![. Primary energy outputs per 10,000 tonnes of DCL products and our conversion to MJ [25].](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281940959/figure/tbl1/AS:668235888336920@1536331259680/Primary-energy-outputs-per-10-000-tonnes-of-DCL-products-and-our-conversion-to-MJ-25_Q320.jpg)
![Energy consumption of truck powered by gasoline in China [30–39].](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281940959/figure/fig3/AS:398578825613315@1472040005510/Energy-consumption-of-truck-powered-by-gasoline-in-China-30-39_Q320.jpg)
![. Primary energy inputs per 10,000 tonnes of DCL products and our conversion to MJ [25].](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281940959/figure/tbl2/AS:668235888357386@1536331259724/Primary-energy-inputs-per-10-000-tonnes-of-DCL-products-and-our-conversion-to-MJ-25_Q320.jpg)
Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Energies
This content is subject to copyright.
Energies 2015, 8, 786-807; doi:10.3390/en8020786
energies
ISSN 1996-1073
www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Article
EROI Analysis for Direct Coal Liquefaction without and with
CCS: The Case of the Shenhua DCL Project in China
Zhaoyang Kong 1, Xiucheng Dong 1,*, Bo Xu 1,2, Rui Li 3, Qiang Yin 1 and Cuifang Song 1
1 School of Business Administration, China University of Petroleum (Beijing), Beijing 102249, China;
E-Mails: zhaoyangkong@126.com (Z.K.); livemylife123@sina.com (B.X.);
waynorth90@163.com (Q.Y.); scf2010@126.com (C.S.)
2 China National Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Corporation, Beijing 100034, China
3 Weichai Power Co., Ltd., Weifang 261000, China; E-Mail: liruiwinner@sina.com
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: dongxiucheng@cup.edu.cn;
Tel./Fax: +86-10-8973-3791.
Academic Editor: Jennie C. Stephens
Received: 2 December 2014 / Accepted: 14 January 2015 / Published: 23 January 2015
Abstract: Currently, there are considerable discrepancies between China’s central
government and some local governments in attitudes towards coal to liquids (CTL)
technology. Energy return on investment (EROI) analysis of CTL could provide new
insights that may help solve this dilemma. Unfortunately, there has been little research on
this topic; this paper therefore analyses the EROI of China’s Shenhua Group Direct Coal
Liquefaction (DCL) project, currently the only DCL commercial project in the world. The
inclusion or omission of internal energy and by-products is controversial. The results show
that the EROIstnd without by-product and with internal energy is 0.68–0.81; the EROIstnd
(the standard EROI) without by-product and without internal energy is 3.70–5.53;
the EROIstnd with by-product and with internal energy is 0.76–0.90; the EROIstnd with
by-product and without internal energy is 4.13–6.14. Furthermore, it is necessary to
consider carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a means to control the CO2 emissions.
Considering the added energy inputs of CCS at the plant level, the EROIs decrease to
0.65–0.77, 2.87–3.97, 0.72–0.85, and 3.20–4.40, respectively. The extremely low,
even negative, net energy, which may be due to high investments in infrastructure and
low conversion efficiency, suggests CTL is not a good choice to replace conventional
energy sources, and thus, Chinese government should be prudent when developing it.
OPEN ACCESS
Energies 2015, 8 787
Keywords: EROI; Shenhua; DCL; CTL; CCS; China
1. Introduction
Coal liquefaction, currently termed coal to liquids (CTL) [1], is a chemical process for producing
synthetic transportation fuels from coal to replace or supplement conventional supplies of diesel oil
and gasoline derived largely from petroleum [2]. Technologically, there are two primary routes for
CTL production—direct coal liquefaction (DCL) and the Fischer–Tropsch (F–T) processes, also called
indirect coal liquefaction (ICL) [3]. It is generally believed that DCL processes are more efficient than
ICL—60% (the ratio of energy produced including coal and gas to energy outputs including gasoline,
diesel, propane, butane) compared to 50%–55%—but also require higher quality coal and are more
complicated [3]. With its rapidly growing demand for transportation fuels, along with its scant
domestic oil and natural gas resources coupled with abundant coal, China has been actively pursuing
coal liquefaction technology since the 1950s [3]. However, CTL is controversial. Historically, the
central government’s support for coal liquefaction has been highly uneven and volatile because its
priorities have changed over time (Figure 1). Particularly, since 2006, there have been considerable
discrepancies in attitudes towards CTL between the central government and some local governments.
Whereas the central government restricts the development of the CTL industry, citing business risks,
water scarcity, CO2 emissions and other environmental concerns, local governments in coal-rich
regions cannot wait to enter the industry because doing so could create much-needed jobs and
contribute to GDP (Gross Domestic Product) growth [3]. Thus, it is evident that China is facing a
dilemma—should the government vigorously support the development of the CTL industry?
Figure 1. Key milestones in attitudes towards China’s coal liquefaction policy from 1949
through the present.
1959
Late 1970s
Mid of 1990s
2006
Present
1949
Supportive
▪ resumed and expanded
the Jinzhou plant.
Objective
▪ suspended its R&D on CTL
▪ officially suspended the
Jinzhou plant in 1967
Supportive
▪ increased efforts to establish
China’s intellectual property for
ICL.
▪ started its DCL experiments
Strong supportive
▪ enormous financial support from
“Coal Replacing Oil Fund,” “863
Plan,” “973 program,” etc.
▪ identified as a prior developing
technology
Central government：Cautious
▪ issued three more project suspension notices
▪ banned the allocation of land and bank loans to coal
chemical projects that did not meet industrial policies and
regulations.
Some local government：Aggressive supportive
▪ heavy support for CTL, e.g., the Ordos government
guaranteed water usage for the Shenhua DCL project; all
water was from groundwater, although the city’s
groundwater was overexploited
Energies 2015, 8 788
Currently, to answer this question, most research uses the common strategy of taking a conventional
techno-economic analysis approach, such as the input-output method, to analyse the economics of CTL [4].
EROI analysis, which reflects the amount of energy that can actually be delivered [5], is a useful
approach for assessing the desirability of an energy source [6]. Unfortunately, the peer-reviewed
literature has paid only minimal attention to the EROI of CTL production [7]. For example, Cleveland [8]
mentions the EROI for a coal liquefaction range above and below the break-even point (EROI = 1),
depending on assumptions regarding location, resource quality, and technology characterisation.
Farrell and Brandt [9] claim that the Shell CTL process yielded an EROI of 3.5 based on direct energy
inputs, whereas Alberta [10] estimates roughly that the EROI for CTL is approximately 4:1. The two
aforementioned studies suffer from two disadvantages regarding the EROI of CTL.
One disadvantage is that although these studies address ICL, none of them discusses DCL. The
main reason for this neglect is that DCL technologies are less mature than ICL technologies, and thus,
information available in the public domain is limited [11–13]. The other disadvantage is that the
studies did not consider the effect of carbon mitigation technologies on EROI. Highly carbon-intensive
CTL processes are not compatible with a progressive climate policy strategy, and as such, climate
policy should receive more attention when developing CTL processes.
This paper seeks to analyse systematically the EROI of China’s Shenhua Group (Shenhua) Direct
Coal Liquefaction Project, the only commercial demonstration project in the world since World War II [14]
to operate both with and without carbon capture and storage (CCS). Shenhua is one of the largest
energy companies in China, and it is the world’s largest coal producer. The Chinese National Council
provided approximately $1.3 billion US from the Coal Replacement for Oil Fund to Shenhua to initiate
DCL development in 1998 [3,15]. In 2009, Shenhua completed the world’s first modern commercial
DCL facility in Ordos, Inner Mongolia, a facility that can produce nearly 1 million tonnes of oil
products per year, which is equivalent to approximately 25,000 barrels of oil per day [15]. In China,
the Shenhua DCL project is much more effective than others (including ICL projects), thus its EROI
has a significant reference value for policy makers.
2. EROI Methodology
EROI, a tool used in net analysis, is a simple but powerful way to examine the quality of an energy
resource. What is most relevant to our economies is the net energy flow (not the gross) provided by the
energy sector, and this flow can be estimated using the EROI approach. EROI can broadly be described
as the ratio between the energy made available to society through a certain process and the energy
inputs to implement this process [16,17]. The general equation for EROI is given in Equation (1) [6]:
(1)
The numerator is the summation of all energy produced for a given timeframe, and the denominator
is the sum of the energy inputs. EROI is typically calculated without discounting for time. Because the
numerator and denominator are usually assessed in the same units, the ratio derived is dimensionless
and often expressed as x: 1 in text [17], e.g., 10:1. This implies that a particular process yields
10 joules on an investment of 1 joule (or Kcal per Kcal or barrels per barrel).
Energies 2015, 8 789
Some previous EROI analyses have generated a wide variety of results, including apparently
conflicting results, when applied to the same energy resource. The reasons for these differences are not
limited to intrinsic variations in energy resource quality, extraction technology, and varying geology
but also include methodological issues including different boundaries of analysis, different methods
used to estimate indirect energy inputs (including monetary expenditure converted into energy using
different assumptions), and issues related to energy quality, e.g., whether different forms of energies
should be weighted differently because of different physical characteristics and different economic
utility (e.g., electricity versus coal) [18].
To formalise the analysis of EROI, Mulder and Hagens [19] established a consistent theoretical
framework for EROI analysis that encompasses the various methodologies presented in the extant
literature. Murphy et al. [20] proposed a more explicit two-dimensional framework for EROI analysis
that describes three boundaries for energy analysis (extraction, processing, and end use) and five levels
of energy inputs (direct energy inputs, indirect energy inputs, indirect labour consumption, auxiliary
services consumption, and environmental consumption). The result is 15 versions of EROI.
Because most EROI analyses account for both direct and indirect energy inputs, but not for labour
or environmental costs, Murphy et al. [20] deem this boundary to be the standard EROI and assign it
the name “EROIstnd”. Using the standard calculation, we have the following equation:
(2)
Where Eo is joules of all energy outputs expressed in the same units and Ed and Ei represent the total
input and direct input, respectively, of different types of energy. The challenge is that the indirect
energy inputs are rarely available as physical energy units. Rather, the data are available in monetary
units as, e.g., investments in industrial equipment. Thus, we employ Equation (3) to complete the
EROI analysis:
(3)
Where Mi represents the indirect inputs in monetary terms and Eins expresses the energy intensity of
a dollar input for indirect components.
Other approaches (e.g., including labour) can be conducted as sensitivity analyses, which will
examine how changing variables affect the outcome. If both environmental and indirect energy inputs
are considered, then EROI1,i+env and so on. The critical point is to clarify what is included in
the analysis [20].
3. The EROI of DCL
3.1. System Boundary
The decision regarding system boundaries is perhaps the most important decision made in an EROI
analysis [16]. In the past, the use of different boundaries with respect to different research objectives has
resulted in significantly different findings, even when applied to the same energy resource [5].
The equation for calculating EROI is sometimes applied to finding energy, sometimes applied for
producing energy, and most usually and appropriately applied to both [21]. However, it should not be
Energies 2015, 8 790
used to compute conversion efficiency, i.e., going from one form of energy to another, such as upgrading
petroleum in a refinery or converting diesel to electricity [17,20,22]. Accordingly, this paper discusses
the overall DCL process chain from coal extraction to coal transportation to coal liquefaction to the main
output of the process (Figure 2), which is diesel.
Self-use or internal energy is an important issue in the assessment of EROI. In the Shenhua DCL
project, middle coal, oil residue, and tail gas that are produced in coal liquefaction are burned in the
combustor of a captive power plant to create electricity that meets on-site electricity requirements, plus a
modest amount of additional electricity that is exported to the electricity grid [2,13]. From a net energy
perspective, however, the question is whether the analysts should credit internal energy as an energy
input and thus include it in the denominator of the EROI. Energy analysts debate this point [16,23].
Some argue that these internally generated fuels should not be counted as an energy input because they
do not have an opportunity cost—society did not give something up to create these fuels—unlike the
electricity that a CTL facility purchases from the grid. Conversely, the internal energy generated by the
process is literally used to perform useful work and, thus, is an essential expenditure of energy to
produce the desired liquid fuel [16,20]. Considering the controversy with respect to internal energy, this
paper calculates EROIstnd both with and without internal energy. It is also noted that EROI without
internal energy is similar to external energy return [24].
Figure 2. The system boundary of the Shenhua DCL production system.
In addition, energy systems also have external costs, most notably in the form of environmental and
human health costs, which are sometimes difficult to assess in energy terms [16]. The greenhouse
gases that are released in the DCL process have adverse effects on the environment. In this paper
(Section 4), we consider the change in EROI caused by the added energy inputs of CCS technology to
control the emissions of CO2, which is one of the main greenhouse gases.
3.2. Energy Outputs
Energy output data are obtained from “The First Phase of the China Shenhua Group Direct Coal
Liquefaction Project” [25]. Table 1 lists the number of all types of energy products and by-products
Energies 2015, 8 791
per ten thousand tonnes (excluding electricity) of DCL. The main energy products include diesel,
gasoline, electricity and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), all of which are directly converted to heat
units using the values in Table 2. By-products include naphtha, benzene, xylene, and phenol. Since the
inclusion of by-product as an output is debatable, this paper would present the outcomes of the EROI
analysis both with the by-products and without [26]. The by-products are converted into heat units
through the prices (Table 3) and through industrial energy intensity, which was approximately
3.5 MJ/yuan in 2013 [27].
Table 1. Primary energy outputs per 10,000 tonnes of DCL products and our conversion to MJ [25].
Output
Quantity
Unit
Output (MJ)
Output type
Diesel
6,674
t
276,303,600–288,984,200
energy
Gasoline
1,618
t
68,765,000–72,486,400
energy
LPG
176
t
7,884,800–9,187,200
energy
Electricity
276
kWh
966–1,021
energy
Naphtha
966
t
27,098,405
by-product
Benzene
188
t
4,520,736
by-product
Xylene
344
t
8,106,839
by-product
Phenol
34
t
769,678
by-product
Total without by-product
–
t
352,954,366–370,658,821
–
Total with by-product
–
–
393,450,024–411,154,479
–
Table 2. Conversion factors from physical units to thermal units [28,29].
Fuel
Average calorific value
Raw coal
16.0–24.5 M joule/kg
Cleaned coal
26.0–29.1 M joule/kg
Gasoline
42.5–44.8 M joule/kg
Diesel
41.4–43.3 M joule/kg
LPG
44.8–52.2 M joule/kg
Electricity (in calorific value)
3.5–3.7 M joule/kWh
Oil residue
39.8–41.7 M joule/kg
Table 3. Prices of some products and raw materials in 2013.
By-products and raw materials
Price (yuan/t)
Benzene
6,867
Xylene
6,729
Phenol
6,500
Naphtha
8,013
Sulphur
1,254
Sulphide
7,000
Liquid ammonia
3,164
Iron sulphate
2,500
Water
4
Energies 2015, 8 792
3.3. Energy Inputs
Table 4 lists the number of inputs—including fuel, raw materials, and other costs—to produce ten
thousand tonnes of DCL products. Energy inputs in accordance with the DCL production phases are
divided into three categories—energy investment in coal extraction, energy investment in coal
transportation, and energy investment in coal liquefaction.
Energy investment in coal extraction: Because Shenhua does not conduct an explicit accounting of
energy consumption during the process of coal mining, we estimate the energy investment by using the
average EROI of coal mining in China as estimated by Hu et al. [18]. To produce ten thousand tonnes
of DCL products, 36,646.9 tonnes of raw coal must be consumed [25], which is equivalent to
765,920,324 MJ. The calculation of Hu et al. suggests that China’s EROI with respect to coal
production is in the range of 27:1–35:1 [30–39]. According to Equation (1), we can determine that the
total energy inputs of coal production are approximately 16,752,869–42,754,717 MJ.
Table 4. Primary energy inputs per 10,000 tonnes of DCL products and our conversion to MJ [25].
Input
Quantity
Unit
Input (MJ)
Input type
Coal production
–
–
16,752,869–42,754,717
Eextern
Coal transportation
36,646.90
t
5,414,579–7,723,334
Eextern
Coal liquefaction
–
–
–
–
Edirect
–
–
–
–
Fuel coal
3,789
t
98,514,000–110,259,900
Eintern
Oil residue
5,684
t
226,223,200–237,022,800
Eintern
Fuel gas
1,454
t
65,139,200–75,898,800
Eintern
Purchased electricity
847
kWh
2,965–3,134
Eextern
Ematerial
–
–
–
–
Sulphur
16
t
70,224
Eextern
Sulphide
11
t
269,500
Eextern
liquid ammonia
15
t
166,110
Eextern
Iron sulphate
896
t
7,840,000
Eextern
Water
59,408
t
831,712
Eextern
Eindirect
–
–
–
–
Equipment and instrument purchase
10,185,355
yuan
35,648,743
Eextern
Total (with internal energy)
–
–
456,873,102–518,488,974
–
Total (without internal energy)
–
–
66,996,702–95,307,474
–
Energy investment in coal transportation: Coal consumed by the Shenhua DCL project is obtained
from the Shenfu coalfield, currently the largest coalfield in China. The average distance that raw coal
moves from coalmine to the DCL plant is approximately 75 km [22]. As shown in Figure 3, the range
of energy consumption of truck powered by gasoline in China is 1.97–2.81 MJ/tonnekilometers [30–39].
The amount of coal transported is 36,646.9 tonnes. Therefore, the energy inputs of coal
transportationare about 5,414,579–7,723,334 MJ, which is equal to the transport distance multiplied by
the average transport costs and then multiplied by transport volume.
Energy investment in coal liquefaction: The energy input data for coal liquefaction were also
derived from “The First Phase of the China Shenhua Group Direct Coal Liquefaction Project” [25].
Energies 2015, 8 793
There are three types of energy inputs—fuel inputs, raw material inputs, and other costs. Fuel inputs
(fuel coal, oil residue, fuel gas, and purchased electricity) are converted directly into heat units using
the conversion factor (Table 2). Raw material inputs (sulphur, sulphide, liquid ammonia, iron sulphate,
and water) are converted to joules through the amount of raw material multiplied by the price and then
multiplied by industrial energy intensity. Other costs (purchase of equipment and instrument) are
converted to physical quantities by industrial energy intensity.
Figure 3. Energy consumption of truck powered by gasoline in China [30–39].
In Table 4, energy input is classified into either direct energy input (Edirect) or indirect energy input
(Eindirect) and either external energy input (Eextern) or internal energy input (Eintern). Direct inputs include
fuel coal, oil residue, fuel gas, and purchased electricity, whereas all others belong to indirect energy
inputs. Internal inputs primarily include fuel coal (middle coal), oil residue, and fuel gas (tail gas,
the main component of which is LPG), which are taken into consideration in calculating the EROI with
internal energy.
3.4. Results: EROI for DCL
Our results show the EROIstnd without by-product and with internal energy is 0.68–0.81;
the EROIstnd without by-product and without internal energy is 3.70–5.53; the EROIstnd with
by-product and with internal energy is 0.76–0.90; the EROIstnd with by-product and without internal
energy is 4.13–6.14. (Table 5). The results show that, on the one hand, the net energy of DCL is very low,
or even negative, whereas on the other hand, system boundary has a significant impact on the results of
net energy analysis.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
MJ/tonnekilometers
Maximum
2.81
Minimum
1.97
Energies 2015, 8 794
Table 5. EROIstnd of the Shenhua DCL project.
EROIstnd
Total energy inputs
With internal energy
Without internal energy
456,868,244–518,484,116
66,991,844–95,302,616
Total
Energy
Outputs
without
by-product
352,954,366–370,658,821
0.68–0.81
3.70–5.53
with by-product
393,450,024–411,154,479
0.76–0.90
4.13–6.14
3.5. Sensitivity Analysis
In this paper, embodied energy that each raw material or equipment includes are derived from
energy intensity of the industrial sector. However, the energy intensity shows an annual variation
(Figure 4), which would have some impact on EROI, so we do a sensitivity analysis by examining how
the varying energy intensity of the industrial sector changes the EROIstnd value of CTL production. Our
results show that the changes in the energy intensity factors do not impact the EROIstnd without
by-product and with internal energy and the EROIstnd with by-product and with internal energy greatly,
while they have a big impact on the EROIstnd without by-product and without internal energy and the
EROIstnd with by-product and without internal energy (Figure 5).
Note that the difference between them is due to the significant difference on the ratios of embodied
energy input to total energy inputs (Figure 6). When internal energy is not regarded as an energy input,
the ratios increase from 10%–18% to 50%–80%, which means more energy inputs will be affected by
the changes of energy intensity and the EROIstnd will be more insensitive to energy intensity.
Figure 4. Energy intensity for all industry in China [27].
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
MJ/yuan
Energies 2015, 8 795
Figure 5. The change of EROIstnd value caused by the varying energy intensity.
Figure 6. The ratios of embodied energy input to total energy inputs.
4. The EROI of DCL with CCS
4.1. The Necessity of Using the CCS Technology
CTL processes generate synthetic liquid fuels such as gasoline and diesel fuel from coal. A major
concern, however, is the large emissions of CO2 from the process, which add to the burden of
atmospheric greenhouse gases [4,40]. When all CO2 generated at the conversion plant is vented into
the atmosphere, fuel-cycle-wide GHG (Greenhouse Gas) emissions from DCL-derived fuels are also
high compared to making fuels from crude oil, although there is considerable uncertainty regarding
these emissions [13]. In 2009, Farrell and Brandt [9] claimed that over its life cycle, liquid fuel from
coal emits almost double the amount of CO2 compared to conventional liquid fuels derived from crude
oil. In the same year, studies by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated that CTL without
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
EROIstnd
EROIstnd without by-product and with internal energy
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
EROIstnd
EROIstnd without by-product and without internal energy
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
EROIstnd
EROIstnd with by-product and without internal energy
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
EROIstnd
EROIstnd with by-product and with internal energy
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Embodied energy input/ total energy inputs
with internal energy
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Embodied energy input/ total energy inputs
without internal energy
Energies 2015, 8 796
CCS could more than double the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions compared to those of
conventional petroleum-derived fuels [4]. In 2010, Vallentin [41] mentioned that DCL generates
approximately 90% more CO2 than conventional fuel on a well-to-wheel basis.
CTL processes are highly carbon intensive and therefore incompatible with a progressive climate
policy strategy [40]. As the leading consumer of coal-derived energy and the leading emitter of CO2,
China is facing increasing international pressure to reduce emissions and commit to long-term reductions
under the post-Kyoto framework [15]. In November 2009, the Chinese government proclaimed a
mitigation target that proposed that CO2 emission per capita GDP in 2020 would be reduced by 40% to
45% based on the 2005 level [42]. Therefore, it may be necessary for CTL enterprises to implement
some carbon mitigation technologies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
One partial solution is carbon capture and storage (CCS) because it could place some of the
additional upstream CO2 emissions from CTL production in deep underground locations that receive
long-term monitoring [9] and could significantly lower total emissions (reductions of up to 50% for
CTL) [9]. CCS is expected to be the second-most-important emission reduction technology by 2050,
surpassed only by energy efficiency improvements [15]. It is also considered the only option that can
provide long-term GHG mitigation while allowing for continued large-scale use of the existing fossil
infrastructure and abundant fossil energy resources [15]. Because climate change considerations are
motivating factors for China’s development of CCS mitigation options, it is likely that in China, any
future application to establish a CTL plant will require the inclusion of CCS mitigation technology [12]
in response to both improving scientific understanding of damage caused by air pollution and growing
public concerns about environmental quality as incomes rise [13].
4.2. Results: EROI for DCL with CCS
CCS is one efficient method of reducing CO2 emissions. However, introducing CO2 capture
techniques to a coal-based chemical process requires greater investment and energy consumption.
For example, a power plant equipped with a CCS system (with access to geological or ocean storage)
would require approximately 10% to 40% more energy than a plant of equivalent output without CCS,
of which most is for capture and compression [43]. Because the added energy inputs would have a
negative impact on EROI, it will be necessary to expand the energy input level and consider the
environmental cost.
Full life-cycle accounting of carbon dioxide emissions associated with DCL plants should tabulate
emissions associated with mining, transportation, plant operations, and final consumption [10]. Due to
data limits, this paper only considers the energy inputs of reducing plant-level emissions by using the
CCS technology. The major components of the CCS system include capture (separation plus
compression), transport, and storage (including measurement, monitoring, and verification) [43].
Accordingly, CCS energy inputs include capture transportation and storage energy inputs (Table 6).
Energies 2015, 8 797
Table 6. Costs of CCS per t CO2 and our conversion to MJ.
Input
Quantity
Unit
Input (MJ)
Input type
CO2 capture
–
–
–
–
Electricity
53.5
kWh
187.25–197.95
Edirect
Recycled water
24
yuan
84
Eindirect
Instrument air
2.5
yuan
8.75
Eindirect
Labor costs
12
yuan
42
Eindirect
Depreciation costs
23.1
yuan
80.85
Eindirect
Maintenance costs
10
yuan
35
Eindirect
Other costs
47
yuan
164.5
Eindirect
CO2 transport
13.3–23.7
yuan
46.6–83
–
CO2 storage
–
–
–
–
Electricity
21.35
kWh
74.73–79
Edirect
CO2 monitoring cost
5.5
yuan
19.25
Eindirect
Labor cost
12
yuan
42
Eindirect
Depreciation costs
80.96
yuan
283.36
Eindirect
Total
–
–
1068.29–1119.66
–
In Table 2, CCS refers to post-combustion capture technology, pipeline transport, and deep saline
aquifer storage. Capture and storage energy inputs are derived from “The Project Feasibility Study
Report of Coal-to-Chemicals in China” [44]. To reflect the scale of CO2 pipeline transportation, this
article assumes that the amount of CO2 transport is 500 million tonnes (Mt) annually, and the transport
distance is approximately 250 kilometres (km). According to IPCC, transporting 5 Mt CO2 per year a
distance of 250 km by pipeline would cost approximately $2.2–3.8 dollar/tCO2 [43]. In 2013,
the exchange rate is in the range of 6.05–6.24 RMB/US (Figure 7) [45].
Figure 7. Chinese exchange rate [45].
Energies 2015, 8 798
In this paper, we derive the energy inputs for CCS according to Equation (4):
(4)
Where ECCS refers to total energy input of CCS; PDCL is the production of DCL products;
FDCL is the amount of CO2 emissions per tonne of DCL products, and its unit is tCO2/t DCL products;
CCCS is the capture efficiency of a current commercial CO2 capture system; and EC, ET, and ES,
respectively, represent energy inputs of capture, transport and storage per tCO2 (Table 6).
In this paper, the production of DCL products was 10,000 tonnes. According to the data of the
Shenhua CCS demonstration project, the emission factor is equal to 2.75 tCO2/t DCL products [45]
and according to the IPCC report, CCS technology captures approximately 85% to 95% of the CO2
processed in a capture plant, where the middle value is 90% [46]. Thus, according to Equation (4),
we can easily calculate the value of ECCS to be equal to 26,440,178–27,711,585 MJ. Under these
circumstances, we can also determine the EROI with CCS, as shown in Table 7.
When we consider energy inputs of the CCS technology at the plant level of emissions, the EROI
with internal energy decreases by 4%–6% and the EROI without internal energy decreases by
22%–28%.The inclusion or omission of by-product has also some impact on the EROI of DCL. When
by-products are regarded as an energy output, both the EROIstnd and the EROI with CCS increased by
10%–12%, respectively. Since by-product is controversial, more attention should be paid to it in
the future.
Table 7. EROI of the Shenhua DCL project with CCS.
EROI
Total energy inputs with CCS
With internal energy
Without internal energy
483,308,421–546,195,701
93,432,021–123,014,201
Total
Energy
Outputs
without
by-product
352,954,366–370,658,821
0.65–0.77
2.87–3.97
with by-product
393,450,024–411,154,479
0.72–0.85
3.20–4.40
4.3. Sensitivity Analysis
Our results show that when we consider energy inputs of the CCS technology at the plant level of
emissions, the changes in the energy intensity factors do not impact the EROI with internal energy
greatly, while it has a big impact on the EROI without internal energy (Figure 8). The results are
similar to the results of sensitivity analysis for EROIstnd. The main reason is that when considering the
energy inputs of CCS, the different ratios of embodied energy input to total energy inputs have not
changed essentially.
Energies 2015, 8 799
Figure 8. The change of EROI with CCS caused by the varying energy intensity.
5. Discussion
5.1. Comparison to Other Energy Resources
During what researchers have characterised as the post-peak oil production era [47,48], it has been
necessary for societies to find some sound alternative energy resources. EROI analysis is useful for
determining whether developing a new source of energy is viable from an energy balance perspective
and for assessing how it compares to other investments [10]. Of course, it is useful to compare the
EROI for CTL with alternative fuels. Figure 9 compares the EROI for CTL with coal, oil and gas,
tar sands, oil shale, ethanol from biomass, diesel from biomass, nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal,
wind, and solar [8]. As a fuel, coal is characterised by a more favourable energy return on energy
investment with a mean of approximately 46:1, whereas the mean EROI of CTL is only 2.6:1.
An average EROI for crude oil stands at approximately 17:1. Thus, using CTL liquids rather than
crude is far more inefficient, implying a faster drawdown of scarce energy supplies relative to what we
can achieve by greatly improving the energy efficiency of transport and power production [10].
Hydroelectric energy has a much higher EROI than CTL, —84:1—and has virtually no CO2
emissions [10]. Dam power could replace power now generated by diesel, likely at a significantly
lower cost, while obviating the need for new diesel sources. If a dam could be constructed in a way
that preserved fish passage and minimised ecological impacts to aquatic ecosystems, it may be a far
better investment than CTL for the future of energy. Replacing diesel-based electricity generation with
wind, nuclear, and solar energy should receive similar scrutiny. These renewable resources also have
relatively higher EROIs—18 for wind, 14 for nuclear, and 10 for solar photovoltaic—and they are
truly sustainable in the long term [10]. The return to CTL is as great as that of ethanol from biomass
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
EROI
EROI without by-product, with internal energy, and with CCS
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
EROI
EROI without by-product, without internal energy, and with CCS
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
EROI
EROI with by-product, without internal energy, and with CCS
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
EROI
EROI with by-product, with internal energy, and with CCS
Energies 2015, 8 800
and diesel from biomass, oil shale, and tar sands. Ethanol from grain and diesel from biomass are at or
near the break-even point, even in light of substantial technical improvements during the last two
decades. The EROI for tar sands and oil shale range above and below the break-even point, depending
on assumptions regarding location, resource quality, and technology characterisation [8].
Figure 9. The mean EROI values for various fuel sources from published values. CTL has a
mean EROI of approximately 2.6:1 (n of 19 from 4 publications, including this paper) [7–9].
The mean EROI values for other fuel sources are from [49–51].
5.2. Outlook for the EROI of CTL
It is important to stress that the EROI results for CTL presented herein cannot be simply
extrapolated to the future [52]. On the one hand, technological advances are expected to continue to
improve the energy return on energy investment with respect to the CTL process [52]. Moreover,
in the technical field, there are two factors that influence EROI value. One is how much energy must be
embodied within the equipment used to extract energy [53], because a degree of energy must be
exerted to function as an energy extraction device. For instance, the foundation of a coal liquefaction
reactor must successfully endure a large moment load. The other factor is how well that equipment
performs the function of extracting energy from the environment. Under normal circumstances, as a
technology matures, i.e., as experience is gained, the processes involved become better equipped to use
fewer resources [54]. For example, reactors become more efficient and less energy intensive to
produce, the catalyst preparation technique becomes more efficient, and increasing size allows for the
liquefaction of economies of scale. These factors serve to increase energy returns. As presented in
Figure 10, over the past 100 years, DCL technology has been in a state of constant progress, and
conversion efficiency has been increasing [1]. In the future, as technologies become more efficient and
their use is systematically improved through research and development [53], EROI ratios will improve
for a given level of resource quality [7].
Energies 2015, 8 801
Figure 10. Developments of DCL technology [1].
On the other hand, coal is a non-renewable resource whose reserves are limited. As reserves are
gradually reduced, the difficulty of extraction will increase accordingly, which means that more energy
will be used for coal production. According to the study of Hu et al., the EROI for China’s coal
production sector has declined from 35:1 in 1995–1997 to approximately 27:1 in 2010 (Figure 11).
They further predict that the average EROIstnd for the coal production sector will be approximately
24:1 in 2020 [18]. The increasing energy requirements of coal production processes will result in
decreased EROI. Furthermore, for most fuels, especially alternative fuels, energy gains are reasonably
well understood but the boundaries of the denominator, especially with respect to environmental issues,
are poorly understood and even more poorly quantified [22]. For example, it is incontrovertible that the
negative effects of the greenhouse gas emissions caused by CTL cannot remain unaddressed much
longer without an increasingly heavy toll on human societies in terms of external monetary and
energy costs [52].
Figure 11. History and forecast of EROIstnd for China’s coal production sector [18].
In this paper, we only consider the costs of reducing CO2 emissions in coal liquefaction and do not
include emissions from coal production and transportation. If the overall costs of a full life cycle are
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
EROIstnd
actual values estimated results (average)
estimated results (high scenario) estimated results (low scenario)
Energies 2015, 8 802
considered, the EROI will decline. In addition, except for environmental issues, indirect labour
consumption and auxiliary services consumption are poorly understood because it is difficult to
quantify them precisely. Therefore, we think that most EROIs, including those considered herein,
would decline if we had complete information [22]. The interplay of all of the issues hinted at herein
makes the long-term prospective analysis of the EROI of CTL an extremely complex and inherently
uncertain endeavour [52]. Of course, because that issue is beyond the scope of this paper, we only
propose this arbitrary conjecture to provoke thought.
5.3. Policy Implications
In Section 3, we determined the EROI value of coal liquefaction to be less than 1, which is
considered low, especially given its internal energy. This low, or even negative net energy means that
any increases in production will not meaningfully affect the net energy available to society and
accordingly, CTL should not currently be developed on a large scale in China. In other words, the
Chinese central government’s cautious attitude towards CTL production is more reasonable than that of
those local governments, which support the rapid development of CTL. In Section 5.1, the comparison
of EROI between CTL and other energy sources suggests that at least at the moment, when compared
to CTL, nuclear power, wind power, solar, or geothermal energy may be a better choice. Even so,
the government could continue to support research into coal liquefaction technology and regard it as a
strategic technology reserve. This conclusion is primarily based on two considerations. First, China is
the world’s second largest oil importer, second only to the US [3]. Over the last 20 years, China’s oil
import dependency has increased by 21.5% annually and in 2013, it reached 59% (Figure 12). Thus,
oil security has become an issue that cannot be ignored. If a crude oil import interruption occurs or the
importation price increases, the economy will be seriously affected. For example, as a result of the
1973 oil shock, the world economy passed through the hitherto worst recession in post-war
history [55]. With respect to the short-term difficulties of crude oil imports, CTL is at least an
emergency tactic for meeting the energy needs of economic development. Second, there is a possibility
to improve the EROI of CTL production in the future. As mentioned in Section 5.2, as energy
efficiency and energy conversion efficiency improve, along with possible results of the technological
advances in the production of CTL, applied electrical energy will decrease while energy gain will
increase, thereby possibly increasing the overall value of EROI [56].
Environmental concerns, especially greenhouse gas emissions, could hinder the development of the
CTL industry in oil-scarce countries [4]. Compared to traditional energy, CTL emits more greenhouse
gases and does not comply with environmental requirements. Although CCS technology can be used to
control carbon emissions, it will also increase energy investment, which could have a considerably
negative impact on EROI. Our calculation (Section 4) indicates that when we consider the additional
energy inputs of the CCS technology on plant-level emissions, the EROI both with and without
internal energy decreases. In addition, the added energy inputs of CCS will make it more difficult for
CTL to compete with petroleum-derived fuels than such competition is for CTL without CCS [4].
Although some aspects of CCS technology, on a global scale, currently appear mature, the technology
is still in the research and demonstration phase in China [57,58]. Improving CCS technology will
improve the efficiency of all aspects of the CTL process and thus lower the overall energy inputs
Energies 2015, 8 803
associated with its deployment and improve its EROI [43,59]. To promote the development of CCS on
a large scale, the government should gradually establish applicable national laws and regulations along
with a standard infrastructure system to implement CCS projects commercially and consistent with the
legislation in advanced countries. Furthermore, the government should provide more subsidies and
support for the research and development of CCS-related equipment and technology [58].
Figure 12. China’s dependence on foreign oil [60].
6. Conclusions
In this paper, we calculated the EROI of the Shenhua DCL project in China. The inclusion or
omission of internal energy and by-product is a controversial issue. The results show that the EROIstnd
without by-product and with internal energy is 0.68–0.81; the EROIstnd without by-product and without
internal energy is 3.70–5.53; the EROIstnd with by-product and with internal energy is 0.76–0.90;
the EROIstnd with by-product and without internal energy is 4.13–6.14. It is also important to consider
that the production of CTL liquids suffers from much higher life-cycle CO2 emissions than does
conventional fuel. Furthermore, it is necessary to consider CCS as a means to control the
emissions [52]. When we consider energy inputs of the CCS technology at the plant level of emissions,
the EROIs decrease to 0.65–0.77, 2.87–3.97, 0.72–0.85, and 3.20–4.40, respectively. Currently, a CTL
project may generate a financial profit, but from the EROI analysis, the quantity of net energy
delivered to society by CTL production is extremely low, perhaps even negative, which may be due to
high investments in infrastructure and low conversion efficiency. Compared to other sources, the EROI
of the CTL process is much less than that of coal, oil, gas, hydroelectric, and nuclear energy. Therefore,
the Chinese government and investors should be prudent when developing it. In the future, whether the
EROI of CTL production will improve is highly uncertain because it depends on a variety of factors
such as technological progress, environmental protection, and defined system boundaries [61].
Accordingly, this is an area that requires further research. At last, what we must emphasize is that
though the EROI analysis is a useful method in energy analysis, it also has some own shortcomings
that would affect the decision on a new project. For example, the EROI method is restricted by the data
Energies 2015, 8 804
available and energy intensity. Therefore, it is more advisable to use not only the EROI method but
also other possible methods such as net present value (NPV) to analysis the new project. Of course,
this is beyond the scope of this paper, and we only propose this in order to provoke thought.
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge that this work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (No. 71273277/71373285/71303258) and the Philosophy and Social Sciences Major
Research Project of the Ministry of Education (No. 11JZD048). Helpful comments by anonymous
reviewers would be most appreciated.
Author Contributions
All the authors have co-operated for the preparation of this work. Rui Li, Zhaoyang Kong, and
Xiucheng Dong designed research; Zhaoyang Kong, Rui Li, and Bo Xu drafted the main part of the paper.
A final review, including final manuscript revisions, was performed by Qiang Yin and Cuifang Song.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Liu, Z.Y.; Shi, S.D.; Li, Y.W. Coal liquefaction technologies—Development in China and
challenges in chemical reaction engineering. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2010, 65, 12–17.
2. Mantripragada, H.C.; Rubin, E.S. Performance, cost and emissions of coal-to-liquids (CTLs) plants
using low-quality coals under carbon constraints. Fuel 2013, 103, 805–813.
3. Rong, F.; Victor, D.G. Coal liquefaction policy in China: Explaining the policy reversal since 2006.
Energy Policy 2011, 39, 8175–8184.
4. Chen, Y.H.; Reilly, J.M.; Paltsev, S. The prospects for coal-to-liquid conversion: A general
equilibrium analysis. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 4713–4725.
5. Hu, Y.; Feng, L.Y.; Hall, C.C.S.; Tian, D. Analysis of the energy return on investment (EROI) of
the huge Daqing oil field in China. Sustainability 2011, 3, 2323–2338.
6. Kampa, K.B. An Energy Return on Investment for a Geothermal Power Plant on the Texas
Gulf Coast. Master’s Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA, 1 May 2013.
7. Brandt, A.R. Oil depletion and the energy efficiency of oil production: The case of California.
Sustainability 2011, 3, 1833–1854.
8. Cleveland, C.J. Net energy from the extraction of oil and gas in the United States. Energy 2005, 30,
769–782.
9. Farrell, A.E.; Brandt, A.R. Risks of the oil transition. Environ. Res. Lett. 2006, doi:10.1088/
1748-9326/1/1/014004.
10. Talberth, J. Economic Feasibility of Coal to Liquids Development in Alaska’s Interior. Center for
Sustainable Economy, 2009. Available online: http://sustainable-economy.org/ (accessed on
1 October 2014).
Energies 2015, 8 805
11. Höök, M.; Aleklett, K. A review on coal to liquid fuels and its coal consumption. Int. J. Energy Res.
2010, 34, 848–864.
12. Review of worldwide coal-to-liquids R,-D&D-activities and the need for further initiatives within
Europe. Available online: http://www.iea-coal.org.uk/documents/82184/7171/Review-of-worldwide-
coal-to-liquids-R,-D&D-activities-and-the-need-for-further-initiatives-within-Europe (accessed on
1 October 2014).
13. Williams, R.H.; Larson, E.D. A comparison of direct and indirect liquefaction technologies for
making fluid fuels from coal. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2003, 8, 103–129.
14. Xua, L.; Tang, M.C.; Duana, L.; Liua, B.; Ma, X.X.; Zhang, Y.L.; Argyle, M.D.; Fan, M.H.
Pyrolysis characteristics and kinetics of residue from China Shenhua industrial direct coal
liquefaction plant. Thermochim. Acta 2014, 589, 1–10.
15. Su, H.; Fletcher, J.J. Carbon Capture and Storage in China: Options for the Shenhua Direct Coal
Liquefaction Plant. Available online: http://www.bellona.org/filearchive/fil_Carbon_Capture_
and_Storage_in_China.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2014).
16. Cleveland, C.J.; O’Connor, P.A. Energy return on investment (EROI) of oil shale. Sustainability
2011, 3, 2307–2322.
17. Lundin, J. EROI of Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaics-Variations under Different Assumptions
Regarding Manufacturing Energy Inputs and Energy Output. Available online: http://uu.diva-
portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A620665&dswid=-3486 (accessed on 2 October 2014).
18. Hu, Y.; Hall, C.A.S.; Wang, J.L.; Feng, L.Y.; Poisson, A. Energy return on investment (EROI) of
China’s conventional fossil fuels: Historical and future trends. Energy 2013, 54, 352–364.
19. Mulder, K.; Hagens, J.N. Energy return on investment: Toward a consistent framework.
J. Hum. Environ. 2008, 37, 74–79.
20. Murphy, D.J.; Hall, C.A.S.; Dale, M.; Cleveland, C. Order from chaos: A preliminary protocol for
determining the EROI of fuels. Sustainability 2011, 3, 1888–1907.
21. Grandell, L.; Hall, C.A.S.; Höök, M. Energy return on investment for Norwegian oil and gas from
1991 to 2008. Sustainability 2011, 3, 2050–2070.
22. Hall, C.A.S.; Balogh, S.; Murphy, D.J. What is the minimum EROI that a sustainable society must
have? Energies 2009, 2, 25–47.
23. Markussen, M.V.; Østergård, H. Energy analysis of the danish food production system: Food-EROI
and fossil fuel dependency. Energies 2013, 6, 4170–4186.
24. Guilford, M.C.; Hall, C.A.S.; O’Connor, P.; Cleveland, C.J. A new long term assessment of energy
return on investment (EROI) for U.S. Oil and gas discovery and production. Sustainability 2011, 3,
1866–1887.
25. Zhang, M.H. The comprehensive evaluation of Shenhua direct coal liquefaction project.
Master’s Thesis, China University of petroleum (Beijing), Beijing, China, 25 May 2009.
(In Chinese)
26. Atlason, R.S.; Unnthorsson, R. Hot water production improves the energy return on investment of
geothermal power plants. Energy 2013, 51, 273–280.
27. Xu, B.; Feng, L.Y.; Wei, W.X.; Hu, Y.; Wang, J.L. A preliminary forecast of the production status
of China’s Daqing Oil field from the perspective of EROI. Sustainability 2014, 6, 8262–8282.
Energies 2015, 8 806
28. Chen, W.M.; Liu, S.Y.; Wang, Z.L. The instruction of calorific value grading of coal.
Coal Anal. Util. 1995, 3, 46–48.
29. Garg, A.; Kazunari, K.; Pulles, T. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
Available online: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html (accessed on 26
December 2014).
30. Xi, J.P. Study of Energy Saving and Emission Reduction in Road Transportation. Master’s Thesis,
Chang’an University, Xi’an, China, 25 May 2008. (In Chinese)
31. Liu, Y.N. Cargo Transportation Structure Optimization Research Based on Energy Consumption.
Master’s Thesis, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, China, 1 March 2014. (In Chinese)
32. Cai, F.T.; Liu, L.; Han, L.B. The status of road transport energy consumption and energy saving
countermeasures, Energy Conserv. Environ. Prot. Transp. 2006, 3, 24–27. (In Chinese)
33. Zhang, M. Analysis and Prediction on China’s Energy-related CO2 Emission and Transport Energy
Consumption Based on Index Decomposition Method. Ph.D. Thesis, Dalian University of
Technology, Dalian, China, 1 June 2009. (In Chinese)
34. Li, X.-M.; Xie, R.-H. The relationship between transportation and energy—Transport energy
consumption and energy saving. Compr. Transp. 1999, 10, 23–27. (In Chinese)
35. Zhou, X.J. Present situation and trend of energy consumption in traffic and transportation Industry.
Sino-Glob. Energy 2010, 15, 9–18. (In Chinese)
36. Shi, B.L. An analysis of energy demand supply balance in the development of road transport and its
countermeasures. J. Highw. Transp. Res. Dev. 1991, 8, 51–58. (In Chinese)
37. Yang, H.N. China’s strategic choice of energy savings in transportation. Compr. Transp. 2006, Z1,
17–19. (In Chinese)
38. Ding, J.X. The analysis of carbon emissions and emission reduction potential in Chinese
transportation. Compr. Transp. 2012, 12, 20–26. (In Chinese)
39. Wang, L.L. Optimization of Transportation Energy Saving and Emission Reduction Technology
Plan Based on System Dynamics. Master’s Thesis, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian, China,
1 May 2009. (In Chinese)
40. Mantripragada, H.C.; Rubin, E.S. Techno-economic evaluation of coal-to-liquids (CTL) plants with
carbon capture and sequestration. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 2808–2816.
41. Vallentin, D. Policy drivers and barriers for coal-to-liquids (CTL) technologies in the United States.
Energy Policy 2008, 36, 3198–3211.
42. Shi, M.J.; Li, N.; Zhou, S.L.; Yuan, Y.N.; Ma, G.X. Can China realize CO2 mitigation target toward
2020? J. Resour. Ecol. 2010, 1, 145–154.
43. Metz, B.; Davidson, O.; Coninck, H.D.; Loos, M.; Meyer, L. IPCC Special Report on Carbon
Dioxide Capture and Storage. 2005. Available online: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/srccs/ (accessed
on 8 October 2014).
44. Xu, H.; Cheng, X.L.; Wang, W.F. The Project Feasibility Study Report of Coal-to-Chemicals in China;
China Petrochemical Corporation Economics & Technology Research Institute: Beijing, China,
2013. (In Chinese)
45. Chinese Exchange Rate, The People’s Bank of China. Available online: http://www.pbc.gov.cn/
publish/english/963/index.html (accessed on 26 December 2014).
Energies 2015, 8 807
46. Sun, G.D. Coal in China: Resources, Uses, and Advanced Coal Technologies. Available online:
http://www.c2es.org/publications/coal-initiative-series-coal-china-resources-uses-advanced-coal-
technologies (accessed on 8 October 2014).
47. Dale, M.; Krumdieck, S.; Bodger, P. Net energy yield from production of conventional oil.
Energy Policy 2011, 39, 7095–7102.
48. Hall, C.A.S.; Powers, R.; Schoenberg, W. Peak Oil, EROI, Investments and the economy in an
uncertain future. In Biofuels, Solar and Wind as Renewable Energy Systems: Benefits and Risks;
Pimentel, D., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 109–132.
49. Hall, C.A.S.; Lambert, J.G.; Balogh, S.B. EROI of different fuels and the implications for society.
Energy Policy 2014, 64, 141–152.
50. Gupta, A.K.; Hall, C.A.S. A review of the past and current state of EROI data. Sustainability 2011,
3, 1796–1809.
51. Lambert, J.; Hall, C.A.S.; Balogh, S.; Poisson, A.; Gupta, A. EROI of Global Energy Resources:
Preliminary Status and Trends; United Kingdom Department for International Development:
London, UK, 2012.
52. Raugei, M.; Fullana-i-Palmer, P.; Fthenakis, V. The energy return on energy investment (EROI) of
photovoltaics: Methodology and comparisons with fossil fuel life cycles. Energy Policy 2012, 45,
576–582.
53. Dale, M.; Krumdieck, S.; Bodger, P. A dynamic function for energy return on investment.
Sustainability 2011, 3, 1972–1985.
54. Pawelzik, P.F.; Zhang, Q. Evaluation of environmental impacts of cellulosic ethanol using life cycle
assessment with technological advances over time. Biomass Bioenergy 2012, 40, 162–173.
55. Kesicki, F. The third oil price surge–What’s different this time? Energy Policy 2010, 38, 1596–1606.
56. Callarotti, R.C. Energy return on energy invested (EROI) for the electrical heating of methane
hydrate reservoirs. Sustainability 2011, 3, 2105–2114.
57. Wang, Z. Designing and Evaluating the Early Implementation Schemes of Carbon Dioxide Capture
and Storage (CCS) in China. Ph.D. Thesis, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu, China,
1 April 2012. (In Chinese)
58. Zeng, M.; Ouyang, S.J.; Zhang, Y.J.; Shi, H. CCS technology development in China: Status, problems
and counter measures—Based on SWOT analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 39, 604–616.
59. Rubin, E.S.; Rao, A.B. A Technical, Economic and Environmental Assessment of Amine-based
CO2 Capture Technology for Power Plant Greenhouse Gas Control. Available online:
http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/804932-MqrF4u/native/ (accessed on 15 October 2014).
60. BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2014. Available online: http://www.bp.com/en/
global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html (accessed on
21 January 2015).
61. Brandt, A.R.; Englander, J.; Bharadwaj, S. The energy efficiency of oil sands extraction:
Energy return ratios from 1970 to 2010. Energy 2013, 55, 693–702.
© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
