A Comparative Study for the Development of Coal-to-Liquids Industries in China, South Africa and United States
- 1 School of Chemical Engineering, Inner Mongolia University of Technology, Hohhot, China
- 2 School of Economics and Management, Inner Mongolia University of Technology, Hohhot, China
Abstract
Many energy consuming countries have carried out research, development, demonstration, planning and deployment of coal-to-liquids (CTL) because of its ability to replace oil imports by converting coal resources into fuel. Among them, China and South Africa successfully had their CTL technology industrialized, while the United States did not. To understand the differences in the industrial development level, a comparative study is necessary. This paper compares the history, driver and policy of CTL industry in China, South Africa and United States, collates and discloses numbers of industry details for the first time. We figure out that the motivation, top level planning and policy consistency are the key indicators of the difference on the industrial development level. Among them, the key to the success of CTL industrialization in China and South Africa is the government’s strong and stable determination to improve energy security, which provides a stable top-level planning and robust policy support. The failure of CTL in United States is caused by the shift of policy attention after its energy security situation improved.
- Kejian, L., et al. (2015) Study and Development of Shenhua Direct Coal Liquefaction Technology. Clean Coal Technology, 21, 50-55.
- Xiang, H., Yang, Y. and Li, Y. (2014) Indirect Coal-to-Liquids Technology from Fundamental Research to Commercialization. Scientia Sinica Chimica, 44, 1876.
- Wu, N. (2011) China Energy Issues: Energy Intensity, Coal Liquefaction, and Carbon Pricing. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/68884
- Nkomo, J. C. (2009) Energy Security and Liquid Fuels in South Africa. Journal of Energy in Southern Africa, 20, 20-24. https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-3051/2009/v20i1a3298 http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/jesa/v20n1/03.pdf
- Vallentin, D. (2008) Driving Forces and Barriers in the Development and Implementation of Coal-to-Liquids (CtL) Technologies in Germany. Energy Policy, 36, 2030-2043.
- Trollip, H., et al. (2014) Energy Security in South Africa. Mitigation Action Plans and Scenarios (MAPS), No. 17, 45.
- Bartis, J.T., Camm, F. and Ortiz, D.S. (2008) Producing Liquid Fuels from Coal. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.
- Hilsenrath, P.E. (1989) The Development of Synthetic Fuels in South Africa. The Journal of Energy and Development, 14, 269-283.
- Vallentin, D. (2008) Policy Drivers and Barriers for Coal-to-Liquids (CtL) Technologies in the United States. Energy Policy, 36, 3188-3201.
- Kong, B. (2005) An Anatomy of China’s Energy Insecurity and Its Strategies. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, US Department of Energy.
- Yergin, D. (1988) Energy Security in the 1990s. Foreign Affairs, 67, 110-132. https://doi.org/10.2307/20043677
- Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Carlsson, B., Lindmark, S. and Rickne, A. (2008) Analyzing the Functional Dynamics of Technological Innovation Systems: A Scheme of Analysis. Research Policy, 37, 407-429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.12.003
- Kemp, R., Schot, J. and Hoogma, R. (1998) Regime Shifts to Sustainability through Processes of Niche Formation: The Approach of Strategic Niche Management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10, 175-198. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537329808524310