Modelling CO2 emissions from non-energy use with the non-energy use emission accounting tables (NEAT) model

Neelis, M.L.; Patel, Martin Kumar; Gielen, Dolf; Blok, Kornelis

doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2005.05.003

Cited by 46 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(25 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…0.056 (combustion of natural gas and a small amount of fuel gas byproducts for product recovery and separation) 0.021 and 0.026 for electricity production with an efficiency of 55% and 60%, respectively (combustion of all non-methane and non-ethylene byproducts) e À0.004 and 0.033 for electricity production with an efficiency of 55% and 60%, respectively (combustion of all non-ethylene byproducts and methane) f a Data is based on Ref. [94]. Refinery gases have higher carbon content than natural gas.…”

Section: Further Improvement 451 Methanol-related Routesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…b Data is based on Ref. [94]. The difference between CO 2 emission factors of naphtha and ethane cracking is due to different fuels used.…”

Section: Further Improvement 451 Methanol-related Routesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…d Data is based on Ref. [94]. This emission factor is smaller than that of natural gas due to auto-thermal reforming, partial oxidative reaction and CO 2 recycling.…”

Section: Article In Pressmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Steam cracking and methane to olefins: Energy use, CO2 emissions and production costs

Ren

Patel

Blok

2008

Energy

126

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While most olefins (e.g., ethylene and propylene) are currently produced through steam cracking routes, they can also possibly be produced from natural gas (i.e., methane) via methanol and oxidative coupling routes. We reviewed recent data in the literature and then compared the energy use, CO 2 emissions and production costs of methane-based routes with those of steam cracking routes. We found that methane-based routes use more than twice as much process energy than state-of-the-art steam cracking routes do (the energy content of products is excluded). The methane-based routes can be economically attractive in remote, gas-rich regions where natural gas is available at low prices. The development of liquefied natural gas (LNG) may increase the prices of natural gas in these locations. Oxidative coupling routes are currently still immature due to low ethylene yields and other problems. While several possibilities for energy efficiency improvement do exist, none of the natural gas-based routes is likely to become more energy efficient or to lead to less CO 2 emissions than steam cracking routes do. r

show abstract

Section: Further Improvement 451 Methanol-related Routesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…b Data is based on Ref. [94]. The difference between CO 2 emission factors of naphtha and ethane cracking is due to different fuels used.…”

Section: Further Improvement 451 Methanol-related Routesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Steam cracking and methane to olefins: Energy use, CO2 emissions and production costs

Ren

Patel

Blok

2008

Energy

126

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In ethane cracking, the propylene to ethylene production ratio is only 2%. For propane, naphtha and gasoline cracking, this ratio is 27%, 52% and 58% respectively (Neelis et al, 2005a). Given the light feedstock mix in the United States, a relatively small amount of propylene is co-produced in steam crackers compared to e.g.…”

Section: Overview Of Relevant Sub-sectorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Energy Efficiency Improvement and Cost Saving Opportunities for the Petrochemical Industry - An ENERGY STAR(R) Guide for Energy and Plant Managers

Neelis¹,

Worrell²,

Masanet³

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Energy is the most important cost factor in the U.S petrochemical industry, defined in this guide as the chemical industry sectors producing large volume basic and intermediate organic chemicals as well as large volume plastics. The sector spent about $10 billion on fuels and electricity in 2004. Energy efficiency improvement is an important way to reduce these costs and to increase predictable earnings, especially in times of high energy price volatility. There are a variety of opportunities available at individual plants in the U.S. petrochemical industry to reduce energy consumption in a cost-effective manner. This Energy Guide discusses energy efficiency practices and energy efficient technologies that can be implemented at the component, process, facility, and organizational levels. A discussion of the trends, structure, and energy consumption characteristics of the petrochemical industry is provided along with a description of the major process technologies used within the industry. Next, a wide variety of energy efficiency measures are described. Many measure descriptions include expected savings in energy and energy-related costs, based on case study data from real-world applications in the petrochemical and related industries worldwide. Typical measure payback periods and references to further information in the technical literature are also provided, when available. The information in this Energy Guide is intended to help energy and plant managers in the U.S. petrochemical industry reduce energy consumption in a cost-effective manner while maintaining the quality of products manufactured. Further research on the economics of all measures-and on their applicability to different production practices-is needed to assess their cost effectiveness at individual plants.

show abstract

“…A sensitivity on demand projection is also assessed and presented in Section 5.1.5. To estimate the production volume, capacity utilization rates of 85% were assumed (Neelis et al, 2005). The volume of basic chemicals not used for the production of intermediate or final products is defined as residual demand for each basic chemical (Appendix 2).…”

Section: Chemicalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Macroeconomic outlook of sustainable energy and biorenewables innovations (MEV II)

Meijl¹,

Tsiropoulos²,

Bartelings³

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was carried out by LEI Wageningen UR and Copernicus Institute of Utrecht University and was commissioned and financed by the topsector platform for knowledge development and innovation of the crosscutting theme bio-based economy (TKI-BBE) and the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs (Min EZ). The study is performed within the BE-Basic R&D programme and project partners Essent, DSM and Corbion provided in-kind contributions to the economic and technical aspects of the work. LEI Wageningen URWageningen, March 2016 REPORT LEI 2016 Van Meijl, H., I. Tsiropoulos, H. Bartelings, M. van den Broek, R. Hoefnagels, M. Van Leeuwen, E. Smeets, A. Tabeau and A. Faaij, 2016. Macroeconomic outlook of sustainable energy and biorenewables innovations (MEV II De Nederlandse overheid verwacht dat een grootschalige toepassing van biomassa nodig is om aan de emissiedoelstellingen te voldoen, maar de macro-economische effecten hiervan op de Nederlandse economie zijn onbekend. Deze studie onderzoekt de effecten van een bio-economie op zowel systeemals macro-economisch niveau en toont aan dat de bio-economie positief kan bijdragen aan de Nederlandse economie, het behalen van broeikasgasreductiedoelstellingen en aan het reduceren van de kosten van het terugdringen van broeikasgasemissies. Om deze effecten te realiseren zijn grootschalige technologische veranderingen en wereldwijde markten belangrijk, maar lage prijzen van fossiele energie leiden tot minder macro-economische voordelen. Om de positieve macro-economische effecten en CO 2 -reductie te realiseren is een stimuleringsbeleid noodzakelijk.To meet the emission targets, the Dutch government expects that a large-scale deployment of biomass is needed but the macroeconomic impacts on the Dutch economy are unknown. This study analyses the impacts of the bio-based economy at both system and macroeconomic levels and shows that large-scale deployment of biomass up to 2030 positively contributes to the Dutch economy, contributes to meeting the emission reduction targets and to reducing its macroeconomic costs. High technological change and global markets are important to achieve these impacts, but low fossil energy prices reduce the macroeconomic benefits. To achieve the positive macroeconomic impacts and emission reduction, a stimulus by policies is necessary.Key words: Bioeconomy, macro-economic impacts, technological change, international markets, bottom-up analyses, modelling, renewable energy policies, bio-refineries, Netherlands. The user may reproduce, distribute and share this work and make derivative works from it. Material by third parties which is used in the work and which are subject to intellectual property rights may not be used without prior permission from the relevant third party. The user must attribute the work by stating the name indicated by the author or licensor but may not do this in such a way as to create the impression that the author/licensor endorses the use of the work or the work of the user. The user may not use the work for commercial purpo...

show abstract

Modelling CO2 emissions from non-energy use with the non-energy use emission accounting tables (NEAT) model

Cited by 46 publications

References 12 publications

Steam cracking and methane to olefins: Energy use, CO2 emissions and production costs

Steam cracking and methane to olefins: Energy use, CO2 emissions and production costs

Energy Efficiency Improvement and Cost Saving Opportunities for the Petrochemical Industry - An ENERGY STAR(R) Guide for Energy and Plant Managers

Macroeconomic outlook of sustainable energy and biorenewables innovations (MEV II)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About