Comparative environmental benefits of power generation from underground and surface coal gasification with carbon capture and storage

被引:20
作者
Feng, Ye [1 ,2 ]
Yang, Bo [3 ]
Hou, Yunbing [1 ]
Duan, Tian-Hong [6 ]
Yang, Lai [2 ,4 ,5 ]
Wang, Yixuan [2 ,4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] China Univ Min & Technol, Sch Energy & Min Engn, Beijing 100083, Peoples R China
[2] Beijing Inst Technol, Ctr Energy & Environm Policy Res, Beijing 100181, Peoples R China
[3] Tsinghua Univ, Sch Environm, Div Air Pollut & Its Control, Beijing 100084, Peoples R China
[4] Beijing Inst Technol, Sch Management & Econ, Beijing 100181, Peoples R China
[5] Beijing Key Lab Energy Econ & Environm Management, Beijing 100081, Peoples R China
[6] China Univ Min & Technol, Sch Mines, Xuzhou 221116, Jiangsu, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金; 国家重点研发计划;
关键词
Underground coal gasification; Underground gasification combined cycle; Life cycle assessment; Environmental benefit; Carbon capture and storage; LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT; HYDROGEN-PRODUCTION; CO2; CAPTURE; PLANTS; CCS; OPPORTUNITIES; TECHNOLOGIES; IMPACT; ENERGY; UCG;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127383
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Underground gasification combined cycle (UGCC), when combined with carbon capture and storage (CCS), is widely judged to be a promising approach for clean coal utilization especially in the context of carbon neutral energy pathways. Nevertheless, the overall operation processes may consume a multiple of energy and inevitably trigger environmental concerns. Hence, a careful evaluation of the potential environmental impacts associated with UGCC is needed. In this study, we assessed environmental impacts of UGCC with and without CCS by the life cycle assessment method, and compared the results with those of surface integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) to gain better insight into tradeoffs of two coal gasification technologies and lighten the environmental burden by design optimizations. The results demonstrated that most mid-point impact values of UGCC power plants, which reflect pollution emissions and corresponding damage degree, were lower. Inversely, the global warming potential was 16.9% higher than those of IGCC power plants. Furthermore, UGCC power plants have superior end-point environmental benefits, which represent the damage of ecosystem quality, human health and resources. As demonstrated by the fact that the value of above three impact types were 23%, 15% and 4%, lower than those of IGCC power plants, respectively. In addition, the implement of CCS in two types of power plants decreased human health damage due to reduced greenhouse gas emissions, but notable environmental trade-offs are the increase in ecosystem quality damage and resource damage. The aggregated results show that UGCC with or without CCS has a more outstanding environmental performance with exception of global warming potential than IGCC with or without CCS. Enhancing UCG process control, improving syngas heating value and decreasing the energy in gasification agent preparation are effective methods to further reduce the GHG emissions. Approached in an improved way, UGCC-CCS stands to provide a low-carbon and self-contained solution for power production and energy provision.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 69 条
  • [1] Prospects for carbon capture and storage technologies
    Anderson, S
    Newell, R
    [J]. ANNUAL REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES, 2004, 29 : 109 - 142
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2006, ENV IMP SOLV SCRUBB
  • [3] Underground coal gasification: From fundamentals to applications
    Bhutto, Abdul Waheed
    Bazmi, Aqeel Ahmed
    Zahedi, Gholamreza
    [J]. PROGRESS IN ENERGY AND COMBUSTION SCIENCE, 2013, 39 (01) : 189 - 214
  • [4] Bian Z., 2010, Mining Science and Technology, V20, P215, DOI DOI 10.1016/S1674-5264(09)60187-3
  • [5] Energy and exergy analyses of an integrated underground coal gasification with SOFC fuel cell system for multigeneration including hydrogen production
    Bicer, Yusuf
    Dincer, Ibrahim
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY, 2015, 40 (39) : 13323 - 13337
  • [6] Life cycle assessment of heat production from underground coal gasification
    Burchart-Korol, Dorota
    Korol, Jerzy
    Czaplicka-Kolarz, Krystyna
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2016, 21 (10) : 1391 - 1403
  • [7] Christou C, 2008, RENEW SUST ENERG REV, V12, P2459, DOI 10.1016/j.rser.2007.06.010
  • [8] Conti J., 2016, INT ENERGY OUTLOOK 2
  • [9] Environmental impact assessment of CCS chains - Lessons learned and limitations from LCA literature
    Corsten, Marielle
    Ramirez, Andrea
    Shen, Li
    Koornneef, Joris
    Faaij, Andre
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREENHOUSE GAS CONTROL, 2013, 13 : 59 - 71
  • [10] Production of power using underground coal gasification
    Doucet, Denis
    Perkins, Greg
    Ulbrich, Andreas
    du Toit, Ernest
    [J]. ENERGY SOURCES PART A-RECOVERY UTILIZATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, 2016, 38 (24) : 3653 - 3660