Climate change,enhanced greenhouse gas emissions and passenger transport –What can we do to make a di?erence?
David A.Hensher
Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies,Faculty of Economics and Business,The University of Sydney,Australia
Abstract
The transportation sector,led by the automobile,has been cited constantly as a major contributor through human intervention to climate change.Short of banning car use,the challenge remains one of understanding better what mix of actions might contribute in non-marginal ways to reducing the growth of greenhouse gas emissions and the absolute amount of CO 2produced by automobiles.This paper evaluates instruments aimed at a number of policy objectives linked to e?ciency,sustainability and equity,focusing on social surplus gains in addition to cost e?ectiveness;but in particular the ability to reduce CO 2.TRESIS,an integrated transport,land use and environmental strategy impact simulation pro-gram,is used to assess the in?uence on CO 2of a number of ‘at source’and ‘mitigation’instruments such as improvements in fuel e?ciency,a carbon tax,variable user charges,and improvements in public transit.TRESIS is applied to the Sydney metropolitan area with instruments enacted in 2010up to 2015.ó2007Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved.
Keywords:Greenhouse gas emissions;Passenger transport;TRESIS1.4;System-wide impacts;Carbon tax
1.Introduction
Transport accounts for 14%of global greenhouse gas emissions (GGE),with the vast majority of these emis-sions produced by the road transport sector,passenger and freight.In the Australian context transport con-tributed,in 2004,76.2Mt CO 2-e (megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent)or 13.5%of Australia’s net emissions.After the stationary energy sector,transport is the second largest growth sector in GGEs over the 1990–2004period,with an increase of 23.4%(14.5Mt CO 2-e)(Australian Bureau of Statistics,2007),or about 1.5%annually.The strongest period of growth in transport emissions occurred in the early 1990s and since that time the longer term growth rate appears to have slowed.The main driver for the increase in transport emissions is the continuing growth in household incomes and number of vehicles.
Passenger cars were the largest transport source,contributing 41.7Mt CO 2-e,increasing by 18%between 1990and 2004,well above net emissions growth of 5.2%.This represents,in 2004,7.8%of Australia’s GGEs,up from 7.0%in 1990.The growth in emissions from passenger cars re?ects growth in activity but also the
1361-9209/$-see front matter ó2007Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.trd.2007.12.003
E-mail address:Davidh@https://www.doczj.com/doc/f3242581.html,.au
Available online at https://www.doczj.com/doc/f3242581.html,
Transportation Research Part D 13(2008)
95–111
96 D.A.Hensher/Transportation Research Part D13(2008)95–111
in?uence of technological change,as the proportion of vehicles?tted with three way catalytic converters has increased in the overall passenger car?eet.1
The European Conference of Ministers of Transport(2007)review of progress in Organisation for Economic Development(OECD)countries suggests that measures adopted to date in the transport sector might cut700million tonnes from annual CO2emissions by2010,approximately50%of the projected increase in emissions between1990and2010.2Road transport is currently the dominant modal sector in con-tributing to CO2emissions,with road passenger modes accounting for close to two-thirds of emissions in2030, with the road freight sector growing at a faster rate.With potential substitution of hydrogen for fossil fuels, the possibility that the road transport sector reduces its relative contribution to CO2is real,with aviation and maritime growing disproportionately.
Achieving major reductions in GGEs in the road passenger transport sector is not beyond the realms of possibility(European Conference of Ministers of Transport,2007).Reducing GGEs however must be assessed in the context of cost e?ectiveness.There are a number of possible ways of reducing CO2that deliver equiv-alent reductions;however some impose greater costs on society than others.Examples include variable user charges and a carbon tax(see below),but the change in consumer surplus and end user money and time costs are likely to be substantially di?erent,as are the revenue implications for government.Importantly,the assess-ment of the overall impact of any policy instrument or mixes of instruments must be established through a framework that can account for the system-wide responses and not just the obvious direct and partial responses.Although there will be adjustments beyond the transport sector,there is great merit in tracking the ways in which speci?c policy instruments impact,in direct and indirect ways,on activities that are linked to transportation and location decisions for the population of interest.
To understand how a system-wide approach can identify the impact of a speci?c policy instrument,con-sider a fuel tax increase.The imposition of an increase in the tax on automobile fuel,via its impact on unit operating cost has an immediate and direct in?uence on:the use of each vehicle for particular trips such as the commuter trip;i.e.mode choice,which includes both a switch to public transport and vehicle-substitution from within the household’s vehicle park,a possible change in the timing of the commuter journey to reduce the increased costs associated with tra?c congestion,and hence a change in the overall and non-commuting use of each automobile available to a household.It also directly a?ects the household’s choice of types of auto-mobiles from the set of conventional and hybrid-fuel vehicles.The indirect impacts include a change in resi-dential location over time via the change in modal and spatial accessibility to work opportunities and a change in the number of vehicles in a household(given the increased operating costs).Changes in residential location may further a?ect the use of each automobile,as well as the mix of urban commuting and non-commuting, and non-urban kilometers.The adjustment in commuter travel may also a?ect non-commuting car use if a vehicle previously used for commuting is released for use by another non-working member of the household. Some adjustment in the loss rate of automobiles will also occur(Fig.1).
This paper evaluates potentially e?ective instruments that are aimed at a number of policy objectives linked to the triple-bottom line–e?ciency,sustainability and equity;but in particular the ability to reduce CO2.We use TRESIS,an integrated transport,land use and environmental strategy impact simulation program to assess the in?uence on CO2of a number of instruments such as a carbon tax,variable user charges,fuel e?-ciency gains and improvements in public transit.TRESIS is applied to the Sydney metropolitan area with instruments enacted in2010up to2015.
2.Overview of TRESIS
TRESIS3(Transportation and Environment Strategy Impact Simulator)is designed as a policy advisory tool to evaluate the impact of transport and non-transport policy instruments on urban travel behavior and 1Catalytic converters,introduced for local air pollution control,reduce all NO
emissions but raise nitrous oxide(N2O)emissions
x
compared with other technologies.
2The Stern Report(UK Treasury,2006)argues that‘‘To stabilise at450ppm CO
-e,without overshooting,global emissions would need
2
to peak in the next10years and then fall at more than5%per year,reaching70%below current levels by2050.”
3Developed since1995at the Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies(ITLS),the University of Sydney.
D.A.Hensher/Transportation Research Part D13(2008)95–11197
the environment with a wide range of performance indicators.As an integrated model,TRESIS1.4o?ers the ability to analyze and evaluate a variety of land use,transport,and environmental policy strategies or sce-narios for urban areas.The results of a base case scenario are used as references to compare with those of the policies and projects to be tested.The model generates a number of performance indicators to evaluate these e?ects in terms of economic,social,environmental and energy impacts.Earlier versions of TRESIS (with a1993base year)have been developed and applied to six Australian cities,namely Canberra,Sydney, Melbourne,Brisbane,Adelaide and Perth(Hensher et al.,1995,2005;Hensher,2002).The latest version of TRESIS with a1998base year,examines strategic level policy options for the Sydney Metropolitan Area (including the Central Coast).
TRESIS1.4has a high temporal resolution with an annual step-up to a28-year forecasting horizon(i.e.to 2025).It has integration of land use and transport interaction in each simulation period.The synthetic nature of the model provides a detailed description of the base year of1998to be estimated within the model. TRESIS1.4is structured around seven key systems(Fig.2).
2.1.Behavioral demand speci?cation system
This core system provides the household characteristics data and model formulation for the behavioral demand evaluation system.It contains a module for constructing a synthetic household database as well as a suite of utility expressions representing a behavioral system of choice models for indi-viduals and households.These models are based on mixtures of revealed and stated preference data and estimated as an interlinked set of nested logit models(Table1and Fig.3)for residential location choice, dwelling type choice,mode choice,trip timing,work place location,vehicle choice type,?eet size,and automobile use by location.Each synthetic household carries a weight that represents its contribution to the population of households de?ned by a set of socio-economic characteristics of each person in the household and the household as a whole.TRESIS1.4carries forward in time the base year household weights or,alternatively,modi?es the weights to represent the changing composition of households in the population.4
The key matrices used to establish the location and travel demands for the population as a whole(Eqs.(1)–(3))are derived from an accumulation of inter-related impacts across the full set of location,travel and vehicle choices made by synthetic household,each of which represents a particular socio-demographic pro?le of per-sons who de?ne households.
DDMatrix rLoc;dwt?
X nh
h?1weight
h
xpRLC
h;rLoc
xpDwTC
h;rLoc;dwt
e1T
VDMatrix rLoc;hSocio?
X nh
h?1X nf
f?1
X ns
s?1
X nv
v?1
weight
h
xpRLC
h;rLoc
xpFSC
h;rLoc;f
xpATC
h;s;v
e2T
TMatrix tod;rLoc;wLoc;mode;hSocio?
X nh
h?1X nw
w?1
weight h xpRLC
h;rLoc
xpWLC
h;w;rLoc;wLoc
xpDTCMC
h;w;tod;rLoc;wLoc;mode
e3T
Behavioral-Based
Demand Specification
Policy Specification System
Behavioral-Based
Demand Evaluation System
Supply
System Demand/Supply
Interaction System
Reporting
System
Simulation
Specification
System
Fig.2.TRESIS1.4structure.
4More detail information on the speci?cation and procedure for the generation of synthetic households to represent population data is given in Ton and Hensher(2001).
98 D.A.Hensher/Transportation Research Part D13(2008)95–111
DDMatrix rLoc ,dwt is the estimated number of dwellings of type dwt in zone rLoc ;VDMatrix rLoc ,hSocio is the estimated number of vehicles from residential zone rLoc and household type hSocio ;TMatrix tod ,rLoc ,wLoc ,mode ,hSocio is the estimated number of passenger trips generated by household type hSocio at time of day tod from residential zone rLoc to destination zone wLoc by transport mode mode .
The matrix of trips can be estimated by multiplying every TMatrix cell with an expansion factor matrix cell (tod ,mode ,rLoc ,wLoc ).pRLC h ,rLoc is the residential location choice probability of household h for zone rLoc ;pDwTC h ,rLoc ,dwt is the dwelling type choice probability of household h for zone rLoc and dwelling type dwt ;pFSC h ,rLoc ,f is the vehicle ?eet size choice probability of household h for zone rLoc and ?eet size f ;pATC h ,s ,v is automobile technology type choice probability of household h for vehicle size s and vintage v and w is worker (w ranges from 1to nw );pWLC h ,w ,rLoc ,wLoc is work place location choice probability of worker w in household h for residential zone rLoc and destination zone wLoc ;pDTCMC h ,w ,tod ,rLoc ,wLoc ,mode is the departure time and mode choice probability of worker w in household h for residential zone rLoc and destination zone wLoc at time of day tod and transport mode mode ;h is household h (h ranges from 1to nh );and weight h is the weight of household h .
In application,each synthetic household is ‘‘introduced ”into an urban area,carrying only a bundle of socio-economic descriptors for each household member and the household as a whole.Through the application of the behavioral model system and given the speci?cation of the transport network,location attributes,and automobile stock and attributes,the simulator calculates a full set of choice probabilities and vehicle use predictions associated with each of the alternatives in each of the travel,location,and vehi-cle demand models.The probabilities and predictions of use are expanded for each synthetic household to represent the demand by all households in the population represented by a synthetic household.The cal-culations are repeated for each synthetic household and then equilibration in the three markets (travel,location and vehicle)is undertaken to arrive at a ?nal set of demand estimates.The set of outputs are also accumulated throughout the simulator calculations so that a comparison can be made for each application year of each output before and after the simulation of one or more policy instruments that de?ne a strategy.
Table 1
Classi?cation of key input data used by choice models in TRESIS1.4Speci?c model
Choice set
Key attributes
Speci?c location application Relevance
Residential location choice (RLC)
No.of residential zones
Zone data (distance to CBD);accessibility measured by DwTC and WLC models
Origin Spatial,social,economic
Dwelling type choice (DwTC)No.of dwelling types
Household socio-economic data;(household type,household income,number of workers);zone data (distance to CBD,dwelling prices)
Origin
Spatial,social,economic Work place location choice (WLC)No.of work zones
Worker socio-economic data (occupation type,income);zone data (number of jobs available);accessibility measured by DTCMC model
Destination
Spatial,social,economic Work practices choice (WPC)
No.of work practice modes
Worker socio-economic data (occupation type,income);accessibility measured by DTCMC model NA Spatial,social,economic
Departure time and commuter mode choice (DTCMC)No.of times of day and number of transport modes Worker socio-economic data (person’s income,type of job,etc.);network data (time,cost and other service quality of di?erent transport modes at di?erent times of day)
origin–destination
Spatial,social,economic,temporal Automobile/vehicle technology type choice (ATC)No.of vehicle classes
Household socio-economic data (household income);vehicle data (vehicle types,prices,vintage,physical and performance characteristics,e.g.boot size,number of cylinders,acceleration,fuel consumption)
NA
Social,economic,energy,
environment Fleet size choice (FSC)
No.of vehicles
Household socio-economic data (household type,
income,number of workers,probability of using public transport);zone data (distance to CBD);accessibility measured by WLC model
NA
Spatial,social,economic
Note :NA indicates ‘not available.’
D.A.Hensher /Transportation Research Part D 13(2008)95–111
99
100 D.A.Hensher/Transportation Research Part D13(2008)95–111
2.2.Supply system
This system contains four databases:
The transport network with di?erent times of day level of services for six main modes of transport including drive alone,ride share,train,bus,light rail and busway.
Land use zoning with attributes such as number of di?erent dwelling types and associated prices,number of jobs,etc.
Automobile technology or vehicle database de?ning the number of di?erent vehicle types and associated performance and energy indicators.
Policy and environment parameters(e.g.carbon content in petrol,diesel,CNG and electric vehicles,fuel prices).
Key attributes such as travel times by times of day,demand level and associated prices of housing, resident in the transport network and zone databases are updated dynamically at run time during the calibration process5to re?ect the relationship between the demand and supply systems.The updated attri-butes of the supply system impact on the behavioral demand evaluation system,resulting in an iterative process of feedback and revision through a demand/supply interaction system,with stopping rules de?ning ‘equilibrium’.
5The Appendix explains the base year calibration process.
D.A.Hensher/Transportation Research Part D13(2008)95–111101
2.3.Simulation speci?cation system
This system provides a means for users to control the
TYPES,sources and locations of inputs and outputs from TRESIS1.4,
heuristic rule for accommodating the temporal adjustment process,
number of future years to be simulated from the present year,and
speci?cations to control the calibration and iteration process of a TRESIS1.4run.
The control factors are self explanatory;however the heuristic rule for accommodating the temporal adjust-ment process needs to be clari?ed.The model system in TRESIS1.4is static and hence produces an instanta-neous fully adjusted response to a policy application.In reality,choice responses take time to fully adjust,with the amount of time varying by a speci?c decision.We expect,for example,that it would take longer for the full e?ect of the change in residential location to occur and much less time for departure time and even choice of transport mode.TRESIS1.4allows users to impose a discount factor that establishes the amount of a change in choice probability that is likely to be taken up in the?rst year of a policy.It removes the rest of the change and uses the new one-year adjustment as the starting position for the next year.Intuitively,we are saying that if we had a fully dynamic choice model system,we would only observe the discounted impact after each year. Di?erent discount factors can be speci?ed to control the temporal process of change for di?erent choice mod-els in TRESIS1.4.
2.4.Policy speci?cation system
There is richness in the array of policy instruments supported in TRESIS1.4(Table2)such as new public transport,new toll roads,congestion pricing,gas guzzler taxes,changing residential densities,introducing des-ignated bus lanes,implementing fare changes,altering parking policy,introducing more?exible work prac-tices,and the introduction of more fuel e?cient vehicles.6
2.5.Behavioral demand evaluation system
Given the inputs from the behavioral demand speci?cation system and the supply system,the characteris-tics of each synthetic household are used to derive the full set of behavioral choice probabilities for the set of travel,location and vehicle choices and predictions of vehicle use.
2.6.Demand/supply interaction system
This system contains three key procedures to control or equilibrate the three di?erent types of interactions between demand and supply.The key mechanism for driving these three procedures is the level of interactions between demand and supply.7The three procedures are brie?y described as follows(Fig.4):
Equilibration in the residential location and dwelling type market:Demand for di?erent dwelling types in each residential location is calculated at any point in time.Excess demand will result in an increase in loca-tion rents and dwelling prices.In TRESIS1.4,dwelling prices for di?erent dwelling types are used to clear the markets for dwelling types and locations,in the absence of data on location rents.Some allowance for unused stock in built in,creating a disequilibrium state.
Equilibration in the automobile market:A vehicle price relative model is used to determine the demand for new vehicles each year.This model controls the relativities of vehicle prices by vintage via given exogenous new vehicle prices.A vehicle scrappage model is used to identify the loss of used vehicles consequent on
6The policy speci?cation system employs a graphical and map-based(Map Objects)user interface to translate a single or mixture of policy instruments into changes in the supply systems.
7Details of the underlying procedures is given in Hensher(2002).
vintage and used vehicle prices,where the latter are ?xed by new vehicle prices in a given year.The supply of new vehicles is determined as the di?erence between the household demand for vehicles and the supply of used vehicles after application of a scrappage model based on used vehicle prices.
Equilibration in the travel market :Households might adjust their route choices between origin and destina-tion,or trip timing and/or mode choice in response to changes in the transport system,particularly the tra-vel time and cost values between di?erent origins and destinations.In other words,di?erent households can have di?erent choices in responding to changes in di?erent levels of service at di?erent times of day.2.7.Reporting system
This system performs a number of calculations to report the outcome of the interaction between supply and demand at di?erent times of day and a average annual ?gure.TRESIS1.4delivers a comprehensive suite of outputs (Table 3)such as impacts on greenhouse gas emissions,accessibility,equity,air quality and household consumer surplus.The output is in the format of summary tables cross-tabulated by household types,house-hold incomes and residential zones and in more detailed format by origin and destination (OD),by di?erent times of day and by di?erent simulation years.3.Applications
We have selected a number of policy instruments to investigate the policy-value of an integrated model system,and evaluated each in the context of the Sydney Statistical Division which includes the Sydney
Table 2
Classi?cation of policy instruments via key input data in TRESIS1.4Speci?c policy
Attributes
Speci?c location application Times of day (TOD)Categories
New/existing public transport
Frequency;travel time;fare;access;egress
Origin–destination 6Spatial,economic New/existing roadway Distance;capacity;auto travel time;congestion pricing;variable user charges;toll cost Origin–destination 6Spatial,economic Parking charges Dollars/h
Destination 6Spatial,economic Urban density Three categories:houses;semi-detached;apartment/?at and associated prices Origin Non Spatial,economic Carbon tax
Carbon tax (c/kg)
Not location speci?c
Non Economic GST on new vehicles On new vehicle (from 2000)
Not location speci?c
Non Economic Automobile technology
Mass (kg);whole sale price ($);acceleration (sec to 100km/h);fuel e?ciency:city (L/100km);highway (L/100km)
Not location speci?c Non
Economic,energy,
environment Fuel excise by fuel type Wholesale price of petrol (c/L);Excise component of price of petrol (c/L);wholesale price of diesel (c/L);excise component of price of diesel (c/L)
Not location speci?c Non
Economic,energy,
environment Maximum ages of
vehicles for scrapping high emitters Maximum vintage to remove the high emitters from speci?c classes of vehicles (e.g.16years)
Not location speci?c Non
Economic,energy,
environment Vehicle registration charges
Dollars/year for di?erent vehicle classes and types Not location speci?c
Non Economic,energy Fuel e?ciency of current ?eet
Percentage of fuel e?ciency of current ?eet Not location speci?c
Non Energy Alternative fuels–CNG vehicles
Six classes (from class 11to class 16)Not location speci?c
Non Economic,energy Price rebate/discounts on vehicles
Rebate on new vehicles
Not location speci?c
Non
Economic,energy
102 D.A.Hensher /Transportation Research Part D 13(2008)95–111
D.A.Hensher/Transportation Research Part D13(2008)95–111103
Metropolitan area and the Central Coast(Fig.5).Although TRESIS1.4can evaluate a very large number of instruments(including mixtures of instruments and varying levels of treatment of each instrument),we have focused on three scenarios that show very real promise in reducing CO2and three scenarios that have little impact,despite being promoted by some sections of society.
To place GGE reductions in perspective,a range of relevant performance measures are examined to re?ect the fact that the triple-bottom line approach to policy formulation and implementation must recognize the balance between e?ciency,equity and sustainability,and encourage a review of options resulting in action that contributes to the achievement of the objectives promoted by stakeholders.One challenge is to identify which set of policy instruments can contribute in a non-marginal way to reducing CO2while enhancing the broader set of e?ciency and distributive justice objectives,including the budgetary implications for government.
We focus on the impacts over the period from2010up to2015.The year of introduction(i.e.the exogenous shock)starts in January,evaluating a policy annually,summing the impacts over time and reporting the?nd-ings for each year.The cost items are calculated in constant1998Australian dollars.
We report aggregate outputs(at a city level)herein,although a number of disaggregate output options are available by zone,zone pair,household type,income group,etc.(Table3).The selection of output indicators of interest is generally determined by the objectives of the study.For example,in an environmental evaluation, greenhouse gas emissions(i.e.CO2)is an appropriate indicator.In a strict economic analysis,vehicle operating cost and government revenue impacts also provide useful indicators.From a transport planning perspective, we may be interested in indicators such as modal share,vehicle kilometers and trips between each origin–des-tination pair.
We have selected a range of indicators that enable us to consider the impact of each policy on e?ciency, equity and sustainability.They are summarized in Table4.
The Vehicle operating cost variable needs special de?nition,as set out in Eq.(4),given its constituent parts. It comprises:
VehOpCost ??f cityFuel ?propCityF thwyFuel ?e1àpropCityF Tg ?0:01
??tPricePetrol ?e1àpropnDiesel TttPriceDiesel ?propnDiesel tcarbonTax
?f carbLitD ?propnDiesel tcarbLitP ?e1àpropnDiesel Tg tecTank tcarbonTax ?carbTAlt T=rangealf tecCharge tcarbonTax ?carbTElc T=rangeelc
e4T
where cityFuel is city cycle fuel e?ciency (L/100km),hwyFuel is highway cycle fuel e?ciency (L/100km),propCityF is the proportion of use that is in the city fuel cycle (default is 0.7),propnDiesel is the proportion of conventional–fuelled vehicles using diesel,tPricePetrol is equal to wpricepetrol plus expricepetrol (c/L),wpricepetrol is the wholesale price of petrol (c/L),expricepetrol is the excise component of the price of petrol (c/L),tpricediesel is wpricediesel plus expricediesel (c/L),wpricediesel is the wholesale price of diesel (c/L),expricediesel is the excise component of the price of diesel (c/L),carbonTax is the carbon tax (c/kg),carbLitD is the carbon per litre of diesel (kg/L),carbLitP is the carbon per litre of petrol (kg/L)carbTElc is the carbon per full electric recharge (kg)carbTAlt is the carbon per tank of alternative fuel (kg),cTank is wctank plus extank (c),wctank is the wholesale cost of a tank of alternative fuel (c),extank is the excise component of the cost of a tank of alternative fuel (c),cCharge is wccharge plus excharge (c),wccharge is the wholesale cost of a full electric recharge (c),excharge is the excise component of cost of a full electric recharge (c),rangeelc is the range of an electric vehicle on a fully charged battery (km),and rangealf is the range of an alternative fuelled vehicle on a full tank (km).
The VehOpCost indicator excludes spatial cost strategies such as a toll or congestion charge.It is strictly related to fuel-based strategies (changes in fuel e?ciency,carbon tax,fuel excise)(Table 4).
TRESIS1.4provides estimates of these selected indicators for the base case and policy case for each appli-cation year,de?ned as:
Table 3
Classi?cation of key output data in TRESIS Key output
(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)Categories
Dwelling demand by types and prices
NA NA NA NA Yes Social,spatial,economic Vehicle demand by vehicle classes/vintages NA NA NA NA Yes Spatial,economic Consumer surplus NA NA NA NA Yes Spatial,economic Accessibility
NA NA NA NA Yes Spatial,economic Estimated travel time/tra?c volumes by OD Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Spatial Trips by OD and modal shares NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Spatial Commuting trips by OD NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Spatial
Vehicle kilometres (VKM)
NA NA NA NA Yes Spatial,Environment Energy consumed by four di?erent types of vehicles (petrol,diesel,CNG,electric)
NA NA NA NA Yes Energy,environment CO 2produced by four di?erent types of vehicles (petrol,diesel,CNG,electric)
NA NA NA NA Yes Energy,environment End user vehicle cost (operating cost,registration and vehicle annualised cost)
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Social,economic,energy End user cost (both private and public transport cost)Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Social,economic
End user time (both private and public transport cost)Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Social,economic,energy Government revenue:parking charge Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Spatial,economic Government revenue:road toll
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Spatial,economic Government revenue:congestion charge/variable user charge Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Spatial,economic Government revenue:vehicle sale tax Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Economic
Government revenue:fuel excise Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Economic,energy,environment Government revenue:carbon tax
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Economic,energy,environment Government expenditure:purchase of old vehicles Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Economic,energy,environment Government expenditure:rebate for new vehicle
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Economic,energy,environment
Note :(1)By household socio-economic characteristics,(2)by zone,(3)by transport modes,(4)by times of day,(5)by year of simulation.NA indicates ‘not available.’
104 D.A.Hensher /Transportation Research Part D 13(2008)95–111
Base case :This is a scenario of ‘‘business as usual ”in each year.
Policy case :A policy is implemented and its impact is evaluated by comparing the output indicators between the base case and policy case (in both absolute and percentage terms).
Although outputs are obtained year by year,we focus on selected indicators in 2015(Tables 5and 6)for measures introduced in 2010.Table 5provides details of the base and scenario absolute impacts and the dif-ference for one speci?c policy,as a way of ensuring clarity in interpretation of the outputs.Table 6focuses on the di?erence between the base and scenario for six scenarios.If a carbon tax of 20c/kg (referred to as Car-bon20)were implemented (Table 5),the average vehicle operating cost after equilibration would increase by 16.61%.Government revenue would increase by 9.34%.The end user money cost would increase by 4.57%while end user time cost would be reduced by 1.095%.Modal commuter growth for automobile trips would decrease while for public transport it would increase,especially for bus.Annual vehicle kilometers would reduce by 2.53%and total CO 2would reduce by 2.67%.The overall expected maximum utility (or consumer surplus)reduction summed across the entire model system is 3.25%.When the expected maximum utility for mode and departure time choice is conditioned on location,there is a positive 2.05%gain in consumer surplus.This indicates that subsequent adjustments in workplace and or residential location resulted in a loss of sur-plus that in the short run was gained through modal and departure time trip adjustments.One can obtain these indicators for each application year in the evaluation period,and calculate the accumulated impact of the policy over a given period.
The scenarios presented in Table 6are the result of narrowing down sets to those that have strong creden-tials in terms at least one major issue being promoted across the full set of stakeholders.The stakeholders are principally the government,public transport providers,travelers and society as a
whole.
D.A.Hensher /Transportation Research Part D 13(2008)95–111105
A general variable user charge 8can accommodate all manner of externalities such as congestion,emissions and safety.Imposing a 10c/km variable user charge 9on the main road network (i.e.excluding local streets)as
Table 4
List of selected TRESIS1.4output (all dollars are in 1998prices)Performance indicators Description
Units Note
TCO 2
Annual carbon dioxide
Kilograms (kg)
Car (includes all passenger automobiles –sedan,wagons,utilities,panel vans,4WD),based on 2.35kg CO 2per litre of petrol.The calculation of this output totally independent of the Carbon tax function.The carbon tax calculates carbon content which is equal to carbon content rate ?fuel consumed (L).Carbon content rate is set at 0.635775kg carbon per litre of petrol
TEUC.MC Annual end use money cost Dollars
All person trips,includes for car:op cost,car registration charges,annualised vehicle cost,parking,toll,congestion charge;and public transport fares
TEUC.TTC Annual end use travel time cost Dollars
All person trips;with travel time for ride-share for each person in car (converted to $’s).This item also includes all components of time of public transport users
TEMUDTMC
Annual expected maximum utility from each model system for each of the model components de?ned –by departure time and mode choice (DTMC)links Dollars
Calculation uses full set of 36
(=6modes ?6TODs)exp *V functions
TEMURLC
Annual expected maximum utility from each model system for each of the model components de?ned –by the linkage:residential location choice (RLC)links
Dollars
TVKM (km)Annual passenger vehicle kilometers
Kilometres (km)Car
VehOpCost Annual auto VKM operating cost
Dollars Car.fuel prices assumed to increase by 0.05%pa TGovtVehReg Government revenue from auto ownership Dollars Car
TGovtExcise Government revenue from fuel excise Dollars Car (petrol and diesel)TGovtCarbT Government revenue from carbon tax
Dollars Car (petrol and diesel)TGovtSalesT Government revenue from sales tax (GST post 2000)
Dollars Car (petrol and diesel)
TPark Revenue from parking strategy Dollars Car TRCong Revenue from congestion pricing Dollars Car TRVuC Revenue for variable user charge Dollars Car
TPT Revenue from public transport use Dollars All PT (all modes,private and public).Fares assumed to remain at $98levels over 1999–2025TDA Modal growth for car drive alone %All person trips TRS Modal growth for ride-share %All person trips Ttrain Modal growth for train travel %All person trips Tbus Modal growth for bus travel
%All person trips TLrl Modal growth for light rail travel %All person trips Tbwy
Modal
growth
for
busway use
%
All person trips
Note :A trip =a person trip (e.g.2person’s ride sharing =2person trips).
8
Dutch Transport Minister Camiel Eurlings announced in December 2007that satellite-based road user charging will be implemented throughout the Netherlands.Trucks will start paying charges per kilometre travelled in 2011with cars following a year later.The Dutch government plans to scrap road tax as well as BMP purchase tax on new cars when the system is introduced to provide a fairer system which taxes vehicle use,rather than ownership.The minister claims that more than half of Dutch road users will pay less under the road user charging scheme.According to calculations by motoring organisations,only motorists who drive more than 18,000km a year are likely to be worse o?under the new scheme.9
Given a current price of petrol of $1.20/L,and average fuel e?ciency of 10L/100km,a 10c/km charge is equivalent to paying an additional $1/L of petrol.
106 D.A.Hensher /Transportation Research Part D 13(2008)95–111
D.A.Hensher/Transportation Research Part D13(2008)95–111107 Table5
Summary results for20c/kg carbon tax:2015(policy enacted from2010)
Indicators Base case Carbon tax20c/kg Di?erence(%) Automobile operating cost
AvOpCost(c/km)7.175E+008.367E+0016.61 VehOpCost($) 2.330E+09 2.648E+0913.66 Government revenue
TGovtCarbT($)0 3.884E+08N/A TGovtExcise($) 1.469E+09 1.43E+09à2.67 TGovtPark($)8.475E+088.447E+08à0.33 TgovtPT($)9.508E+08 1.065E+0912.03 TGovtSales($) 3.555E+08 3.573E+080.49 TGovtVehReg($)8.729E+078.714E+07à0.17
Total end user cost
TEUC.MoneyC($)8.866E+099.271E+09 4.56 TEUC.TimeC($) 3.153E+10 3.119E+10à1.10 Consumer surplus
Entire model system(TEMURLC)($)7.621E+107.619E+10à3.25
Mode and departure time(TEMUDTMC)($)à6.661E+14à6.798E+14 2.05 Commuter mode growth
TDA 2.034E+09 2.010E+09à1.44
TRS9.624E+089.508E+08à1.30
TTain 2.054E+08 2.273E+08 1.07
TBus 1.765E+08 1.901E+087.69 Greenhouse gas emissions
TCO2(kg)8.590E+098.360E+09à2.67 Passenger vehicle kilometres
TVKM(km) 3.189E+10 3.108E+10à2.53
a way of internalizing a suite of externalities between the hours of7am and6pm for all days of the week, maintaining road investments levels unchanged,is forecast in2015to reduce CO2from passenger cars by 4.74%.This results in sizeable patronage gains for existing public transport and a noticeable reduction in car use.The growth in demand for public transport makes the strong assumption that governments will invest in new public transport infrastructure(especially bus rapid transit)to accommodate the predicted growth in demand throughout the entire metropolitan area.Without this investment there is a real risk that the gains will be lost,with short term overcrowding and a return to car use.Importantly,the?nancing of additional public transport investment can be in part provided by the variable user charge assuming that government accepts hypothecation,which is the big stumbling block in many countries(e.g.Australia,Singapore)at present. The potential to grow public transport revenue by a massive85.27%,together with an apportionment of rev-enue from variable user charging,will jointly support the investment needs.Importantly the loss in consumer surplus overall is very small(à0.69%),making this a very socially e?cient strategy from an aggregate social point of view.Although car operating costs will decrease by4.73%on average,when the adjustment in monies outlaid on variable user charges,tolls and public transport fares is added in,the end user monetary cost increases by29.65%.Added to this will be the increase in end user travel time cost of9.24%,due in aggregate to increased travel times by public transport despite improved travel times for car users.
An alternative with similar policy outputs to a variable user charge is a carbon tax imposed on the carbon-based energy sources according to their carbon contents.Carbon taxes are implemented to reduce CO2emis-sions emitted into the atmosphere,through their pricing e?ects on fuel consumptions and energy selection (Zhang and Baranzini,2004).Sweden is the?rst country that introduced the carbon tax in1991with US$30/tonne of emitted CO2,increasing to US$46/tonne after1997(Bra¨nnlund and Nordstro¨m,2004). Finland,the Netherlands,and Norway also introduced carbon taxes in the1990s.New Zealand proposed a carbon tax at NZ$15/tonne of emitted CO2(Wikipedia,2007).So far,the Australian Government has
not developed a carbon tax as part of its greenhouse policies,although there is active dialogue.The carbon content in TRESIS1.4is set at 0.635775kg carbon per litre of petrol.If a carbon tax of $0.05/kg is considered for petrol this would be 3.18c/L,and for diesel it is $0.0367/L.These cost impacts are re?ected in modeled vehicle use.
A 40c/kg carbon charge 10delivers a very similar reduction in CO 2as a metro-wide variable user charge of 10c/km;however while it increases car operating costs by 26.95%,it increases overall end use money costs by 9.17%,considerably less than the 29.65%for a 10c/km variable user charge.Interestingly the reduction in car kilometers is very similar (4.68%and 4.69%,respectively,for $.04/kg carbon tax and $0.01/km variable user charge).The overall loss in consumer surplus is very small (à0.01%)but the gain associated with mode and departure time choice switching is much smaller (4.07%)than the 10.53%asso-ciated with the variable user charge.Likewise the switch to public transport,while impressive,is consid-erably lower than for a variable user charge for cars;and may well be more sustainable and deliverable in terms of requisite increases in public transport investment.The most important implication of this
Table 6
Summary results for various policy instruments 2015(policy enacted from 2010)a Indicators
10c/km variable user charge –metro area 7am–6pm
Double bus frequency (i.e.half headway)
10c/km variable user charge –metro area 7am–6pm;double bus way frequency Rail and bus fares reduced by 50%
Fuel e?ciency improvement by 25%
Carbon tax 40c/kg
Auto operating cost VehOpCost
à4.73%à0.17%à4.62%à0.44%à21.26%26.92%Government revenue ($)TGovtCarbT ($)–
––
––7.585E+08TCong,TVuC ($) 2.947E+09–
3.129E+09–
–
–
TGovtExcise à4.75%à0.16%à4.65%à0.42%à21.26%à4.96%TGovtPark à5.12%à1.84%7.26%à7.96%0.29%0.67%TgovtPT 85.27%58.5%44.67%16.10%à12.28%25.67%TGovtSales 0.43%à0.11%à.035%à0.32%0.59%0.97%TGovtVehReg 3.47%à0.09%à.027%à0.27%0.18%0.34%Total end user cost TEUC.MoneyC 29.65% 5.97%25.7%à3.86% 6.63%9.17%TEUC.TimeC
9.24%à5.35% 5.46%à3.17% 1.18%à2.29%Consumer surplus:Entire model system TEMURLC
à0.69%0.04%à0.45%0.054%0.075%à0.01%Mode and departure time (TEMUDTMC)10.53%
à9.26%
18.91%
à13.34%
à2.96%
4.07%
Commuter mode growth b TDA à10.58%à6.95%à5.53%à7.47% 1.52%à3.03%TRS 11.65%à8.44%à5.59%à6.23% 1.40%à2.72%TTrain 73.30%à2.73%78.87%49.71%à11.18%22.48%TBus
74.02%121.10%à19.02%45.43%à8.29%16.01%TLight Rail 11.51%à6.24%17.57%à10.24%à3.85%7.54%TBwy
154.80% 5.15%151.90%à9.74%à16.78% 3.83%Greenhouse gas emissions TCO2(kg)à4.75%à0.16%à4.63%à0.42%à21.26%à4.95%Passenger vehicle kms TVKM (km)
à4.69%
à0.015%
à4.58%
à0.39%
4.80%
à4.68%
a Run times vary from 30min to 1h.
b
These percentages are growth in patronage,noting that bus and train is o?a very small base of approximately 6%and 4%respectively.
10
A 40c/kg carbon tax on petrol is equivalent to an additional $0.2544/L on fuel,which is currently $1.20/L.
108 D.A.Hensher /Transportation Research Part D 13(2008)95–111
D.A.Hensher/Transportation Research Part D13(2008)95–111109 comparative assessment is that an appropriate carbon tax can deliver many of the major bene?ts for a smaller investment in public transport and lower impost on all travelers than a variable user charge for the equivalent reduction in CO2.
An at source instrument is improved vehicle fuel e?ciency(in L/100km).We have assumed a capability of improving fuel e?ciency by25%.This is directly linked into CO2with a21.26%reduction by2015after accounting for the stimulus to increased vehicle kilometers(4.80%increase),in part due to a switch from pub-lic transport but also linked to reduced cost of motoring per kilometer.The switch from public transport com-bined with additional travel increases end use monetary costs for all trip activity by6.63%and small increase in end use travel time cost of1.18%.Surprisingly this rebalancing of travel activity has a very small positive in?uence on overall net consumer surplus(0.075%),although a more noticeable loss of net surplus(à2.96%) as a result of modal and departure time switching holding residential and workplace location?https://www.doczj.com/doc/f3242581.html,ern-ment is a?nancial looser to the sum ofà32.47%.
There are many pundits that still believe that we can harness sustainability gains by focusing strictly on improvements in public transport.This is highly unlikely as mounting evidence suggests11,but politically it seems to have greater appeal,in large measure because one is not?irting with prices except to decrease or freeze them to a consumer price index adjustment.In recognition that‘frequency,connectivity and visibility’are key elements of a strategy to grow public transport patronage,we investigated improved frequency,dou-bling it(i.e.halving headways)throughout the entire metropolitan bus network,public sand private.The train service was not changed given the di?culty in achieving such changes.12We also looked at reducing rail and bus fares,since this is a regular recommendation by some stakeholders.
Doubling bus frequencies does very little to reduce CO2,but given that buses share roads with cars,it adds to the overall money cost of road use(attributable to increased payment of public transport fares)but a sig-ni?cant improvement in time costs(due to modal substitution)ofà5.35%.Clearly this is a potential winner for bus operators(58.5%growth in fare revenue);however this has to be contrasted with the cost of extra vehi-cles and other inputs(labour,fuel,maintenance,etc.).
Reducing bus and train fares by50%does attract patronage,but it does very little to reduce CO2associated with car kilometers.This is generally well known.It does impact on parking station revenue(given that most of the added rail patronage is to and from CBD where parking is expensive).In our application we have not reduced fares on premium busway services such as those on toll roads and dedicated roads such as Liverpool–Parramatta Transitway,and light rail.The consumer surplus gains overall are very small(0.054%)and indeed there is a reduction of13.34%when focusing on mode and departure time,holding residential and workplace location?xed.What this suggests is that the increased demand adds crowding delays that more than o?set any ?nancial gains.Clearly the fare reduction would require substantial investment in service levels to be able to recapture these lost bene?ts.
Finally,we combined variable user charging with a doubling of bus frequency,and as might be expected the dominant gains are attributable to the$0.01/km variable user charge.The frequency e?ect does impact strongly on the gain in consumer surplus for mode and departure time switching,holding location constant.
4.Conclusions
Although the passenger transport sector is a relatively small player in the overall production of CO2emis-sions(8%of national emissions in Australia in2006),with the stationary energy sector being the main con-tributor,the concerning rate of increase(1.5%per annum)and high visibility of automobility ensures itself a major place on the reform agendas of many nations working to reduce CO2emissions and hence contrib-uting to the resolution of the climate change challenge.
The policy scenarios assessed herein highlight the most probable extent to which the passenger trans-port sector can contribute to reducing CO2through pricing instruments directed explicitly to car use as
11The European Conference of Ministers of Transport(2007)review states that,‘‘Modal shift policies are usually weak in terms of the quantity of CO2abated”.
12The New South Wales government,in2006,reduced frequencies in the o?peak to ensure greater on-time running,but increased frequency on some peak services.
110 D.A.Hensher/Transportation Research Part D13(2008)95–111
well as initiatives directly related to public transport to make it more attractive.We believe that these types of instruments can only at best,reduce CO2by5%,with the carbon tax o?ering the most attractive way forward when balancing e?ciency,equity and sustainability considerations.Indeed the European Conference of Ministers of Transport progress reviews states that‘‘Carbon and fuel taxes are the ideal measures for addressing CO2emissions.They send clear signals and distort the economy less than any other approach.”
We ran an across the board25%improvement in fuel e?ciency in2015which suggests21.26%reduc-tion in CO2.This supports the position of the European Conference of Ministers of Transport that fuel e?ciency delivers most in terms of energy e?ciency and is relatively cost e?ective.What it does do how-ever it attract more cars and hence vehicle kilometers onto the road system,which increases tra?c congestion.
Overall it appears that a mix of technology(i.e.fuel e?ciency improvements)and pricing through a car-bon tax or a variable user charge is the way forward assuming continuing use of fossil fuels.The carbon tax,in the presence of improved fuel e?ciency is likely to be linked to reduced CO2per vehicle kilometer and hence will not have as great an impact on reduced vehicle kilometers traveled as a variable user charge.On balance we favor the mix of improved fuel e?ciency and a variable user charge which should move to meet targets being promoted in many countries.As an example,a$0.05/km variable user charge throughout the Sydney metropolitan area on all main roads,combined with an achieved15%improvement in the fuel e?ciency of the car stock,is forecast to deliver in2015a15%reduction in CO2.This also pro-duces a desirable?nancial outcome for government given that fuel e?ciency improvement alone will shrink government co?ers quite markedly.
It is important to recognize that forecasts based on each policy instrument carry varying degrees of forecast uncertainty,in part linked to the speci?cation of TRESIS1.4but also markedly in?uenced by the ability of stakeholders to actually implement the speci?c policies at the levels assessed.We are of the belief that techno-logical solutions(e.g.those linked to improved vehicle fuel e?ciency)are somewhat more feasible to achieve than commitments of government to introduce a carbon tax,a variable user charge or a congestion charge, and hence should be given more feasibility weight,despite the revenue losses to government pursuant of a technological focus alone.The comparative advantage of technological change is that it is being invested in globally;whereas non-technological instruments(which may actually speed up the commercialization of tech-nology instruments)are subject to the politics of a jurisdiction,no matter how much groundswell there is glob-ally for speci?c actions.
Finally,although the evidence here may have more general relevance in suggesting which policy instru-ments have the greatest potential in contributing to containment and reduction in CO2,the numerical impacts are likely to be location speci?c and heavily in?uenced by the current mix of motorized and non-motorized forms of transport.
Acknowledgements
The comments by Alastair Stone,two referees and Ken Button are greatly appreciated.I also thank John Stanley for encouraging me to bring back TRESIS as a powerful framework within which to investigate policy instruments that are capable of in?uencing change.
Appendix
A base year for model development and implementation has to be selected(in the case study,we use 1998,with December the actual time point at which to measure all activities and external data such as vehicle registrations and population).The system has to be calibrated for the base year population pro?les and then applied annually with summaries of outputs for each year over the range of speci?ed years.Each of the behavioral models has to be calibrated to reproduce the base year shares and on each alternative. Once the models are calibrated,the parameter set remains unchanged in all applications.New calibration is required when base input data are changed.The data selected for calibration in the case study are shown in Table A1.
D.A.Hensher/Transportation Research Part D13(2008)95–111111 Table A1
Base year calibration criteria
Decision block Data criterion
Location(per location) dwelling type share
total number of households
total number of workers
household?eet size distribution(0,1,2,3+)
Vehicle(per vehicle class) vehicle class shares
total registered passenger vehicles
total passenger vehicle kilometers
household?eet size composition
Travel commuter mode share
travel time(origin–destination)
commuter departure time pro?le
sample spatial and temporal work practice composition References
Australian Bureau of Statistics,2007.Greenhouse Gas Emissions.Australian Bureau of Statistics,Canberra.
Bra¨nnlund,R.,Nordstro¨m,J.,2004.Carbon tax simulations using a household demand model.European Economic Review48,211–233. European Conference of Ministers of Transport,2007.Cutting Transport CO2Emission:What Progress?European Conference of Ministers of Transport,Paris.
Hensher,D.A.,2002.A systematic assessment of the environmental impacts of transport policy:an end use perspective.Environmental and Resource Economics22,185–217.
Hensher,D.A.,Milthorpe,F.W.,McCarthy,M.,1995.Greenhouse Gas Emission and the Demand for Urban Passenger Transport: Behavioural Model Estimation and Inputs into the ITS/BTCE Strategy Simulator:1-103.Institute of Transport Studies,University of Sydney,Sydney.
Hensher,D.A.,Ton,T.,Kim,K.S.,2005.Review of Tresis as a strategic advisory tool for evaluating land use and transport policies.Road and Transport Research14,34–49.
Ton,T.,Hensher,D.A.,2001.Synthesising Population Data:The Speci?cation and Generation of Synthetic Households in TRESIS.
Paper presented at the9th World Conference on Transport Research,Seoul.
UK Treasury,2006.The Economics of Climate https://www.doczj.com/doc/f3242581.html, Treasury,London.
Wikipedia,2007.Carbon tax.Retrieved from
Zhang,Z.X.,Baranzini,A.,2004.What do we know about carbon taxes?An inquiry into their impacts on competitiveness and distribution of income.Energy Policy32,507–518.
咸阳职业技术学院生化工程系毕业论文（设计） 50wt/年煤气化工艺设计 1.引言 煤是由古代植物转变而来的大分子有机化合物。我国煤炭储量丰富，分布面广，品种齐全。据中国第二次煤田预测资料，埋深在1000m以浅的煤炭总资源量为2.6万亿t。其中大别山—秦岭—昆仑山一线以北地区资源量约2.45万亿t，占全国总资源量的94%；其余的广大地区仅占6%左右。其中新疆、内蒙古、山西和陕西等四省区占全国资源总量的81.3%，东北三省占 1.6%，华东七省占2.8%，江南九省占1.6%。 煤气化是煤炭的一个热化学加工过程，它是以煤或煤焦原料，以氧气（空气或富氧）、水蒸气或氢气等作气化剂，在高温条件下通过化学反应将煤或煤焦中的可燃部分转化为可燃性的气体的过程。气化时所得的可燃性气体称为煤气，所用的设备称为煤气发生炉。 煤气化技术开发较早，在20世纪20年代，世界上就有了常压固定层煤气发生炉。20世纪30年代至50年代，用于煤气化的加压固定床鲁奇炉、常压温克勒沸腾炉和常压气流床K-T炉先后实现了工业化，这批煤气化炉型一般称为第一代煤气化技术。第二代煤气化技术开发始于20世纪60年代，由于当时国际上石油和天然气资源开采及利用于制取合成气技术进步很快，大大降低了制造合成
气的投资和生产成本，导致世界上制取合成气的原料转向了天然气和石油为主，使煤气化新技术开发的进程受阻，20世纪70年代全球出现石油危机后，又促进了煤气化新技术开发工作的进程，到20世纪80年代，开发的煤气化新技术，有的实现了工业化，有的完成了示范厂的试验，具有代表性的炉型有德士古加压水煤浆气化炉、熔渣鲁奇炉、高温温克勒炉（ETIW）及干粉煤加压气化炉等。 近年来国外煤气化技术的开发和发展，有倾向于以煤粉和水煤浆为原料、以高温高压操作的气流床和流化床炉型为主的趋势。 2.煤气化过程 2.1煤气化的定义 煤与氧气或（富氧空气）发生不完全燃烧反应，生成一氧化碳和氢气的过程称为煤气化。煤气化按气化剂可分为水蒸气气化、空气（富氧空气）气化、空气—水蒸气气化和氢气气化；按操作压力分为：常压气化和加压气化。由于加压气化具有生产强度高，对燃气输配和后续化学加工具有明显的经济性等优点。所以近代气化技术十分注重加压气化技术的开发。目前，将气化压力在P＞2MPa 情况下的气化，统称为加压气化技术；按残渣排出形式可分为固态排渣和液态排渣。气化残渣以固体形态排出气化炉外的称固态排渣。气化残渣以液态方式排出经急冷后变成熔渣排出气化炉外的称液态排渣；按加热方式、原料粒度、汽化程度等还有多种分类方法。常用的是按气化炉内煤料与气化剂的接触方式区分，主要有固定床气化、流化床气化、气流床气化和熔浴床床气化。 2.2 主要反应 煤的气化包括煤的热解和煤的气化反应两部分。煤在加热时会发生一系列的物理变化和化学变化。气化炉中的气化反应，是一个十分复杂的体系，这里所讨论的气化反应主要是指煤中的碳与气化剂中的氧气、水蒸汽和氢气的反应，也包括碳与反应产物之间进行的反应。 习惯上将气化反应分为三种类型：碳—氧之间的反应、水蒸汽分解反应和甲烷生产反应。 2.2.1碳—氧间的反应 碳与氧之间的反应有： C+O2=CO2（1）
煤气化工艺流程 1、主要产品生产工艺煤气化是以煤炭为主要原料的综合性大型化工企业，主要工艺围绕着煤的洁净气化、综合利用，形成了以城市煤气为主线联产甲醇的工艺主线。 主要产品城市煤气和甲醇。城市燃气是城市公用事业的一项重要基础设施，是城市现代化的重要标志之一，用煤气代替煤炭是提高燃料热能利用率，减少煤烟型大气污染，改善大气质量行之有效的方法之一，同时也方便群众生活，节约时间，提高整个城市的社会效率和经济效益。作为一项环保工程，（其一期工程）每年还可减少向大气排放烟尘万吨、二氧化硫万吨、一氧化碳万吨，对改善河南西部地区城市大气质量将起到重要作用。 甲醇是一种重要的基本有机化工原料，除用作溶剂外，还可用于制造甲醛、醋酸、氯甲烷、甲胺、硫酸二甲酯、对苯二甲酸二甲酯、丙烯酸甲酯等一系列有机化工产品，此外，还可掺入汽油或代替汽油作为动力燃料，或进一步合成汽油，在燃料方面的应用，甲醇是一种易燃液体，燃烧性能良好，抗爆性能好，被称为新一代燃料。甲醇掺烧汽油，在国外一般向汽油中掺混甲醇5?15勉高汽油的辛烷值，避免了添加四乙基酮对大气的污染。 河南省煤气（集团）有限责任公司义马气化厂围绕义马至洛阳、洛阳至郑州煤气管线及豫西地区工业及居民用气需求输出清洁能源，对循环经济建设，把煤化工打造成河南省支柱产业起到重要作用。 2、工艺总流程简介： 原煤经破碎、筛分后，将其中5?50mm级块煤送入鲁奇加压气化炉，在炉内与氧气和水蒸气反应生成粗煤气，粗煤气经冷却后，进入低温甲醇洗净化装置，除去煤气中的CO2和H2S净化后的煤气分为两大部分，一部分去甲醇合成系统，合成气再经压缩机加压至，进入甲醇反应器生成粗甲醇，粗甲醇再送入甲醇精馏系统，制得精甲醇产品存入贮罐；另一部分去净煤气变换装置。合成甲醇尾气及变换气混合后，与剩余部分出低温甲醇洗净煤气混合后，进入煤气冷却干燥装置，将露点降至-25 C后，作为合格城市煤气经长输管线送往各用气城市。生产过程中产生的煤气水进入煤气水分离装置，分离出其中的焦油、中油。分离后煤气水去酚回收和氨回收，回收酚氨后的煤气水经污水生化处理装置处理，达标后排放。低温甲醇洗净化装置排出的H2S到硫回收装置回收硫。空分
煤化工产业概况及其发 展趋势 集团标准化办公室：[VV986T-J682P28-JP266L8-68PNN]
我国煤化工产业概况及其发展趋势 煤化学加工包括煤的焦化、气化和液化。主要用于冶金行业的煤炭焦化和用于制取合成氨的煤炭气化是传统的煤化工产业，随着社会经济的不断发展，它们将进一步得到发展，同时以获得洁净能源为主要目的的煤炭液化、煤基代用液体燃料、煤气化—发电等煤化工或煤化工能源技术也越来越引起关注，并将成为新型煤化工产业化发展的主要方向。发展新型煤化工产业对煤炭行业产业结构的调整及其综合发展具有重要意义。 1 煤化工产业发展概况 1． 1 煤炭焦化 焦化工业是发展最成熟，最具代表性的煤化工产业，也是冶金工业高炉炼铁、机械工业铸造最主要的辅助产业。目前，全世界的焦炭产量大约为～亿t/a，直接消耗原料精煤约亿t/a 。受世界钢铁产量调整、高炉喷吹技术发展、环境保护以及生产成本增高等原因影响，工业发达国家的机械化炼焦能力处于收缩状态，焦炭国际贸易目前为2500万t/ a。 目前，我国焦炭产量约亿t/a，居世界第一，直接消耗原料煤占全国煤炭消费总量的14%。 全国有各类机械化焦炉约750座以上，年设计炼焦能力约9000万 t/a，其中炭化室高度为4m～5.5m以上的大、中型焦炉产量约占80%。中国大容积焦炉（炭化室高≧6m）已实现国产化，煤气净化技术已达世界先进水平，干熄焦、地面烟尘处理站、污水处理等已进入实用化阶段，焦炭质量显着提高，其主要化工产品的精制技术已达到或接近世界先进水平。 焦炭成为我国的主要出口产品之一，出口量逐年上升，2000年达到1500t/a，已成为全球最大的焦炭出口国。 从20世纪80年代起，煤炭行业的炼焦生产得到逐步发展，其中有的建成向城市或矿区输送人工煤气为主要目的的工厂，有的以焦炭为主要产品。煤炭行业焦化生产普遍存在的问题是：焦炉炉型小、以中小型焦炉为主，受矿区产煤品种限制、焦炭质量调整提高难度较大，采用干法熄焦、烟尘集中处理等新技术少，大多数企业技术进步及现代化管理与其他行业同类工厂相比有较大差距。 1．2 煤气化及其合成技术 1.2.1 煤气化 煤气化技术是煤化工产业化发展最重要的单元技术。全世界现有商业化运行的大规模气化炉414台，额定产气量446×106Nm3/d，前10名的气化厂使用鲁奇、德士古、壳牌3种炉型，原料是煤、渣油、天然气，产品是F-T合成油、电或甲醇等。 煤气化技术在我国被广泛应用于化工、冶金、机械、建材等工业行业和生产城市煤气的企业，各种气化炉大约有9000多台，其中以固定床气化炉为主。近20年来，我国引进的加压鲁奇炉、德士古水煤浆气化炉，主要用于生产合成氨、甲醇或城市煤气。
煤气化技术是现代煤化工的基础，是通过煤直接液化制取油品或在高温下气化制得合成气，再以合成气为原料制取甲醇、合成油、天然气等一级产品及以甲醇为原料制得乙烯、丙烯等二级化工产品的核心技术。作为煤化工产业链中的“龙头”装置，煤气化装置具有投入大、可靠性要求高、对整个产业链经济效益影响大等特点。目前国内外气化技术众多，各种技术都有其特点和特定的适用场合，它们的工业化应用程度及可靠性不同，选择与煤种及下游产品相适宜的煤气化工艺技术是煤化工产业发展中的重要决策。 工业上以煤为原料生产合成气的历史已有百余年。根据发展进程分析，煤气化技术可分为三代。第一代气化技术为固定床、移动床气化技术，多以块煤和小颗粒煤为原料制取合成气，装置规模、原料、能耗及环保的局限性较大；第二代气化技术是现阶段最具有代表性的改进型流化床和气流床技术，其特征是连续进料及高温液态排渣；第三代气化技术尚处于小试或中试阶段，如煤的催化气化、煤的加氢气化、煤的地下气化、煤的等离子体气化、煤的太阳能气化和煤的核能余热气化等。 本文综述了近年来国内外煤气化技术开发及应用的进展情况，论述了固定床、流化床、气流床及煤催化气化等煤气化技术的现状及发展趋势。 1．国内外煤气化技术的发展现状 在世界能源储量中，煤炭约占79%，石油与天然气约占12%。煤炭利用技术的研究和开发是能源战略的重要内容之一。世界煤化工的发展经历了起步阶段、发展阶段、停滞阶段和复兴阶段。20世纪初，煤炭炼焦工业的兴起标志着世界煤化工发展的起步。此后世界煤化工迅速发展，直到20世纪中叶，煤一直是世界有机化学工业的主要原料。随着石油化学工业的兴起与发展，煤在化工原料中所占的比例不断下降并逐渐被石油和天然气替代，世界煤化工技术及产业的发展一度停滞。直到20世纪70年代末，由于石油价格大幅攀升，影响了世界石油化学工业的发展，同时煤化工在煤气化、煤液化等方面取得了显著的进展。特别是20世纪90年代后，世界石油价格长期在高位运行，且呈现不断上升趋势，这就更加促进了煤化工技术的发展，煤化工重新受到了人们的重视。 中国的煤气化工艺由老式的UGI炉块煤间歇气化迅速向世界最先进的粉煤加压气化工艺过渡，同时国内自主创新的新型煤气化技术也得到快速发展。据初步统计，采用国内外先进大型洁净煤气化技术已投产和正在建设的装置有80多套，50%以上的煤气化装置已投产运行，其中采用水煤浆气化技术的装置包括GE煤气化27套（已投产16套），四喷嘴33套（已投产13套），分级气化、多元料浆气化等多套；采用干煤粉气化技术的装置包括Shell煤气化18套（已投产11套）、GSP2套，还有正在工业化示范的LurgiBGL技术、航天粉煤加压气化（HT-L）技术、单喷嘴干粉气化技术和两段式干煤粉加压气化（TPRI）技术等。
精心整理 煤气化工艺流程 1、主要产品生产工艺 煤气化是以煤炭为主要原料的综合性大型化工企业，主要工艺围绕着煤的洁净气化、综合利用，形成了以城市煤气为主线联产甲醇的工艺主线。 主要产品城市煤气和甲醇。城市燃气是城市公用事业的一项重要基础设施，是城市现代化的重要标志之一，用煤气代替煤炭是提高燃料热能利用率，减少煤烟型大气污染，改善大气质量行之 化碳 15%提 作用。 2 。净化 装置。合成甲醇尾气及变换气混合后，与剩余部分出低温甲醇洗净煤气混合后，进入煤气冷却干燥装置，将露点降至-25℃后，作为合格城市煤气经长输管线送往各用气城市。生产过程中产生的煤气水进入煤气水分离装置，分离出其中的焦油、中油。分离后煤气水去酚回收和氨回收，回收酚氨后的煤气水经污水生化处理装置处理，达标后排放。低温甲醇洗净化装置排出的H2S到硫回收装置回收硫。空分装置提供气化用氧气和全厂公用氮气。仪表空压站为全厂仪表提供合格的仪表空气。 小于5mm粉煤，作为锅炉燃料，送至锅炉装置生产蒸汽，产出的蒸汽一部分供工艺装置用汽
，一部分供发电站发电。 3、主要装置工艺流程 3.1备煤装置工艺流程简述 备煤工艺流程分为三个系统： （1）原煤破碎筛分贮存系统，汽运原煤至受煤坑经1#、2#、3#皮带转载至筛分楼、经节肢筛、破碎机、驰张筛加工后，6~50mm块煤由7#皮带运至块煤仓，小于6mm末煤经6#、11#皮带近至末煤仓。 缓 可 能周期性地加至气化炉中。 当煤锁法兰温度超过350℃时，气化炉将联锁停车，这种情况仅发生在供煤短缺时。在供煤短缺时，气化炉应在煤锁法兰温度到停车温度之前手动停车。 气化炉：鲁奇加压气化炉可归入移动床气化炉，并配有旋转炉篦排灰装置。气化炉为双层压力容器，内表层为水夹套，外表面为承压壁，在正常情况下，外表面设计压力为3600KPa（g），内夹套与气化炉之间压差只有50KPa（g）。 在正常操作下，中压锅炉给水冷却气化炉壁，并产生中压饱和蒸汽经夹套蒸汽气液分离器1
煤化工工艺流程 典型的焦化厂一般有备煤车间、炼焦车间、回收车间、焦油加工车间、苯加工车间、脱硫车间和废水处理车间等。 焦化厂生产工艺流程 1.备煤与洗煤 原煤一般含有较高的灰分和硫分，洗选加工的目的是降低煤的灰分，使混杂在煤中的矸石、煤矸共生的夹矸煤与煤炭按照其相对密度、外形及物理性状方面的差异加以分离，同时，降低原煤中的无机硫含量，以满足不同用户对煤炭质量的指标要求。 由于洗煤厂动力设备繁多，控制过程复杂，用分散型控制系统DCS改造传统洗煤工艺，这对于提高洗煤过程的自动化，减轻工人的劳动强度，提高产品产量和质量以及安全生产都具有重要意义。
洗煤厂工艺流程图 控制方案 洗煤厂电机顺序启动/停止控制流程框图 联锁/解锁方案：在运行解锁状态下，允许对每台设备进行单独启动或停止；当设置为联锁状态时，按下启动按纽，设备顺序启动，后一设备的启动以前一设备的启动为条件（设备间的延时启动时间可设置），如果前一设备未启动成功，后一设备不能启动，按停止键，则设备顺序停止，在运行过程中，如果其中一台设备故障停止，例如设备2停止，则系统会把设备3和设备4停止，但设备1保持运行。
2.焦炉与冷鼓 以100万吨/年-144孔-双炉-4集气管-1个大回流炼焦装置为例，其工艺流程简介如下：
100万吨/年焦炉_冷鼓工艺流程图 控制方案 典型的炼焦过程可分为焦炉和冷鼓两个工段。这两个工段既有分工又相互联系，两者在地理位置上也距离较远，为了避免仪表的长距离走线，设置一个冷鼓远程站及给水远程站，以使仪表线能现场就近进入DCS控制柜，更重要的是，在集气管压力调节中，两个站之间有着重要的联锁及其排队关系，这样的网络结构形式便于可以实现复杂的控制算法。
煤气化工艺流程 1、主要产品生产工艺 煤气化是以煤炭为主要原料的综合性大型化工企业，主要工艺围绕着煤的洁净气化、综合利用，形成了以城市煤气为主线联产甲醇的工艺主线。 主要产品城市煤气和甲醇。城市燃气是城市公用事业的一项重要基础设施，是城市现代化的重要标志之一，用煤气代替煤炭是提高燃料热能利用率，减少煤烟型大气污染，改善大气质量行之有效的方法之一，同时也方便群众生活，节约时间，提高整个城市的社会效率和经济效益。作为一项环保工程，（其一期工程）每年还可减少向大气排放烟尘1.86万吨、二氧化硫3.05万吨、一氧化碳0.46万吨，对改善河南西部地区城市大气质量将起到重要作用。 甲醇是一种重要的基本有机化工原料，除用作溶剂外，还可用于制造甲醛、醋酸、氯甲烷、甲胺、硫酸二甲酯、对苯二甲酸二甲酯、丙烯酸甲酯等一系列有机化工产品，此外，还可掺入汽油或代替汽油作为动力燃料，或进一步合成汽油，在燃料方面的应用，甲醇是一种易燃液体，燃烧性能良好，抗爆性能好，被称为新一代燃料。甲醇掺烧汽油，在国外一般向汽油中掺混甲醇5～15%提高汽油的辛烷值，避免了添加四乙基酮对大气的污染。 河南省煤气（集团）有限责任公司义马气化厂围绕义马至洛阳、洛阳至郑州煤气管线及豫西地区工业及居民用气需求输出清洁能源，对循环经济建设，把煤化工打造成河南省支柱产业起到重要作用。 2、工艺总流程简介： 原煤经破碎、筛分后，将其中5～50mm级块煤送入鲁奇加压气化炉，在炉内与氧气和水蒸气反应生成粗煤气，粗煤气经冷却后，进入低温甲醇洗净化装置
，除去煤气中的CO2和H2S。净化后的煤气分为两大部分，一部分去甲醇合成系统，合成气再经压缩机加压至5.3MPa，进入甲醇反应器生成粗甲醇，粗甲醇再送入甲醇精馏系统，制得精甲醇产品存入贮罐；另一部分去净煤气变换装置。合成甲醇尾气及变换气混合后，与剩余部分出低温甲醇洗净煤气混合后，进入煤气冷却干燥装置，将露点降至-25℃后，作为合格城市煤气经长输管线送往各用气城市。生产过程中产生的煤气水进入煤气水分离装置，分离出其中的焦油、中油。分离后煤气水去酚回收和氨回收，回收酚氨后的煤气水经污水生化处理装置处理，达标后排放。低温甲醇洗净化装置排出的H2S到硫回收装置回收硫。空分装置提供气化用氧气和全厂公用氮气。仪表空压站为全厂仪表提供合格的仪表空气。 小于5mm粉煤，作为锅炉燃料，送至锅炉装置生产蒸汽，产出的蒸汽一部分供工艺装置用汽，一部分供发电站发电。 3、主要装置工艺流程 3.1备煤装置工艺流程简述 备煤工艺流程分为三个系统： （1）原煤破碎筛分贮存系统，汽运原煤至受煤坑经1#、2#、3#皮带转载至筛分楼、经节肢筛、破碎机、驰张筛加工后，6~50mm块煤由7#皮带运至块煤仓，小于6mm末煤经6#、11#皮带近至末煤仓。 （2）最终筛分系统：块煤仓内块煤经8#、9#皮带运至最终筛分楼驰张筛进行检查性筛分。大于6mm块煤经10#皮带送至200#煤斗，筛下小于6mm末煤经14#皮带送至缓冲仓。 （3）电厂上煤系统：末煤仓内末煤经12#、13#皮带转至5#点后经16#皮
（能源化工行业）我国煤化工产业概况及其发展方向
我国煤化工产业概况及其发展趋势 煤化学加工包括煤的焦化、气化和液化。主要用于冶金行业的煤炭焦化和用于制取合成氨的煤炭气化是传统的煤化工产业，随着社会经济的不断发展，它们将进壹步得到发展，同时以获得洁净能源为主要目的的煤炭液化、煤基代用液体燃料、煤气化—发电等煤化工或煤化工能源技术也越来越引起关注，且将成为新型煤化工产业化发展的主要方向。发展新型煤化工产业对煤炭行业产业结构的调整及其综合发展具有重要意义。 1煤化工产业发展概况 1．1煤炭焦化 焦化工业是发展最成熟，最具代表性的煤化工产业，也是冶金工业高炉炼铁、机械工业铸造最主要的辅助产业。目前，全世界的焦炭产量大约为3.2～3.4亿t/a，直接消耗原料精煤约4.5亿t/a。受世界钢铁产量调整、高炉喷吹技术发展、环境保护以及生产成本增高等原因影响，工业发达国家的机械化炼焦能力处于收缩状态，焦炭国际贸易目前为2500万t/a。 目前，我国焦炭产量约1.2亿t/a，居世界第壹，直接消耗原料煤占全国煤炭消费总量的14%。全国有各类机械化焦炉约750座之上，年设计炼焦能力约9000万t/a，其中炭化室高度为4m～5.5m之上的大、中型焦炉产量约占80%。中国大容积焦炉（炭化室高≧6m）已实现国产化，煤气净化技术已达世界先进水平，干熄焦、地面烟尘处理站、污水处理等已进入实用化阶段，焦炭质量显著提高，其主要化工产品的精制技术已达到或接近世界先进水平。 焦炭成为我国的主要出口产品之壹，出口量逐年上升，2000年达到1500t/a，已成为全球最大的焦炭出口国。 从20世纪80年代起，煤炭行业的炼焦生产得到逐步发展，其中有的建成向城市或矿区输送人工煤气为主要目的的工厂，有的以焦炭为主要产品。煤炭行业焦化生产普遍存在的问题是：焦炉炉型小、以中小型焦炉为主，受矿区产煤品种限制、焦炭质量调整提高难度较大，采用干法熄焦、烟尘集中处理等新技术少，大多数企业技术进步及现代化管理和其他行业同类工厂相比有较大差距。 1．2煤气化及其合成技术 1.2.1煤气化 煤气化技术是煤化工产业化发展最重要的单元技术。全世界现有商业化运行的大规模气化炉414台，额定产气量446×106Nm3/d，前10名的气化厂使用鲁奇、德士古、壳牌3种炉型，原料是煤、渣油、天然气，产品是F-T合成油、电或甲醇等。 煤气化技术在我国被广泛应用于化工、冶金、机械、建材等工业行业和生产城市煤气的企业，各种气化炉大约有9000多台，其中以固定床气化炉为主。近20年来，我国引进的加压鲁奇炉、德士古水煤浆气化炉，主要用于生产合成氨、甲醇或城市煤气。 煤气化技术的发展和作用引起国内煤炭行业的关注。“九五”期间，兖矿集团和国内高校、科研机构合作，开发完成了22t/d多喷嘴水煤浆气化炉中试装置，且进行了考核试验。 结果表明：有效气体成分达83%，碳转化率>98%，分别比相同条件下的德士古生产装置高1.5%～2%、2%～3%；比煤耗、比氧耗均低于德士古7%。该成果标志我国自主开发的先进气化技术取得突破性进展。 1.2.2煤气化合成氨 以煤为原料、采用煤气化—合成氨技术是我国化肥生产的主要方式，目前我国有800多家中小型化肥厂采用水煤气工艺，共计约4000台气化炉，每年消费原料煤（或焦炭）4000多万t，合成氨产量约占全国产量的60%。化肥用气化炉的炉型以UGI型和前苏联的Д型为主，直径由2.2m至3.6m不等，该类炉型老化、技术落后。加压鲁奇炉、德士古炉是近年来引进用于合成氨生产的主要炉型。
煤气化制甲醇工艺流程 1 煤制甲醇工艺 气化 a）煤浆制备 由煤运系统送来的原料煤干基（<25mm）或焦送至煤贮斗，经称重给料机控制输送量送入棒磨机，加入一定量的水，物料在棒磨机中进行湿法磨煤。为了控制煤浆粘度及保持煤浆的稳定性加入添加剂，为了调整煤浆的PH值，加入碱液。出棒磨机的煤浆浓度约65%，排入磨煤机出口槽，经出口槽泵加压后送至气化工段煤浆槽。煤浆制备首先要将煤焦磨细，再制备成约65%的煤浆。磨煤采用湿法，可防止粉尘飞扬，环境好。用于煤浆气化的磨机现在有两种，棒磨机与球磨机；棒磨机与球磨机相比，棒磨机磨出的煤浆粒度均匀，筛下物少。煤浆制备能力需和气化炉相匹配，本项目拟选用三台棒磨机，单台磨机处理干煤量43～ 53t/h，可满足60万t/a甲醇的需要。 为了降低煤浆粘度，使煤浆具有良好的流动性，需加入添加剂，初步选择木质磺酸类添加剂。 煤浆气化需调整浆的PH值在6～8，可用稀氨水或碱液，稀氨水易挥发出氨，氨气对人体有害，污染空气，故本项目拟采用碱液调整煤浆的PH值，碱液初步采用42％的浓度。 为了节约水源，净化排出的含少量甲醇的废水及甲醇精馏废水均可作为磨浆水。 b）气化 在本工段，煤浆与氧进行部分氧化反应制得粗合成气。 煤浆由煤浆槽经煤浆加压泵加压后连同空分送来的高压氧通过烧咀进入气化炉，在气化炉中煤浆与氧发生如下主要反应： CmHnSr+m/2O2—→mCO+（n/2-r）H2+rH2S CO+H2O—→H2+CO2 反应在6.5MPa（G）、1350～1400℃下进行。 气化反应在气化炉反应段瞬间完成，生成CO、H2、CO2、H2O和少量CH4、H2S等气体。 离开气化炉反应段的热气体和熔渣进入激冷室水浴，被水淬冷后温度降低并被水蒸汽饱和后出气化炉；气体经文丘里洗涤器、碳洗塔洗涤除尘冷却后送至变换工段。 气化炉反应中生成的熔渣进入激冷室水浴后被分离出来，排入锁斗，定时排入渣池，由扒渣机捞出后装车外运。 气化炉及碳洗塔等排出的洗涤水（称为黑水）送往灰水处理。 c）灰水处理 本工段将气化来的黑水进行渣水分离，处理后的水循环使用。 从气化炉和碳洗塔排出的高温黑水分别进入各自的高压闪蒸器，经高压闪蒸浓缩后的黑水混合，经低压、两级真空闪蒸被浓缩后进入澄清槽，水中加入絮凝剂使其加速沉淀。澄清槽底部的细渣浆经泵抽出送往过滤机给料槽，经由过滤机给料泵加压后送至真空过滤机脱水，渣饼由汽车拉出厂外。 闪蒸出的高压气体经过灰水加热器回收热量之后，通过气液分离器分离掉冷凝液，然后进入变换工段汽提塔。 闪蒸出的低压气体直接送至洗涤塔给料槽，澄清槽上部清水溢流至灰水槽，由灰水泵分别送至洗涤塔给料槽、气化锁斗、磨煤水槽，少量灰水作为废水排往废水处理。 洗涤塔给料槽的水经给料泵加压后与高压闪蒸器排出的高温气体换热后送碳洗塔循环
2012年 第15期 广 东 化 工 第39卷 总第239期 https://www.doczj.com/doc/f3242581.html, · 59 · 国内煤气化技术评述与展望 付长亮 (河南化工职业学院，河南 郑州 450042) [摘 要]依据煤气化技术的常用分类标准和评价指标，分析研究了国内所用的煤气化技术的优势与不足。综合考虑原料广泛性、技术先进性、投资成本等因素，认为航天炉干粉煤气化技术具有适应的煤种多、气化效率高、生产能力大、碳转化率高、投资省、操作费用低等优势，在未来的煤化工产品生产中将会得到普遍的应用。 [关键词]煤气化技术；评述；展望 [中图分类号]TQ [文献标识码]A [文章编号]1007-1865(2012)15-0059-02 Review and Prospects of Domestic Coal Gasification Technology Fu Changliang (Henan V ocational College of Chemical Technology, Zhenzhou 450042, China) Abstract: According to common classification standard and evaluation index, advantages and disadvantages of domestic coal gasification technology were analyzed and studied. Considering comprehensively the raw material extensive, technology advanced and investment cost, it was thought that HT-L dry powder coal gasification had the vast potential for future development, because of the more quantity of coal type used, higher gasification efficiency, larger production capacity, higher carbon conversion, lower investment cost. Keywords: coal gasification technology ；review ；prospects 1 煤气化及其评价指标 煤气化指在高温下煤和气化剂作用生成煤气的过程。可简单表示如下： +???→高温 煤气化剂煤气 其中的气化剂主要指空气、纯氧和水蒸汽。煤气化所制得的煤气是一种可燃性气体，主要成分为CO 、H 2、CO 2和CH 4，可作为清洁能源和多种化工产品的原料。因此，煤气化技术在煤化工中处于非常重要的地位。 煤气化反应主要在气化炉(或称煤气发生炉、煤气炉)内进行。不同的煤气化技术主要区别在于所用的气化炉的形式不同。 通常，对煤气化技术的评价主要从气化效率、冷煤气效率、碳转化率和有效气体产率四个方面进行。气化效率衡量原料(煤和气化剂)的热值转化为可利用热量(煤气的热值和产生蒸汽的热值)的情况，是最常用的评价指标，标志着煤气化技术的能耗高低。冷煤气效率衡量原料的热值转化为煤气热值的情况，是制得煤气量多少及质量高低的标志。碳转化率衡量煤中有多少碳转化进入到煤气中，是煤利用率高低的标志。有效气体产率衡指单位煤耗能产出多少有效气体(CO+H 2)，是对煤气化技术生产有价值成分效果好坏的评价。这四个指标不完全独立，从不同的方面反映了煤气化技术中人们最关注的问题。 2 煤气化技术的分类 煤气化的分类方法较多，但最常用的分类方法是按煤与气化剂在气化炉内运动状态来分。此法，将煤气化技术分为如下几种。 2.1 固定床气化 固定床气化也称移动床气化，一般以块煤或煤焦为原料。煤由气化炉顶加入，气化剂由炉底送入。流动气体的上升力不致使固体颗粒的相对位置发生变化，即固体颗粒处于相对固定状态。气化炉内各反应层高度亦基本上维持不变。因而称为固定床气化。另外，从宏观角度看，由于煤从炉顶加入，含有残炭的灰渣自炉底排出，气化过程中，煤粒在气化炉内逐渐并缓慢往下移动，因而又称为移动床气化。目前，国内采用此方法的煤气化技术主要有固定床间歇气化法和加压鲁奇气化法。 2.2 流化床气化 流化床煤气化法以小颗粒煤为气化原料，这些细粒煤在自下而上的气化剂的作用下，保持着连续不断和无秩序的沸腾和悬浮状态运动，迅速地进行着混和和热交换，其结果导致整个床层温度和组成的均一。目前，国内属于此方法的煤气化技术主要有恩德粉煤气化技术和ICC 灰融聚气化法。 2.3 气流床气化 气流床气化是一种并流式气化。气化剂(氧与蒸汽)与煤粉一同进入气化炉，在1500~1900 ℃高温下，将煤部分氧化成CO 、H 2、CO 2等气体，残渣以熔渣形式排出气化炉。也可将煤粉制成 煤浆，用泵送入气化炉。在气化炉内，煤炭细粉粒与气化剂经特殊喷嘴进入反应室，会在瞬间着火，发生火焰反应，同时处于不充分的氧化条件下。因此，其热解、燃烧以及吸热的气化反应，几乎是同时发生的。随气流的运动，未反应的气化剂、热解挥发物及燃烧产物裹挟着煤焦粒子高速运动，运动过程中进行着煤焦颗粒的气化反应。这种运动形态，相当于流态化技术领域里对固体颗粒的“气流输送”，习惯上称为气流床气化。属于此类方法的煤气化技术较多，国内主要有壳牌干粉煤气化法、德士古水煤浆气化法、GSP 干粉煤气化法、航天炉干粉煤气化等[1-3]。 3 国内主要煤气化技术评述 3.1 固定床间歇式气化 块状无烟煤或焦炭在气化炉内形成固定床。在常压下，空气和水蒸汽交替通过气化炉。通空气时，产生吹风气，主要为了积累能量，提高炉温。通水蒸汽时，利用吹风阶段积累的能量，生产水煤气。空气煤气和水煤气以适当比例混合，制得合格原料气。 该技术是20世纪30年代开发成功的。优点为投资少、操作简单。缺点为气化效率低、对原料要求高、能耗高、单炉生产能力小。间歇制气过程中，大量吹风气排空。每吨合成氨吹风气放空多达5000 m 3。放空气体中含CO 、CO 2、H 2、H 2S 、SO 2、NO x 及粉灰。煤气冷却洗涤塔排出的污水含有焦油、酚类及氰化物，对环境污染严重。我国中小化肥厂有900余家，多数采用该技术生产合成原料气。随着能源和环境的政策要求越来越高，不久的将来，会逐步被新的煤气化技术所取代。 3.2 鲁奇加压连续气化 20世纪30年代，由德国鲁奇公司开发。在高温、高压下，用纯氧和水蒸汽，连续通过由煤形成的固定床。氧和煤反应放出的热量，正好能供应水蒸汽和煤反应所需要的热量，从而维持了热量平衡，炉温恒定，制气过程连续。 鲁奇加压气化法生产的煤气中除含CO 和H 2外， 含CH 4高达10 %~12 %，可作为城市煤气、人工天然气、合成气使用。相比较于固定床间歇气化，其优点是炉子生产能大幅提高，煤种要求适当放宽。其缺点是气化炉结构复杂，炉内设有破粘机、煤分布器和炉篦等转动设备，制造和维修费用大，入炉仍需要是块煤，出炉煤气中含焦油、酚等，污水处理和煤气净化工艺复杂。 3.3 恩德粉煤气化技术 恩德粉煤气化技术利用粉煤(<10 mm)和气化剂在气化炉内形成沸腾流化床，在高温下完成煤气化反应，生产需要的煤气。 由于所用的原料为粉煤，煤种的适应性比块煤有所放宽，原料成本也得到大幅度降低。得益于流化床的传质、传热效果大大优于固定床，恩德粉煤气化炉的生产能力比固定床间歇制气有较大幅度的提高。由于操作温度不高，导致气化效率和碳转化率都不高，且存在废水、废渣处理困难等问题。此技术多用于替代固定床间歇制气工艺[4-6]。 [收稿日期] 2012-07-21 [作者简介] 付长亮(1968-)，男，河南荥阳人，硕士，高级讲师，主要从事化工工艺的教学与研究。
煤气化技术的现状和发展趋势 1、水煤浆加压气化 1.1 德士古水煤浆加压气化工艺（TGP） 美国Texaco 公司在渣油部分氧化技术基础上开发了水煤浆气化技术，TGP 工艺采用水煤浆进料，制成质量分数为60%~65％的水煤浆，在气流床中加压气化，水煤浆和氧气在高温高压下反应生成合成气，液态排渣。气化压力在2.7~6.5MPa，提高气化压力，可降低装置投入，有利于降低能耗；气化温度在1 300~1 400℃，煤气中有效气体（CO+H2）的体积分数达到80％，冷煤气效率为70％~76％，设备成熟，大部分已能国产化。世界上德士古气化炉单炉最大投煤量为2 000t/d。德士古煤气化过程对环境污染影响较小。 根据气化后工序加工不同产品的要求，加压水煤浆气化有三种工艺流程：激冷流程、废锅流程和废锅激冷联合流程。对于合成氨生产多采用激冷流程，这样气化炉出来的粗煤气，直接用水激冷，被激冷后的粗煤气含有较多水蒸汽，可直接送入变换系统而不需再补加蒸汽，因无废锅投资较少。如产品气用作燃气透平循环联合发电工程时，则多采用废锅流程，副产高压蒸汽用于蒸汽透平发电机组。如产品气用作羟基合成气并生产甲醇时，仅需要对粗煤气进行部分变换，通常采用废锅和激冷联合流程，亦称半废锅流程，即从气化炉出来粗煤气经辐射废锅冷却到700℃左右，然后用水激冷到所需要的温度，使粗煤气显热产生的蒸汽能满足后工序部分变换的要求。 1.2 新型（多喷嘴对置式）水煤浆加压气化 新型（多喷嘴对置式）水煤浆加压气化技术是最先进煤气化技术之一，是在德士古水煤浆加压气化法的基础上发展起来的。2000 年，华东理工大学、鲁南化肥厂（水煤浆工程国家中心的依托单位）、中国天辰化学工程公司共同承担的新型（多喷嘴对置）水煤浆气化炉中试工程，经过三方共同努力，于7 月在鲁化建成投料开车成功，通过国家主管部门的鉴定及验收。2001 年2 月10 日获得专利授权。新型气化炉以操作灵活稳定，各项工艺指标优于德士古气化工艺指标引起国家科技部的高度重视和积极支持，主要指标体现为：有效气成分（CO+H2）的体积分数为~83％，比相同条件下的ChevronTexaco 生产装置高1.5~2.0 个百分点；碳转化率＞98％，比ChevronTexaco 高2~3 个百分点；比煤耗、比氧耗均比ChevronTexaco 降低7％。 新型水煤浆气化炉装置具有开车方便、操作灵活、投煤负荷增减自如的特点，同时综合能耗比德士古水煤浆气化低约7％。其中第一套装置日投料750t 能力新型多喷嘴对置水煤浆加压气化炉于2004 年12 月在山东华鲁恒升化学有限公司建成投料成功，运行良好。另一套装置两台日投煤1 150t 的气化炉也在兖矿国泰化工有限公司于2005 年7 月建成投料成功，并于2005 年10 月正式投产，2006 年已达到并超过设计能力，目前运行状况良好。该技术在国内已获得有效推广，并已出口至美国。 2、干粉煤加压气化工艺 2.1 壳牌干粉煤加压气化工艺（SCGP） Shell 公司于1972 年开始在壳牌公司阿姆斯特丹研究院（KSLA）进行煤气化研究，1978 年第一套中试装置在德国汉堡郊区哈尔堡炼油厂建成并投入运行，1987 年在美国休斯顿迪尔·帕克炼油厂建成日投煤量250~400t 的示范装置，1993年在荷兰的德姆克勒（Demkolec）电厂建成投煤量2 000t/d 的大型煤气化装置，用于联合循环发电（IGCC），称作SCGP 工业生产装置。装置开工率最高达73％。该套装置的成功投运表明SCGP 气化技术是先进可行的。 Shell 气化炉为立式圆筒形气化炉，炉膛周围安装有由沸水冷却管组成的膜式水冷壁，其内壁衬有耐热涂层，气化时熔融灰渣在水冷壁内壁涂层上形成液膜，沿壁顺流而下进行分
2016年第35卷第3期CHEMICAL INDUSTRY AND ENGINEERING PROGRESS ·653· 化工进展 现代煤气化技术发展趋势及应用综述 汪寿建 （中国化学工程集团公司，北京 100007） 摘要：现代煤气化技术是现代煤化工装置中的重要一环，涉及整个煤化工装置的正常运行。本文分别介绍了中国市场各种现代煤气化工艺应用现状，叙述汇总了其工艺特点、应用参数、市场数据等。包括第一类气流床加压气化工艺，又可分为干法煤粉加压气化工艺和湿法水煤浆加压气化工艺。干法气化代表性工艺包括Shell炉干煤粉气化、GSP炉干煤粉气化、HT-LZ航天炉干煤粉气化、五环炉（宁煤炉）干煤粉气化、二段加压气流床粉煤气化、科林炉（CCG）干煤粉气化、东方炉干煤粉气化。湿法气化代表性工艺包括 GE水煤浆加压气化、四喷嘴水煤浆加压气化、多元料浆加压气化、熔渣-非熔渣分级加压气化（改进型为清华炉）、E-gas(Destec)水煤浆气化。第二类流化床粉煤加压气化工艺，主要有代表性工艺包括U-gas灰熔聚流化床粉煤气化、SES褐煤流化床气化、灰熔聚常压气化（CAGG）。第三类固定床碎煤加压气化，主要有代表性工艺包括鲁奇褐煤加压气化、碎煤移动床加压气化和BGL碎煤加压气化等。文章指出应认识到煤气化技术的重要性，把引进国外先进煤气化技术理念与具有自主知识产权的现代煤化工气化技术有机结合起来。 关键词：煤气化；市场应用；气化特点；参数数据分析 中图分类号：TQ 536.1 文献标志码：A 文章编号：1000–6613（2016）03–0653–12 DOI：10.16085/j.issn.1000-6613.2016.03.001 Development and applicatin of modern coal gasification technology WANG Shoujian （China National Chemical Engineering Group Corporation，Beijing100007，China）Abstract：Modern coal gasification technology is an important part of modern coal chemical industrial plants，involving stable operation of the entire coal plant. This paper introduces application of modern coal gasification technologies in China，summarizes characteristics of gasification processes，application parameters，market data，etc. The first class gasification technology is entrained-bed gasification process，which can be divided into dry pulverized coal pressurized gasification and wet coal-water slurry pressurized gasification. The typical dry pulverized coal pressurized gasification technologies include Shell Gasifier，GSP Gasifier，HT-LZ Gasifier，WHG (Ning Mei) Gasifier，Two-stage Gasifier，CHOREN CCG Gasifier，SE Gasifier. The typical wet coal-water slurry pressurized gasification technologies include GE (Texaco) Gasifier，coal-water slurry gasifier with opposed multi-burners，Multi-component Slurry Gasifier，Non-slag/slag Gasifier (modified as Tsinghua Gasifier)，E-gas (Destec) Gasifier. The second class gasification technology is fluidized-bed coal gasification process. The typical fluidized-bed coal gasification technologies include U-gas Gasifier，SES Lignite Gasifier，CAGG Gasifier. The third class gasification technology is fixed-bed coal gasification process. The typical fixed-bed coal gasification technologies include Lurgi Lignite 收稿日期：2015-09-14；修改稿日期：2015-12-17。 作者：汪寿建（1956—），男，教授级高级工程师，中国化学工程集团公司总工程师，长期从事化工、煤化工工程设计、开发及技术管理工作。E-mail wangsj@https://www.doczj.com/doc/f3242581.html,。
煤化工是以煤为原料，经过化学加工使煤转化为气体，液体，固体燃料以及化学品的过程，生产出各种化工产品的工业。 煤化工包括煤的一次化学加工、二次化学加工和深度化学加工。煤的气化、液化、焦化，煤的合成气化工、焦油化工和电石乙炔化工等，都属于煤化工的范围。而煤的气化、液化、焦化（干馏）又是煤化工中非常重要的三种加工方式。 煤的气化、液化和焦化概要流程图 一.煤炭气化
煤炭气化是指煤在特定的设备内，在一定温度及压力下使煤中有机质与气化剂（如蒸汽/空气或氧气等）发生一系列化学反应，将固体煤转化为含有CO、H2、CH4等可燃气体和CO2、N2等非可燃气体的过程。 煤的气化的一般流程图 煤炭气化包含一系列物理、化学变化。而化学变化是煤炭气化的主要方式，主要的化学反应有： 1、水蒸气转化反应C+H2O=CO+H2 2、水煤气变换反应CO+ H2O =CO2+H2 3、部分氧化反应C+0.5 O2=CO 4、完全氧化（燃烧）反应C+O2=CO2 5、甲烷化反应CO+2H2=CH4 6、Boudouard反应C+CO2=2CO 其中1、6为放热反应，2、3、4、5为吸热反应。 煤炭气化时，必须具备三个条件，即气化炉、气化剂、供给热量，三者缺一不可。 煤炭气化按气化炉内煤料与气化剂的接触方式区分，主要有： 1) 固定床气化：在气化过程中，煤由气化炉顶部加入，气化剂由气化炉底部加入，煤料与气化剂逆流接触，相对于气体的上升速度而言，煤料下降速度很慢，甚至可视为固定不动，因此称之为固定床气化；而实际上，煤料在气化过程中是以很慢的速度向下移动的，比
较准确的称其为移动床气化。 2) 流化床气化：它是以粒度为0-10mm的小颗粒煤为气化原料，在气化炉内使其悬浮分散在垂直上升的气流中，煤粒在沸腾状态进行气化反应，从而使得煤料层内温度均一，易于控制，提高气化效率。 3) 气流床气化。它是一种并流气化，用气化剂将粒度为100um以下的煤粉带入气化炉内，也可将煤粉先制成水煤浆，然后用泵打入气化炉内。煤料在高于其灰熔点的温度下与气化剂发生燃烧反应和气化反应，灰渣以液态形式排出气化炉。 4) 熔浴床气化。它是将粉煤和气化剂以切线方向高速喷入一温度较高且高度稳定的熔池内，把一部分动能传给熔渣，使池内熔融物做螺旋状的旋转运动并气化。目前此气化工艺已不再发展。 以上均为地面气化，还有地下气化工艺。 根据采用的气化剂和煤气成分的不同，可以把煤气分为四类：1.以空气作为气化剂的空气煤气；2.以空气及蒸汽作为气化剂的混合煤气，也被称为发生炉煤气；3.以水蒸气和氧气作为气化剂的水煤气；4.以蒸汽及空气作为气化剂的半水煤气，也可是空气煤气和水煤气的混合气。 几种重要的煤气化技术及其技术性能比较 1.Lurgi炉固定床加压气化法对煤质要求较高，只能用弱粘结块煤，冷煤气效率最高，气化强度高，粗煤气中甲烷含量较高，但净化系统复杂，焦油、污水等处理困难。 鲁奇煤气化工艺流程图