Multi-scale sustainability assessments for biomass-based and coal-based fuels in China

- The pros and cons of BTL and CTL are compared for sustainability assessments.
- A hierarchical framework including the production cost, LCC, and ELCC was applied.
- The BTL lacks of economic attractiveness while placing less ecological stress.
- The CTL is more economic profitable but great threat to ecological sustainability.

Transportation liquid fuels production is heavily depend on oil. In recent years, developing biomass based and coal based fuels are regarded as promising alternatives for non-petroleum based fuels in China. With the rapid growth of constructing and planning b biomass based and coal based fuels production projects, sustainability assessments are needed to simultaneously consider the resource, the economic, and the environmental factors. This paper performs multi-scale analyses on the biomass based and coal based fuels in China. The production cost, life cycle cost, and ecological life cycle cost (ELCC) of these synfuels are investigated to compare their pros to cons and reveal the sustainability. The results show that BTL fuels has high production cost. It lacks of economic attractiveness. However, insignificant resource cost and environmental cost lead to a substantially lower ELCC, which may indicate better ecological sustainability. CTL fuels, on the contrary, is lower in production cost and reliable for economic benefit. But its coal consumption and pollutant emissions are both serious, leading to overwhelming resource cost and environmental cost. A shifting from petroleum to CTL fuels could double the ELCC, posing great threat to the sustainability of the entire fuels industry.

184