焦炉煤气脱碳法及甲烷化法制液化天然气的生命周期环境影响分析

doi:10.16085/j.issn.1000-6613.2023-2154

化工进展 ›› 2024, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (5): 2872-2879.DOI: 10.16085/j.issn.1000-6613.2023-2154

• 集成耦合与优化 • 上一篇

焦炉煤气脱碳法及甲烷化法制液化天然气的生命周期环境影响分析

李晶莹¹^,²(), 马龙飞¹, 潘一搏¹, 卢山¹, 张红娟¹, 徐龙¹^,², 马晓迅¹^,²

^1.西北大学化工学院，陕西西安 710127
^2.碳氢资源清洁利用国家国际科技合作基地，陕西西安 710127

收稿日期:2023-12-05 修回日期:2024-01-08 出版日期:2024-05-15 发布日期:2024-06-15
通讯作者: 李晶莹
作者简介:李晶莹（1990—），女，博士，副教授，硕士生导师，研究方向为生命周期可持续性评价与多目标集成优化。E-mail：lijingying99@nwu.edu.cn。
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金(22008198);陕西省科协青年人才托举计划(20220602);陕西省教育厅高校青年创新团队科研项目(22JP090);陕西省博士后科研项目(2023BSHEDZZ231)

Life cycle environmental analysis of coke oven gas to liquefied natural gas based on decarburization and methanation processes

LI Jingying¹^,²(), MA Longfei¹, PAN Yibo¹, LU Shan¹, ZHANG Hongjuan¹, XU Long¹^,², MA Xiaoxun¹^,²

^1.School of Chemical Engineering, Northwest University, Xi’an 710127, Shaanxi, China
^2.International Science & Technology Cooperation Base of MOST for Clean Utilization of Hydrocarbon Resources, Xi’an 710127, Shaanxi, China

Received:2023-12-05 Revised:2024-01-08 Online:2024-05-15 Published:2024-06-15
Contact: LI Jingying

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

作为焦化副产品，焦炉煤气富含氢气和甲烷，采用焦炉煤气制液化天然气（LNG）已成为当前焦炉煤气利用的主要途径之一。为系统评估焦炉煤气制LNG工艺的能源消耗和环境影响，尤其是碳排放，本文采用生命周期评价方法对脱碳法和甲烷化法两种焦炉煤气制LNG工艺进行系统评价。结果表明，无论采用哪种方法，LNG生产阶段均为焦炉煤气制LNG工艺生命周期环境负荷的控制阶段；在脱碳法工艺中，中压蒸汽是环境影响贡献的关键物质，可通过干熄焦回收红焦余热副产蒸汽补充LNG生产消耗来降低环境负荷；在甲烷化工艺中，电力为主要贡献物质，在碳排放中占比41.09%，若采用可再生能源电力（太阳能发电、风电、水电）替代后环境影响显著降低；相比于脱碳法，采用甲烷化工艺环境性能更优，主要源于甲烷增产优势。本文研究结果可从生命周期角度为焦化行业焦炉煤气的综合利用提供理论支持。

关键词: 焦炉煤气, 液化天然气, 生命周期评价, 环境影响, 碳排放

Abstract:

As a by-product in coking production, coke oven gas (COG) has been widely utilized for liquefied natural gas (LNG) production due to rich in H₂ and CH₄. To systematically evaluate the energy depletion and environmental impacts, as well as the carbon emission, life cycle assessment (LCA) method was applied to compare two COG-based LNG processes (decarbonization process and methanation process). The results show that LNG production is the crucial phase in the overall environmental impacts for both COG-based LNG processes. In decarbonization process, medium-pressure steam is the main contributing substance of life cycle environmental impacts. Recovering the waste heat of red coke by coke dry quenching system and supplementing LNG production consumption with by-product steam can largely reduce environmental loading. In methanation process, electricity is the key substance, accounting for 41.09% in carbon emission index. The environmental impact can be reduced by using renewable electricity (solar, hydroelectric and wind). Methanation process shows favorable environmental performance in comparison with decarbonization process because methanation process largely enhances the CH₄ productivity. This work intends to provide theoretical support for the comprehensive utilization of COG in the coking industry from the life cycle perspective.

Key words: coke oven gas (COG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), life cycle assessment (LCA), environmental impacts, carbon emission

中图分类号:

TQ520

李晶莹, 马龙飞, 潘一搏, 卢山, 张红娟, 徐龙, 马晓迅. 焦炉煤气脱碳法及甲烷化法制液化天然气的生命周期环境影响分析[J]. 化工进展, 2024, 43(5): 2872-2879.

LI Jingying, MA Longfei, PAN Yibo, LU Shan, ZHANG Hongjuan, XU Long, MA Xiaoxun. Life cycle environmental analysis of coke oven gas to liquefied natural gas based on decarburization and methanation processes[J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2024, 43(5): 2872-2879.

图/表 12

图1 焦炉煤气脱碳法制LNG工艺流程

图2 焦炉煤气甲烷化制LNG工艺流程

图3 焦炉煤气制LNG两种工艺的生命周期研究边界

图4 焦炉煤气脱碳法制LNG工艺生命周期评价特征化结果

图5 焦炉煤气脱碳法制LNG工艺碳排放主要阶段和关键物质分析

图6 焦炉煤气脱碳法制LNG工艺各输入物质的环境影响贡献

图7 脱碳法LNG生产阶段中压蒸汽消耗分布

图8 采用干熄焦回收中压蒸汽全部用于LNG生产改进前后情景分析

图9 焦炉煤气甲烷化制LNG工艺生命周期特征化结果

图10 焦炉煤气甲烷化制LNG工艺输入物质贡献

图11 采用可再生能源电力替代时甲烷化工艺环境影响变化

图12 焦炉煤气脱碳法和甲烷化法制LNG工艺路线生命周期环境影响比较

参考文献 30

1	中国炼焦行业协会. 焦化行业碳达峰碳中和行动方案(节选)[J]. 煤化工, 2022, 50(4): 1-2.
	China Coking Industry Association. Peak carbon dioxide emissions Carbon Neutralization Action Plan for coking industry (Excerpt)[J]. Coal Chemical Industry, 2022, 50(4): 1-2.
2	李晶莹. 焦化多联产系统的生命周期评价与系统分析[D]. 西安: 西北大学, 2018.
	LI Jingying. Life cycle assessment and system analysis of coking poly-generation system[D]. Xi’an: Northwest University, 2018.
3	中国炼焦行业协会. 关于印发《焦化行业“十四五”发展规划纲要》的通知[J]. 煤化工, 2021, 49(1): 1-3, 25.
	China Coking Industry Association. Notice on printing and distributing the outline of the “Fourteenth Five-year Plan” for coking industry[J]. Coal Chemical Industry, 2021, 49(1): 1-3, 25.
4	李正, 吴琼, 周飞, 等. 焦炉煤气制液化天然气的发展现状及趋势[J]. 煤炭加工与综合利用, 2017(4): 18-21.
	LI Zheng, WU Qiong, ZHOU Fei, et al. Development status and trend of coke oven gas to liquefied natural gas[J]. Coal Processing & Comprehensive Utilization, 2017(4): 18-21.
5	HELLWEG S, MILÀ I CANALS L. Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment[J]. Science, 2014, 344(6188): 1109-1113.
6	杨倩苗. 建筑产品的全生命周期环境影响定量评价[D]. 天津: 天津大学, 2009.
	YANG Qianmiao. Quantificational life cycle assessment of environmental impact of construction productions[D]. Tianjin: Tianjin University, 2009.
7	王小伍, 华贲. 液化天然气、管道天然气与煤制天然气的比较分析[J]. 化工学报, 2009, 60(S1): 35-38.
	WANG Xiaowu, HUA Ben. Comparison between liquefied natural gas, pipe natural gas and substitute natural gas[J]. Journal of the Chemical Industry and Engineering Society of China, 2009, 60(S1): 35-38.
8	LI Jingying, ZHANG Zhuangzhuang, ZHANG Suisui, et al. Life cycle assessment of liquefied natural gas production from coke oven gas in China[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021, 329: 129609.
9	VEGA PUGA E, MOUMIN G, NEUMANN N C, et al. Holistic view on synthetic natural gas production: A technical, economic and environmental analysis[J]. Energies, 2022, 15(5): 1608.
10	NIE Yuhao, ZHANG Siduo, LIU R E, et al. Greenhouse-gas emissions of Canadian liquefied natural gas for use in China: Comparison and synthesis of three independent life cycle assessments[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020, 258: 120701.
11	KHOO Hsien Hui. LCA of mixed generation systems in singapore: Implications for national policy making[J]. Energies, 2022, 15(24): 9272.
12	MALLAPRAGADA D S, REYES-BASTIDA E, ROBERTO F, et al. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and freshwater consumption of liquefied Marcellus shale gas used for international power generation[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018, 205: 672-680.
13	KASUMU A S, LI V, COLEMAN J W, et al. Country-level life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from liquefied natural gas trade for electricity generation[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2018, 52(4): 1735-1746.
14	ROMAN-WHITE S A, LITTLEFIELD J A, FLEURY K G, et al. LNG supply chains: A supplier-specific life-cycle assessment for improved emission accounting[J]. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 2021, 9(32): 10857-10867.
15	KHAN M I, SHAHRESTANI M, HAYAT T, et al. Life cycle (well-to-wheel) energy and environmental assessment of natural gas as transportation fuel in Pakistan[J]. Applied Energy, 2019, 242: 1738-1752.
16	ANDREW B, HAN Jeongwoo, CLARK C E, et al. Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of shale gas, natural gas, coal, and petroleum[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2012, 46(2): 619-627.
17	SHI Junli, LI Tao, PENG Shitong, et al. Comparative life cycle assessment of remanufactured liquefied natural gas and diesel engines in China[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2015, 101: 129-136.
18	SONG Hongqing, Xunmin OU, YUAN Jiehui, et al. Energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of diesel/LNG heavy-duty vehicle fleets in China based on a bottom-up model analysis[J]. Energy, 2017, 140: 966-978.
19	SUN Shouheng, ERTZ M. Life cycle assessment and Monte Carlo simulation to evaluate the environmental impact of promoting LNG vehicles[J]. MethodsX, 2020, 7: 101046.
20	TAGLIAFERRI C, CLIFT R, LETTIERI P, et al. Liquefied natural gas for the UK: A life cycle assessment[J]. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2017, 22(12): 1944-1956.
21	宋国辉, 肖军, 沈来宏. 生物质基合成天然气(BioSNG)的生命周期评价[C]//2013中国环境科学学会学术年会论文集(第四卷). 昆明, 2013: 1197-1203.
	SONG Guohui, XIAO Jun, SHEN Laihong. Life cycle assessment of biomass-based synthetic natural gas (BioSNG)[C]// Proceedings of the 2013 Annual Conference of the Chinese Society for Environmental Science (Volume Ⅳ). Kunming, 2013: 1197-1203.
22	LI Jingying, MA Xiaoxun, LIU Heng, et al. Life cycle assessment and economic analysis of methanol production from coke oven gas compared with coal and natural gas routes[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018, 185: 299-308.
23	LI Jingying, ZHANG Suisui, NIE Yan, et al. A holistic life cycle evaluation of coking production covering coke oven gas purification process based on the subdivision method[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020, 248: 119183.
24	杨义振. 浅谈焦炉煤气制液化天然气[J]. 石化技术, 2016, 23(4): 49-50.
	YANG Yizhen. Analysis of LNG production with coke oven gas[J]. Petrochemical Industry Technology, 2016, 23(4): 49-50.
25	International Organization for Standardization(ISO). Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Principles and framework [S]. Genève, Switzerland, 2006.
26	International Organization for Standardization(ISO). Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Requirements and guidelines [S]. Genève, Switzerland, 2006.
27	国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. 钢铁产品制造生命周期评价技术规范: [S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2014.
	General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China, Standardization Administration of the People’s Republic of China. Life cycle assessment specification on steel products(Product category rules): [S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2014.
28	中华人民共和国生态环境部, 国家环境保护总局. 清洁生产标准炼焦行业: [S]. 北京: 中国环境科学出版社, 2003.
	Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China, State Environmental Protection Administration. Cleaner production standard—Coking industry: [S]. Beijing: China Environmental Science Press, 2003.
29	HERRMANN I T, MOLTESEN A. Does it matter which life cycle assessment (LCA) tool you choose?—A comparative assessment of SimaPro and GaBi[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2015, 86: 163-169.
30	GUINÉE J B. Handbook on life cycle assessment: Operational guide to the ISO standards[M]. Springer Science & Business Media, 2002.

[1]	李晶莹, 马龙飞, 张红娟, 潘一搏, 卢山, 徐龙, 马晓迅. 生命周期评价方法在医药领域的应用现状与研究进展[J]. 化工进展, 2024, 43(5): 2851-2861.
[2]	杨梦茹, 彭琴, 常玉龙, 邱淑兴, 张溅波, 江霞. 生物炭替代煤粉/焦炭高炉炼铁碳减排技术研究进展[J]. 化工进展, 2024, 43(1): 490-500.
[3]	王福安. 300kt/a环氧丙烷工艺反应器降耗减排分析[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(S1): 213-218.
[4]	闫青, 张云峰, 赵敏伟, 宋宁, 高辉, 周静. LNG接收站大跨距补偿平台的可行性分析[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(S1): 158-165.
[5]	孙玉玉, 蔡鑫磊, 汤吉海, 黄晶晶, 黄益平, 刘杰. 反应精馏合成甲基丙烯酸甲酯工艺优化及节能[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(S1): 56-63.
[6]	刘含笑, 吴黎明, 林青阳, 周烨, 罗象, 桂志军, 刘小伟, 单思珂, 朱前林, 陆诗建. 碳足迹评估技术及其在重点工业行业的应用[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(5): 2201-2218.
[7]	刘洪茹, 林文胜. 基于液氢和氨的氢运输链能效和碳排放分析[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(3): 1291-1298.
[8]	李乃珍, 孙瑞洁, 秦志峰, 苗茂谦, 吴琼笑, 常丽萍, 孙鹏程, 曾剑, 刘毅. 焦炉煤气常量含碳气氛对加氢脱硫催化剂活性、选择性和积炭的影响[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(2): 783-793.
[9]	范宝田, 严祯荣, 苏厚德, 刘岑凡, 宋玉娟. 煤粉耦合生物质气协同降低NO _x 和CO₂的排放技术[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(10): 5501-5508.
[10]	慕彦君, 宋倩倩, 王红秋, 付凯妹, 雪晶, 王春娇. 美国炼化行业低碳发展策略与启示[J]. 化工进展, 2022, 41(6): 2797-2805.
[11]	常斐, 詹国雄, 史森森, 曾少娟, 张香平. 离子液体电还原CO₂合成甲醇过程评价与分析[J]. 化工进展, 2022, 41(3): 1256-1264.
[12]	陈健, 姬存民, 卜令兵. 碳中和背景下工业副产气制氢技术研究与应用[J]. 化工进展, 2022, 41(3): 1479-1486.
[13]	相宏伟, 杨勇, 李永旺. 碳中和目标下的煤化工变革与发展[J]. 化工进展, 2022, 41(3): 1399-1408.
[14]	田原宇, 乔英云, 张永宁. 碳中和约束下绿色减排体系的构建[J]. 化工进展, 2022, 41(2): 1078-1084.
[15]	曹文胜, 徐建壮, 郭兆春, 林文胜, BLUTH Christoph. 冷能利用片冰机海水淡化动态仿真[J]. 化工进展, 2021, 40(S1): 61-68.

焦炉煤气脱碳法及甲烷化法制液化天然气的生命周期环境影响分析

Life cycle environmental analysis of coke oven gas to liquefied natural gas based on decarburization and methanation processes

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 12

参考文献 30

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价