost of the MTO plant is
7896 RMB/t, which is much higher that of the CTO plant with
CCS even in the context of carbon tax as high as 400 RMB/t.
Although the MTO plant has low capital investment and CO
2
emis-
sions, its product cost ratio to the CTO plant with CCS is 0.9, its
cumulative cash ow ratio is 0.7, and its economic performance
is susceptible to uctuation of market price. In contrast, the prod-
uct cost of the CTO with CCS is lower and it could resist market risk.
In a word, developing CTO processes with CCS is important to the
sustainable development of olens industry in China from the
perspectives of resource reserve, economic performance, and envi-
ronmental protection.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful for nancial support from the China
NSF Key Project (No. 21136003), the China NSF Project (No.
21306056), the National Basic Research Program (No.
2012CB720504; 2014CB744306), the Fundamental Research Funds
for the Central Universities (No. 2013ZP0010), and Guangdong
Province NSF Team Project (No. S2011030001366).
References
[1] Y. Qu, The prospect of Chinas olen market during the twelfth ve-year plan,
Petro. Petrochem. Today 20 (2012) 1625 (in Chinese).
[2] National Bureau of Statistics, China energy statistics yearbook, China Stat.
Press, Beijing, 2010 (in Chinese).
[3] ICIS, China develops coal-to-olens projects, which could lead to ethylene self-
sufciency, 2012 (assessed 25.08.2013), <http://www.icis.com/Articles/2012/
02/27/9535534/china+develops+coal-to-olens+projects+which+could+lead+
to+ethylene.html>.
[4] P. Markewitz, W. Kuckshinrichs, W. Leitner, J. Linssen, P. Zapp, R. Bongartz, A.
Schreiber, T.E. Mller, Worldwide innovations in the development of carbon
capture technologies and the utilization of CO
2
, Energy Environ. Sci. 5 (2012)
72817305.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.0
P
r
o
d
u
c
t

c
o
s
t

(
R
M
B
/
t
)
Capacity (Mt/a)
Incremental cost of CCS CTO without CCS
Fig. 10. Product cost of the CTO plant with CCS varying with different capacities.
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
8500
9000
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 400
P
r
o
d
u
c
t

c
o
s
t

(
R
M
B
/
t
)
Carbon tax (RMB/t CO
2
)
CTO without CCS CTO with CCS
MTO
Fig. 11. Effect of carbon tax on product cost.
3000
5000
7000
9000
11000
13000
15000
P
r
o
d
u
c
t

c
o
s
t

(
R
M
B
/
t
)
Coal price/methanol price (RMB/t)
CTO without CCS CTO with CCS
MTO
200/800 400/1600 600/2400 800/3200 1000/4000 1200/4800
Fig. 12. Effect of prices of feedstock on product cost.
D. Xiang et al. / Chemical Engineering Journal 240 (2014) 4554 53
[5] K.Z. House, C.F. Harvey, M.J. Aziz, D.P. Schrag, The energy penalty of post-
combustion CO
2
capture & storage and its implications for retrotting the U.S.
installed base, Energy Environ. Sci. 2 (2009) 193205.
[6] Z. Luo, M. Fang, M. Li, L. Gao, The Technology of CO
2
Capture, Storage and
Usage, China Elec. Power Press, Beijing, 2012 (in Chinese).
[7] H. Lin, H. Jin, L. Gao, W. Han, Techno-economic evaluation of coal-based
polygeneration systems of synthetic fuel and power with CO
2
recovery, Energy
Convers. Manage. 52 (2011) 274283.
[8] A. Pettinau, F. Ferrara, C. Amorino, Combustion vs. gasication for a
demonstration CCS (carbon capture and storage) project in Italy: a techno-
economic analysis, Energy 50 (2013) 160169.
[9] Q. Yi, B. Lu, J. Feng, Y. Wu, W. Li, Evaluation of newly designed polygeneration
system with CO
2
recycle, Energy Fuel 26 (2012) 14591469.
[10] K.S. Ng, Y. Lopez, G.M. Campbell, J. Sadhukhan, Heat integration and analysis of
decarbonised IGCC sites, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 88 (2010) 170188.
[11] H.C. Mantripragada, E.S. Rubin, Techno-economic evaluation of coal-to-liquids
(CTL) plants with carbon capture and sequestration, Energy Policy 39 (2011)
28082816.
[12] W. Zhou, B. Zhu, D. Chen, F. Zhao, W. Fei, Technoeconomic assessment of
Chinas indirect coal liquefaction projects with different CO
2
capture
alternatives, Energy 36 (2011) 65596566.
[13] H. Han, Economic analysis of producing olen from naphtha, coal and natural
gas, Chem. Techno-Eco. 23 (2005) 1418 (in Chinese).
[14] X. Yang, L. Dong, Technical progress and economic analysis on the direct
production of light olens from syngas, Chem. Ind. Eng. Progr. 31 (2012) 1726
1731 (in Chinese).
[15] T. Ren, M.K. Patel, K. Blok, Steam cracking and methane to olens: energy use,
CO
2
emissions and production costs, Energy 33 (2008) 817833.
[16] T. Ren, M.K. Patel, Basic petrochemicals from natural gas, coal and biomass:
energy use and CO
2
emissions, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 53 (2009) 513528.
[17] D. Xiang, L.J. Peng, S. Yang, Y. Qian, A review of oil and coal resource processes
for olens production, Chem. Ind. Eng. Progr. 32 (2013) 959970 (in Chinese).
[18] D. Xiang, Y. Qian, Y. Man, S. Yang, Techno-economic analysis of the coal-to-
olens process in comparison with the oil-to-olens process, Appl. Energy 113
(2014) 639647, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.08.013.
[19] L. Zhou, S. Hu, Y. Li, Q. Zhou, Study on co-feed and co-production system based
on coal and natural gas for producing DME and electricity, Chem. Eng. J. 136
(2008) 3140.
[20] G. Liu, Z. Li, M. Wang, W. Ni, Energy savings by co-production: a methanol/
electricity case study, Appl. Energy 87 (2010) 28542859.
[21] L.G. Zheng, E. Furinsky, Comparison of Shell, Texaco, BGL and KRW gasiers as
part of IGCC plant computer simulations, Energy Convers. Manage. 46 (2005)
17671779.
[22] S. Yang, Q. Yang, H. Li, X. Jin, X. Li, Y. Qian, An integrated framework for
modeling, synthesis, analysis, and optimization of coal gasication-based
energy and chemical processes, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 51 (2012) 1576315777.
[23] K. Xie, D. Fang, Methanol Technology, Chem. Ind. Press, China, Beijing, 2010 (in
Chinese).
[24] K.S. Ng, J. Sadhukhan, Process integration and economic analysis of bio-oil
platform for the production of methanol and combined heat and power,
Biomass Bioenergy 35 (2011) 11531169.
[25] Dalian institute of chemical physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. The typical
operating conditions and product component of methanol to olens, 2011
(assessed 25.08.2013). <http://www.syn.ac.cn/doshow1.php?id=26>. (in
Chinese).
[26] Y. Qian, J. Liu, Z. Huang, A. Kraslawski, J. Cui, Y. Huang, Conceptual design and
system analysis of a poly-generation system for power and olen production
from natural gas, Appl. Energy 86 (2009) 20882095.
[27] Z. Li, D. Zhang, L. Ma, W. Logan, W. Ni, The necessity of and policy suggestions
for implementing a limited number of large scale, fully integrated CCS
demonstrations in China, Energy Policy 39 (2011) 53475355.
[28] L. Zhou, S. Hu, D. Chen, Y. Li, B. Zhu, Y. Jin, Study on systems based on coal and
natural gas for producing dimethyl ether, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 48 (2009) 4101
4108.
[29] J. Cheng, C. Li, X. Cheng, The Review on Oil Replacement, China Petrochem.
Press, Beijing, 2009 (in Chinese).
[30] R.T. Dahowski, C.L. Davidson, X.C. Li, N. Wei, A $70/t CO
2
greenhouse gas
mitigation backstop for Chinas industrial and electric power sects: insights
from a comprehensive CCS cost curve, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Con. 11 (2012) 7385.
[31] M.S. Peter, K.D. Timmerhaus, Plant Design and Economics for Chemical
Engineers, 5 ed., McGraw Hill, USA, New York, 2003.
[32] M. Orhan, I. Dincer, G. Naterer, Cost analysis of a thermochemical CuCl pilot
plant for nuclear-based hydrogen production, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 33
(2008) 60066020.
[33] Y. Zhang, T.R. Brown, G. Hu, R.C. Brown, Techno-economic analysis of two bio-
oil upgrading pathways, Chem. Eng. J. 225 (2013) 895904.
[34] K.S. Ng, N. Zhang, J. Sadhukhan, Techno-economic analysis of polygeneration
systems with carbon capture and storage and CO
2
reuse, Chem. Eng. J. 219
(2013) 96108.
[35] Chemical engineerings plant cost index, 2012 (assessed 25.08.2013), <http://
www.che.com/business_and_economics/economic_indicators.html>.
[36] J. Zhao, The Economic Data Express of China Petroleum and Chemical Industry,
China Petro. Chem. Ind, Beijing, 2012 (in Chinese).
[37] C.C. Cormos, Integrated assessment of IGCC power generation technology with
carbon capture and storage CCS, Energy 45 (2012) 434445.
[38] O. Lassagne, L. Gosselin, M. Desilets, M. Iliuta, Techno-economic study of CO
2
capture for aluminum primary production for different electrolytic cell
ventilation rates, Chem. Eng. J. 230 (2013) 338350.
[39] X. Hu, A. Li, H. Cheng, D. Xin, D. Zhang, B. Zheng, General Principles of the
Comprehensive Energy Consumption Calculation, China Stand. Press, Beijing,
2008 (in Chinese).
[40] China Daily, China starts carbon trading in Shenzhen, 2013 (assessed
25.08.2013), <http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2013-06/19/
content_16635384.htm>.
54 D. Xiang et al. / Chemical Engineering Journal 240 (2014) 4554