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.
Highlights
CTL is an oil alternative technology converting coal resources into fuel
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
The failure of CTL in United States is caused by the shift of policy attention after its energy security situation improved
Summary
CTL is an oil alternative technology converting coal resources into fuel. According to the process, it can be divided into direct liquefaction path involving coal hydro-liquefaction [1], and indirect liquefaction path involving gasification and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis [2]. South Africa and the United States are the only three countries in the world to have developed commercial scale coal-to-liquids (CTL) plants. (2008) [9] analyzed the policy driving forces and obstacles to the development of CTL in the United States, and believed that the concern of the society and policy makers about global warming hindered the commercialization of CTL, so that this technology was only limited to the niche market such as military. (2011) [3] believes that the willingness of the Chinese government to maintain energy security and the impulse of business transformation of state-owned coal enterprises are the main driving forces for the industrialization of CTL in China. Vallentin, d. (2008) [5] analyzed the driving forces and obstacles of CTL development in Germany, and found that the country’s climate change target and excessive investment in the project offset the improvement that CTL technology may bring to Germany’s energy security
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
