Journal of Cleaner Production 113 (2016) 231e240

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Technological approaches and policy analysis of integrated water

pollution prevention and control for the coal-to-methanol industry
based on Best Available Technology
Zongguo Wen a, *, Fanxin Meng a, b, Jinghan Di a, Qilu Tan a
a
b

State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control (SKLESPC), School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China
School of Environment, Beijing Normal University, 100875, China

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 19 December 2014
Received in revised form
25 November 2015
Accepted 25 November 2015
Available online 8 December 2015

Coal-to-Methanol (CTM) production is an energy- and water-intensive industry that creates considerable
industrial pollutants and wastewater. We developed a bottom-up model to analyze reduction potential of
industrial pollutants, based on Best Available Technologies (BATs), and to analyze and estimate targets for
total pollution control. This paper explores the total pollution control and emission standard approaches
of environmental management based on the analysis of water pollution in China's CTM industry. A set of
pollution prevention and control systems are built and incorporated into the bottom-up model. In order
to project future water pollution emission trends, we designed three scenarios: Baseline scenario (S1),
process planning scenario (S2), and technology promotion scenario (S3). Results show that the emission
reductions of water pollution via structural adjustments during processing are better than those from
upgrading existing technology in China. So best available gasication processes like advanced cleaner
production of entrained ow pressurized continuous gasication, and coke-oven gas for methanol
should be promoted and systematically installed in new enterprises. A technological upgrade is needed
of existing CTM enterprises that use old processes. According to the ranking of water pollution emission
reduction potentials, wastewater zero discharge in the ammonia and methanol integrated production
and emission reduction of water pollutants in coal-water slurry gasication both have signicant and
comprehensive mitigation effects on wastewater, chemical oxygen demand (COD) and Ammonia-N.
Recommended BATs for reducing industrial pollutants and wastewater can be determined based on
emission reduction cost per unit of pollutant required to achieve the emission target for water pollution.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Coal-to-methanol production
Best Available Technology
Bottom-up model on reduction potential
analysis of industrial pollutants

1. Introduction
In recent years, pollution control efforts have moved away from
end-of-pipe approaches to integrated prevention. Cleaner production concepts have been widely accepted by both government and
industrial sectors (Coleman and Peng, 2003; Hicks and Dietmar,
2007).
The main policies to promote pollution reduction include
technical standards for cleaner production, industrial pollutant
emission standards, elimination of backward production capacity,
and promotion of new technologies etc. China has implemented
strict energy-saving and pollution reduction policies, especially for

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wenzg@tsinghua.edu.cn (Z. Wen).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.077
0959-6526/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

high energy consumption and pollution-intensive industries. In

2006, China's rst formal pollution reduction goal was a 10%
reduction in COD stipulated in the 11th Five-Year Plan (StateCouncil, 2006). The 12th Five-Year Plan Guidelines in the Chinese
State Economic and Social Development section added a 10% reduction target to the total amount of ammonia-N (State-Council, 2011).
To ensure the goal of reducing pollutants are to be met, the Chinese
government developed a comprehensive working program (StateCouncil, 2007) and established an industrial environmental management system to enact its control policy (Zhang and Wen, 2008).
Promoting technology advancement in pollution intensive industries as well as eliminating outdated production capacities and
techniques were essential parts of these critical approaches. From
historical observations and current policy efforts, we can conclude
that technological advancement plays an increasingly important
role in achieving major pollution reduction goals.

232

Z. Wen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 113 (2016) 231e240

However, due to a lack of systematic and comprehensive understanding of pollution reduction, energy saving and economic
effectiveness, a consistent assessment of resource efciency and
environmental protection using BAT (Best Available Technology), is
needed (Liu and Wen, 2012; Schollenberger et al., 2008). China's
current practice of technology assessment to determine BAT primarily relies on personal experience and subjective judgment, with
little consideration given to optimizing the balance between
operational and environmental performance (Zhang et al., 2009).
Because environmental emissions standards for BAT and total
control policies are set by different administrative departments,
they operate separately from one another. Two lists of cleaner
production technologies in key industries were released, aimed at
communicating technical information and helping enterprises
adopt the highlighted technologies in China (SETC, 2000, 2003). In
2006, a BAT determination system was established by China's
Ministry of Environmental Protection, in which BATs are dened as
technologies and organizational measures expected to minimize
overall environmental harm at acceptable costs (CMEP, 2007; Liu
and Wen, 2012).
Coal-to-methanol (CTM) production is an energy and water
intensive industry that creates considerable environmental pollution. Annual average production of methanol in China's CTM plants
is only 100,000 tons, much lower than foreign countries' average of
600,000e1,000,000 tons per year. In China, the old xed-bed
gasication process is still commonly used. The energy consumption per ton of methanol (75 GJ/t) in this process is more than twice
that of the advanced foreign natural gas to methanol process (29 GJ/
t). Its fresh water consumption is 1e50 t/t methanol. Also, high
levels of industrial water pollutants and wastewater are produced
in the CTM production process. Rough estimates suggest that total
wastewater emissions from the whole CTM industry are about
72e80 million tons per year (Yu, 2010). Under the highest pollution
reduction standards, emissions of COD would be 3600 tons per
year. However, not all pollutants can achieve this kind of removal,
especially for organic contaminants and Ammonia-N, which will
surpass safety standards. Therefore, there is great potential for
pollutant emission reduction via BAT in the CTM industry. In light of
the problems in status quo, our research explored the total
pollutant control and emission standards related to the CTM industry, and built a correlation between BATs and primary environmental management measures.
In this paper, we assess the potential for industrial technology to
improve pollution reduction policies. In doing so, we constructed
an integrated bottom-up model to evaluate the potential for
pollution reduction in China's CTM industry using BATs. In Section
2, we describe the technologies used in the CTM industry and the
bottom-up technology model for policy assessment. Section 3 discusses the model's applications to support the total amount of
pollution control under different scenarios and revisions of
pollutant emission standards. The conclusion is presented in Section 4.

Fig. 1. Flow chart for the CTM and dimethyl ether production processes.

processes. Entrained-ow gasication with coal-water slurry and

pulverized coal gasication is representative of the new CTM production processes. In all three processes, the devices used for
methanol synthesis and rectication are basically the same. Fig. 1
shows the ow chart for the CTM production process. In this paper, the pollution prevention and control technologies used in the
CTM industry were divided into production process control and
end-of-pipe pollution treatment technologies.
Table 1 shows environmental impacts to water from the CTM
production process. The water pollutants are COD, Ammonia-N and
cyanide, while air pollutants are dust and SO2. Solid waste includes
y ash, boiler slag, and waste catalyst etc.
China's CTM industry is one of the newly developing coal
chemical sectors. The coal chemical industry will play an important
role in the sustainable development of China's energy resources
over the next decades by mitigating environmental pollution
caused by coal combustion, as well as reducing dependence on oil
imports (Xie et al., 2010). Methanol is an important multipurpose
chemical, which is used for fuel cells of automobiles, power generation, and portable equipment. Methanol is also an important
clean fuel. In 2008 methanol production in China was 11.26 million
tons, which was 28% of global output. In 2012, China's methanol
production capacity and yield were 51.49 million tons and 31.29
million tons respectively, an increase of 10.2% and 18.6% over 2011.
The main materials that methanol is produced from are: Coal,
natural gas and coke-oven gas (COG). Methanol derived from coal is
over two-thirds of the total production. Furthermore, in 2007, the
Chinese government forbade any new projects or expansion of
existing natural gas to methanol projects. Although COG for
methanol has become an increasingly important direction in coking
enterprises in recent years, CTM still occupies an important place in
the long term.

2. Methodology
2.1. Technologies in the CTM industry
There are three main processes for CTM production: direct coal
gasication (DCG), coke-oven gas for methanol (COGM), and
ammonia and methanol integrated production (AMIP). The DCG
process directly gasies coal into methanol; COGM uses coke oven
gas as the raw material; and AMIP uses CO and CO2 removed in the
ammonia production and utilizes H2 from the feed gas as raw
materials. Of these three processes, DCG with xed-bed gasication
and AMIP processes are more conventional CTM production

Table 1
Environmental impacts from the CTM production process.
Process

Wastewater
(m3/t methanol)

COD
(mg/m3)

NH3eN
(mg/m3)

CN

(mg/m3)

Gasication
Decontamination
Methanol rectifying

0.2e1.5
0.02e0.05
0.25e0.35

300e800
900e1000
3750e5300

200e300
800e1350
0

6e10
700e1000
0

Note: Data were collected from a eld survey of the 16 coal-to-methanol enterprises
in China carried out in 2012.

Z. Wen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 113 (2016) 231e240

233

Fig. 2. Distribution and methanol production capacity of China's CTM enterprises in 2010.

2.2. Data investigation

The distribution of CTM enterprises and methanol production in
China can be worked out in Fig. 2.
The distribution of CTM enterprises and methanol production
capacity is concentrated in Hebei, Henan, Shandong, Anhui, Shanxi,
Shaanxi and other provinces rich in coal and natural gas resources.
These regions are the key investigation areas for our research since
2010. Currently, there are 50 coal gasication projects, which have
been constructed, are being constructed, or are in the planning
stage. 80% of the projects are located in northwest China (Xinjiang,
West Inner Mongolia, Ningxia and Gansu provinces), contributing
72.4% of the capacity.
Between 2010 and 2012, we gathered technology related information from 100 enterprises in China's CTM industry supported
by the MEP and the industry association, in which data from 72
enterprises were obtained by investigation (40 by correspondence,
22 by on-site survey and 10 by monitoring) and the remaining 28
from experts and investigation of CTM pollution workshops. Data
gathered via investigation covered 75% of large-scale plants, 84% of
middle-scale plants and 24% of small-scale plants. Total production
capacity of directly investigated plants surpassed 60% of the entire
industry. Among the CTM processes used at the respective plants,
DCG, COGM, AMIP and other processes accounted for 35%, 15%, 25%,
and 25% of production, respectively.
2.3. A bottom-up technology model for policy assessment
2.3.1. Model structure
Bottom-up modeling is widely used for simulating sectoral or
nation-wide energy consumption, pollution, greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, and is also often combined with scenario analysis
(Zhang et al., 2012). In addition to research on existing models like
LEAP (Wen and Li, 2014), AIM (Matsuoka et al., 1995), MAED
(Hainoun et al., 2006), and MARKAL (Claude Berger, 1987; Fishbone
and Abilock, 1981), the Industrial Water Conservation Potential
Analysis Model (IWCPA) (Du et al., 2007) was developed for
research on the potential for water conservation and technology
selection for the electricity, iron and steel, petrochemical, and
textile industries. The Industrial Technology Choice (ITC) model
(Zhang and Wen, 2008) is designed to forecast future technology
structures and trends in industrial COD discharge. The bottom-up
model is mostly utilized for energy consumption and CO2

emission to optimize (Park et al., 2016) and quantitatively explore

(Choi et al., 2015) renewable energy portfolios, estimate residential
heating energy consumption (Wang et al., 2015), design global
change adaptation (Girard et al., 2015), evaluate GHG mitigation
policies (Kim et al., 2014), reduce energy consumption and CO2
emissions in the iron and steel sector (Karali et al., 2014; Yin and
Chen, 2013), oil production (Jakobsson et al., 2012, 2014), food
and drink industry (Seck et al., 2013), cement industry (Tan et al.),
etc. However, little concentration for the bottom-up models is put
on pollution control, especially on water pollution control. For air
pollution control, the bottom-up approach was used to create
POEM-PM emission model (Carnevale et al., 2006) and to develop
pollution abatement cost curves (Vijay et al., 2010), while for water
pollution reduction, our model was the rst case using scenario
analysis to project future water pollution emissions in China's pulp
industry (Zhang and Wen, 2008; Zhang et al., 2009, 2012).
We also nd that too many steps for water consumption and
pollution, high parameter demands, and easier access for energy
consumption statistics probably redirect the research focus from
previous studies away from water.
In this paper, we developed a BAT-based bottom-up model for
estimating the potential of industrial pollutants reduction (BRI) in
the CTM industry. The model's framework is described in Fig. 3.
In the BRI model, BATs are obtained from the Guidelines on
Available Technologies of Pollution Prevention and Control for Coal to
Methanol Industry,1 which solicited the Chinese Ministry of Environmental Protection for opinions (MEP, 2014). The BATs mainly
consist of production control technologies and pollution prevention
technologies. BATs should be fully adopted for new production
capacity; for existing capacity, process control technologies and
end-of-pipe control technologies should be used. The three processes DCG, CDGM and AMIP all produce a single methanol product.
There is no overlap between processes, and no interaction on
emission reduction exists among the technologies.

1
The guideline is also part of our research result of Tsinghua, based on the
technical development and application level of China's CTM industry. It can be
taken as the key technical reference for industrial pollution prevention and control.
In this paper, a technology evaluation index that includes resource consumption,
energy consumption, pollutant emissions and economic cost is built. A Multicriteria Decision Making (MCDM) model is used to select the BATs using qualitative and quantitative analysis.

234

Z. Wen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 113 (2016) 231e240

Fig. 3. Framework for application models based on BAT for the CTM industry.

Table 2
Methanol yield and ratio of production technology processes in China's CTM industry.
No.

1
2
3
4
5
6
Total

Item

Natural gas for methanol

Coal to methanol
Atmospheric xed-bed for methanol
Entrained bed for methanol
Coke oven gas for methanol
Lurgi and other gasication technology

2007

2008

2010

2011

2012

2013

Yield

Ratio

Yield

Ratio

Yield

Ratio

Yield

Ratio

Yield

Ratio

Yield

Ratio

419
657
481
114
24
38
1076

38.9%
61.1%
44.7%
10.6%
2.2%
3.5%
100%

406
720
503
141
44
32
1126

36.1%
63.9%
44.7%
12.5%
3.9%
2.8%
100%

402
1156

23%
66%

604
1725

23%
66%

667
1967

21%
63%

611
2366

17%
66%

193

11%

297

11%

495

16%

608

17%

1751

100%

2626

100%

3129

100%

3585

100%

Note: Data is from the investigation on CTM industries in China.

Technical parameters for the model include corresponding

process type, corresponding pollutant reduction rate, technology
popularizing rate and the maximum expected popularizing rate. Of
which, the technology popularizing rate refers to the proportion of
products produced (or production capacity) using a certain technology out of total product yield (or production capacity) (Wen
et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2009).
2.3.2. Calculation formulae
2.3.2.1. Industrial activity level2. In this paper, the industrial activity
level is characterized as yearly product yield, yearly wastewater
discharge, yearly emission of pollutants and yearly energy consumption. Table 2 shows the methanol yield and ratio of main
production technology processes in China's CTM industry.

Where, Qy is the total output of methanol in year y, and qy;i is the

output of methanol from process i in year y. Here i is a number
between 1 and 6, representing six processes: i) Natural gas for
methanol process, ii) coke oven gas for methanol process, iii) xedbed ammonia and methanol integrated production process, iv)atmospheric xed-bed coal methanol process, v)entrained ow bed
coal methanol process and vi) pressure xed-bed coal methanol
process.
(2) Yearly wastewater discharge
Yearly wastewater discharge refers to the sum of wastewater
from each process.

TPWy

(1) Yearly product yield

X



qy;i $PWi;w $ 1
TPy;i;k $WRi;k

(2)

i1

Product yield mainly refers to the sum of products from every

process, which can be calculated by the following expression:

Qy

qy;i

i1

All calculations refer to the entire CTM industry.

(1)

Where, TPWy is the yearly total waste water discharge in year y.

PWi;w is the discharge of methanol wastewater from process i,
drawn from the Handbook of coefcients of producing and emitting
pollutants from the industrial pollution source in the rst national
census of pollution source. TPy;i;k is the popularizing rate of technology k from process i in year y, as is used in the Directory of
advanced and applicable technologies of energy saving and emissions

Z. Wen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 113 (2016) 231e240

235

Table 3
Scenarios and remarks.
Scenario

Major assumptions

Key variables

S1: Baseline scenario

No technology substitution in this scenario. It does not adhere to

laws of technology-diffusion and industrial development
policies, and is the worst emission reduction scenario.

S2: Process planning

scenario

Several measures are implemented based on the central

government's industrial planning. According to the Twelfth Fiveyear Development Planning of the Methanol Industry complied by
the Nitrogen Fertilizer Industry Association in China, advanced
production processes will replace older processes, such as the
elimination of 3e5 million tons of outdated production capacity
by xed-bed production and replacing it with the entrained
ow processes.
On the basis of S2, mandatory policies such as cleaner
production and access policy et al. will be implemented. Some
obligatory targets for COD and Ammonia-N pollutant reduction
will be raised in the Twelfth Five-year Plan for National Economic
and Social Development. The BATs in the CTM industry will be
promoted by improving the popularizing rate.

The industrial process structure in 2008 is shown in Table 4. Values in

2015 and 2020 remain unchanged. Total industrial emissions of
pollutants and wastewater rises in proportion to the forecast production
values. The intensity of pollution per product remains unchanged.
The production scale and process structure changes in 2015 and 2020
are shown in Table 4. Natural gas for the methanol processes remain
unchanged. The entrained ow process substitutes the x-bed process.
Coke-oven gas will be used for methanol in the future.

S3: Technology promotion

scenario

reduction in ammonia and methanol industry. WRi;k is the reduction

coefcient per unit of methanol wastewater using technology k in
process i, where k refers to a particular resource recycling technology. The data refers to guidelines on available pollution prevention and control technologies for the CTM industry (draft for
comments) and enterprise surveys, the same source asPRi;l;h , PRi;k;h
and ESj in the following formula.
(3) Yearly emissions of h pollutant
We characterize emissions of several pollutants, h, in each
process.

TPDy;h

#
"
(

X
X
TPy;i;k $PRi;k;h
qy;i $ PDi;h

i1

"

$ 1

k1

X

TPy;i;l $PRi;l;h

#)

(3)

Where, TPDy;h is the total yearly industrial emission of pollutant

h, PDi;h is the emission of per unit methanol pollutant h from
process i, PRi;k;h is the reduction coefcient per unit of methanol
pollutant h, using technology k, in process i. TPy;i;l is the popularizing rate of technology l from process i in year y. PRi;l;h is the
reduction coefcient of methanol per unit of pollutant h created by
technology l in process i, where l refers to the end-of-pipe control
technology of wastewater.
(4) Yearly energy consumption

 


RTPy;i;w Qy $ pi;y
pi;y0 $ PWy;i;w
PWi0 ;w

(5)

Where RTPy;i;w is the potential for wastewater reduction in

process i in year y, py;i is the proportion of production in process i in
year y (see Table 2), PWy;i;w is the discharge of methanol wastewater from process i in year y, and PWi0 ;w is the average wastewater
discharge in different processes in the base year.
(2) Potential for emission reduction

RTPk;w

Yearly energy consumption calculates the energy consumption

from every process.

i1

2.3.2.2. Potential for energy saving and emission reduction.

Technical capacity parameters mainly consist of technical reduction
capacity (RTC) and technical reduction potential (RTP). The calculation of RTP is based on RTC, which reects the annual water
saving capacity. RTC can be obtained by comparing the average
level of technology in the base year. A contrast between the
popularizing rate set in BATs and the corresponding benchmark
popularizing rate should be made. The largest expected popularizing rate (EPR) is used to measure the potential for emission
reduction by BATs during 2010 and 2020, while RTP reects the
potential amount of emission reduction. In this paper, the popularizing rate during the study period is set as EPR, in which RTC is
equal to RTP. For the same technology, the emission reduction and
potential for reduction from different processes should be summed
together. Here we take wastewater reduction as an example to
show our computations in detail:
(1) Potential for emission reduction in each process

l1

8
2
39
X<
X
 =
TECy
q $4ECi

TPy;i;j $ESj 5
: y;i
;

Considering the application of any technology is limited in the

technology substitution law itself, the optimal economic technology is
difcult to achieve 100% popularization. Based on the law of technology
substitution, industrial development policy and expert consultation, the
technology popularizing rate of BATs in CTM industry will be set as in
Table 5.

X




qy;i $ TPy;i;k
TPy0 ;i;k $WRi;k

(6)

i1

Where, RTPk;w is the potential for wastewater reduction in

technology k.

(4)

j1

Where, TECy is the total energy consumption in year y, ECi is the

energy consumption per unit of methanol from process i, TPy;i;j is
the popularizing rate of technology j of process i in year y, ESj is the
energy saving coefcient of methanol per unit produced by technology j, and j refers to the energy saving technology used.

2.4. Scenarios denition

The scenarios take into account technology policies and sectoral
development plans in China's CTM industry. The three scenarios S1,
S2 and S3 are described in Table 3. Under the three scenarios, the
effects of inputs and outputs on methanol production are not
considered. In addition, the discount rate is set as 8% when calculating the per unit xed cost.

236

Z. Wen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 113 (2016) 231e240

Table 4
Predicted values of production scale and process structure in S2.
Production process

2008*

2015

Production capacity
Natural gas for methanol
Coke-oven gas for methanol
Fixed-bed Ammonia and methanol integrated production
Fixed-bed intermittent smokeless coal atmospheric
pressure gasication
Entrained ow pressurized continuous gasication
Pressurized xed-bed coarse coal gasication
Total

Proportion

2020

Production capacity

Proportion

Production capacity

Proportion

406
44
453
50

36.1%
3.9%
40.3%
4.4%

600
600
600
150

15%
15%
15%
4%

720
975
750
180

11%
15%
12%
3%

141
32
1126

12.5%
2.8%
100%

1980
70
4000

50%
2%
100%

3725
150
6500

57%
2%
100%

Note: *Data from the Chinese CTM enterprises investigated as part of this paper.

Table 5
Technology popularization rate and potential for industrial pollutants and wastewater emission reduction of BATs in the CTM industry.
No.

Technology item

Popularizing rate

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Reuse of wastewater in coke-oven gas

Closed cycle treatment of desulphurized
wastewater in xed-bed ammonia and
methanol integrated gasication
Zero wastewater discharge in the ammonia
and methanol integrated production
Reused wastewater in xed-bed methanol
Emissions reduction of water pollutants in
coal-water slurry gasication
Treatment and reuse of slag water in
coal-water slurry pressurized gasication
Wastewater treatment in coarse coal
pressurized gasication
Recycling of methanol rectication residue
Stripping/Combustion of wastewater
containing alcohol
Wastewater systems integration
technology
Aerobic secondary biochemical treatment
technology
Deep treatment and recycling of
wastewater

Wastewater/104 tons

COD/ton

Ammonia-N/ton

2015

2020
(Maximum limit)

2015

2020

2015

2020

2015

2020

30%
20%

45%
30%

60%
45%

226.8
840.0

737.1
2625.0

21.4
6.3

69.6
3.9

5.8
1.9

18.7
1.2

16%

24%

40%

1008.0

3780.0

150.2

563.4

10.6

39.6

20%
30%

45%
50%

60%
70%

150.8
887.0

361.8
3337.6

1.3
56.2

3.1
211.6

1.6
22.6

3.7
84.9

8%

10%

15%

35.6

234.2

15.9

104.8

0.5

3.1

50%

70%

95%

28.0

135.0

17.8

85.7

1.1

5.5

Fixed-bed
20% others 95%
30%

Fixed-bed
35% others 95%
15%

Fixed-bed
60% others 95%
20%

184.1

654.1

65.4

178.0

5%

15%

30%

899.7

2592.3

Fixed-bed
60% others 95%
Fixed-bed
0% others 5%

Fixed-bed
80% others 100%
Fixed-bed
15% others 20%

Fixed-bed100%
others 100%
Fixed-bed 3
0% others 40%

13,442

47,801

678

2624

83,613

40,406

8325

6403

2008
1
2

Potential for pollutants and wastewater

emission reduction

Note: *Data obtained from the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of the People's Republic of China (MIIT) and the Directory of advanced and applicable technologies of energy saving and emissions reduction in ammonia and methanol industry.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Pollutant and wastewater emissions
The discharge of industrial pollutants and wastewater emissions
in the CTM industry under different scenarios from 2010 to 2020
are displayed in Table 6. Under S1, the upsurge of methanol production, total emissions of wastewater, COD and Ammonia-N increase signicantly with corresponding increase in annual growth
rates of 16.54%, 16.13% and 18.80% between 2010 and 2020.
Industrial-specic pollutants such as petroleum, volatile phenol
and cyanide also show the same upward trend. Total emissions of
pollutants and wastewater will surge by over 500% between 2010
and 2020.
The total amount of wastewater, COD and Ammonia-N emissions in the CTM industry were 129 million tons, 166 thousand tons,
and 11 thousand tons respectively, which accounted for 18.4%, 40%
and 11% of emissions from the chemical industry in 2008 (SSB and
MEP, 2009). A serious environmental pollution problem will arise if
the CTM industry continues to operate as in S1.

We can also see from S2 and S3 that pollution can be mitigated if

adjustments are made to production process structures and
pollution prevention and control technology are promoted. However, there is still an overall rise in pollution. Compared with the S1
scenario, in 2020 wastewater discharge is reduced by 53% and 16%
respectively due to process structure adjustments and technology
promotion. Similarly, in 2020, process structure adjustments and
technology promotion reduce COD by 34% and 19%, and AmmoniaN by 36% and 19%, respectively. Analysis of industry specic pollutants also shows the same conclusion: effects on emission
reduction from process structure adjustment are more prominent
than those from technology promotion.
Process structure adjustment can reduce pollutant emissions at
the source, rather than recycling or end-of-pipe control which takes
place after pollutants are produced. The best available gasication
processes are entrained ow pressurized continuous gasication,
and COG for methanol. They should be promoted and installed in
new enterprises. Unfortunately, the promotion of clean coal technology (CCT) is not currently agreed upon. The traditional opinion
is that coal consumption directly produces pollution and haze, and

Note: *Represents the potential for reduction of pollutants and wastewater emissions by process structure adjustment.
Represents the potential for reduction of pollutants and wastewater emissions by technology promotion. The percentage in brackets shows the ratio that reductions amount to when compared to emissions in S1.
**

11,376
4802
2659
6574 (58%)
2143 (19%)
6692
3049
2504
3643 (54%)
545 (8%)
1420
1420
1420
0
0

2015
2010

780
269
186
511 (66%)
83 (11%)
303
303
303
0
0
S1
S2
S3
S1eS2*
S2eS3**

129
129
129
0
0

490
267
226
223 (46%)
41 (8%)

810
380
247
430 (53%)
133 (16%)

16.62
16.62
16.62
0
0

61
43.8
38.62
17.2 (28%)
5.18 (8%)

100
65.83
47.09
34.17 (34%)
18.74 (19%)

1.05
1.05
1.05
0
0

4.9
3.22
2.78
1.68 (34%)
0.44 (9%)

8.3
5.31
3.74
2.99 (36%)
1.57 (19%)

1456
611
512
845 (58%)
99 (7%)

2475
1149
703
1326 (54%)
446 (18%)

98
98
98
0
0

459
185
163
274 (60%)
22 (5%)

2020
2015

Volatile phenol/tons

2010
2020
2015

Petroleum Category/tons

2010
2020
2015
2010
2015

2020
2010

2015

2020

Ammonia-N/104 tons
COD/104 tons
Wastewater/million tons
Item

Table 6
Amount of industrial pollutants and wastewater discharged in the CTM industry under the different scenarios, 2010e2020.

2010

Cyanide/tons

2020

Z. Wen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 113 (2016) 231e240

237

some provinces have even introduced one-size-ts-all policies like

elimination of coal usage, which greatly hampers the promotion of
CCT.
As for emission intensity, all industrial pollutants and wastewater emission levels will be in line with international advanced
standards under S3. For example, under S2 wastewater discharge
per methanol product is 6.7 t/t in 2015, lower than in 2008 by 41%,
while in 2020 it is about 50% lower than in 2008. In S3, wastewater
discharge meets international advanced standards by 2020, which
has an emission intensity of 3.8 t/t.
3.2. BATs' potential for emission reduction
Ordered from highest to lowest for potential in wastewater
reduction, the top four technologies are: wastewater zero discharge
in ammonia and methanol integrated production, wastewater
systems integration technology, emissions reduction of water pollutants in coal-water slurry gasication, and closed cycle treatment
of desulphurized wastewater in xed-bed ammonia, and methanol
integrated gasication. In terms of COD mitigation potential, the
top ranking technologies are recycling of methanol rectication
residue, wastewater zero discharge in ammonia and methanol integrated production, stripping/combustion of wastewater containing alcohol, and emission reduction of water pollutants in coalwater slurry gasication. Emissions reduction of water pollutants in
coal-water slurry gasication and wastewater zero discharge in
ammonia and methanol integrated production have larger mitigation potentials for Ammonia-N. They also have signicant and
comprehensive mitigation effects on wastewater, COD and
Ammonia-N. One reason for this is that the reduction coefcient of
those technologies is relatively large. The other reason is that those
technologies can be used in most production processes, leading to a
rapid rise in the popularizing rate of those technologies.
3.3. Analysis of BATs' emission reduction costs
Compared with technologies for process control and resource
recycling, end-of-pipe control technologies are fewer in number,
and easier to choose from the BATs because of their clear applicability. However, end-of-pipe, control and resource recycling technologies are not comparable with one other. End-of-pipe control
technologies operate at the nal stage of the treatment process,
with a big reduction rate, and are easily affected by the pollution
level of the preceding production process. Suitable end-of-pipe
technologies should only be chosen when considering the economic benets and environmental effects for an individual enterprise. Because of this, the BATs for end-of-pipe control (aerobic
secondary biochemical treatment technology and deep treatment
and recycle of wastewater in Table 5) are not included in the
rankings for this study. So in the following ranking we only
consider 8 technologies (1e7 and 10) for wastewater reduction, 9
technologies (1e9) for COD reduction and 7 technologies (1e7) for
Ammonia-N reduction.
Fig. 4 displays the technical reduction cost per unit of industrial
pollutants and wastewater. The reduction cost per unit of pollutant
includes initial investment of technology (xed cost) and variable
costs incurred during operation. The reduction potential is shown
in Tables 7 and 8, and is a key factor in reducing pollution. The
cumulative mitigation potential for wastewater is 40.76 million
tons/year and 138.03 million tons/year in 2015 and 2020. For COD
reduction, the maximum potential is 51,900 tons/year in 2015 and
187,000 tons/year in 2020. For Ammonia-N reduction, maximum
pollution reduction potential is 4399 tons/year in 2015 and 15,680
tons/year in 2020.

238

Z. Wen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 113 (2016) 231e240

2015

2020
30

120
100
80
60
40

100
Reduction cost per ton ammonia-N
(Yuan/ton)

Reduction cost per ton COD

(Yuan/ton)

Reduction cost per ton wastewater

(Yuan/ton)

140

25
20
15
10
5

20

80
60
40
20

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(b)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(a)

4 5
(c)

Fig. 4. Technical reduction cost per ton of industrial pollutants and wastewater in the CTM industry in 2015 and 2020 using different technologies for emission reduction. Note: The
number in the horizontal axis on diagrams a-c represents the ranking order of BATs as shown in Tables 7 and 8.

Taking waste water reduction as an example, suppose the goal is

to reduce wastewater discharge per methanol product to below 4 t/
t in 2020, we can see that only the rst six technologies satisfy this
condition, and so only they should be promoted. The other two

technologies have less potential for wastewater reduction as they

are in the bottom two in the ranking of reduction cost per ton of
wastewater. Tables 7 and 8 show the same method applied to COD
and Ammonia-N prevention and control.

Table 7
Rankings of BATs for COD prevention and control, and mitigation potential.
Order

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Technology name

2015

Stripping/Combustion of wastewater containing alcohol

Recycling of methanol rectication residue
Wastewater zero discharge in ammonia and methanol
integrated production
Closed cycle treatment of desulphurization wastewater
in xed-bed ammonia and methanol integrated gasication
Wastewater treatment in coarse coal pressurized gasication
Reuse of wastewater in coke-oven gas
Emissions reduction of water pollutants in coal-water
slurry gasication
Reuse of wastewater in xed-bed methanol
Treatment and reuse of slag water in coal-water slurry
pressurized gasication

2020

Mitigation
potential
(ton/year)

Cumulative
mitigation
potential
(ton/year)

COD emission
per unit of
wastewater after
emission reduction (kg)

Mitigation
potential
(ton/year)

Cumulative
mitigation
potential
(ton/year)

COD emission
per unit
wastewater
after emission
reduction (kg)

654
1841
1502

654
2495
3997

10.8
10.3
10.0

1780
6541
5634

1780
8321
13,955

9.9
8.8
8.0

63

4060

9.9

39

13,994

8.0

178
214
562

4238
4452
5014

9.9
9.8
9.7

857
696
2116

14,852
15,548
17,664

7.8
7.7
7.4

13
159

5027
5186

9.7
9.7

31
1048

17,695
18,743

7.4
7.2

Table 8
The ranking of BATs for Ammonia-N prevention, control and mitigation potential.
Order

Technology name

2015
Mitigation
potential
(ton/year)

2
3
4
5
6
7

Closed cycle treatment of desulphurization

wastewater in xed-bed ammonia and
methanol integrated gasication
Wastewater zero discharge in ammonia and
methanol integrated production
Reuse of wastewater in xed-bed methanol
Reuse of wastewater in coke-oven gas
Emissions reduction of water pollutants in
coal-water slurry gasication
Wastewater treatment in coarse coal
pressurized gasication
Treatment and reuse of slag water in
coal-water slurry pressurized gasication

2020
Cumulative
mitigation
potential
(ton/year)

Ammonia-N emission
per unit wastewater
after emission
reduction (g)

Mitigation
potential
(ton/year)

Cumulative
mitigation
potential
(ton/year)

Ammonia-N
emission per unit
wastewater after
emission reduction (g)

19

19

802

12

12

816

106

125

776

396

408

755

16
58
226

140
198
424

772
758
701

37
187
849

445
633
1482

749
721
590

11

435

698

55

1537

581

440

697

31

1568

577

Z. Wen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 113 (2016) 231e240

Comparing the emission standard and discharge levels of main

industrial pollutants in China's CTM industry, there are several
steps that should be taken. For new enterprises, advanced cleaning
production processes should be installed, such as entrained-ow
pressure continuous gasication and COG for methanol. For existing methanol enterprises employing old processes, applicable and
operative policies on BATs should be implemented to upgrade old
technologies. Mandatory upgrades should be enforced on enterprises using end-of-pipe control technologies.

Table 9
Emission standards for main pollutants according to the Integrated Wastewater
Discharge Standard (mg/l).
Pollutants

Factories built before

December 31st of 1997
Grade I

Grade II

Grade III

Grade I

Grade II

Grade III

COD
Petroleum
Volatile phenol
Cyanide
Ammonia-N

100
10
0.5
0.5
15

150
10
0.5
0.5
50

500
30
2
1
e

60
5
0.5
0.5
15

120
10
0.5
0.5
50

500
20
20
1
e

239

Factories built after

January 1st of 1998

4. Conclusion

Note: Data are from the Integrated Wastewater Discharge Standard (GB8978-1996).

This paper assesses industrial technology to analyze the industrial pollutants and wastewater reduction problem in China's CTM
industry. The results may be useful for policy-makers to formulate
overall pollutant control and emission standards:

3.4. Suggestions for pollutant emissions based on BATs

Currently, there is no special emission standard of industrial
pollutants in China's CTM industry. The Integrated Wastewater
Discharge Standard (GB8978-1996) has been adopted by most enterprises and local governments. The emission standards for main
pollutants in wastewater is displayed in Table 9. Based on the
Handbook of coefcients of producing and emitting pollutants from
the industrial pollution source, it can be converted into the average
emission level of industrial pollutants in China's CTM industry
which is shown in Table 10.
According to the comparison of emission standards and
discharge level, we can see that pollutants emitted directly without
biochemical secondary treatment do not meet basic standards. COD
and ammonia-N levels of all processes do not even attain grade III
in the Integrated Wastewater Discharge Standards. At present,
existing facilities have limited ability to control wastewater in most
xed-bed methanol production enterprises; the adoption rate of
biological secondary treatment is only about 60%~70%. There is an
even lower popularizing rate of biological treatment in small CTM
enterprises. Therefore, pollutants emitted in China in any enterprise, big or small, are several times higher than standards allow
for.
Advanced cleaning production processes, such as coke oven gas
for methanol, and coal-water slurry pressurized entrained ow, are
installed in new enterprises on a large scale. So they both adopt
biochemical end-of-pipe treatment technologies. In Table 10, the
concentration of pollutants after biochemical treatment meets
grade I of the Integrated Wastewater Discharge Standard. But for old
processes like atmospheric xed-bed, ammonia and methanol integrated production and pressurized xed-bed, some pollutants do
not meet the grade III standard, even after biochemical treatment.
Among the most prevalent pollutants are COD and Ammonia-N.

(1) Industrial process structure adjustment should be the main

focus of emission reduction in China's CTM industry, because
the results of emission reductions are larger than that from
those of end-of-pipe treatment technologies promotion.
Advanced cleaning processes, such as entrained ow pressurized continuous gasication, and COG for methanol should be
vigorously promoted and applied in new enterprises. In addition, industrial and national standards should be published as
soon as possible; CCT should be promoted and the one-sizets-all policy of eliminating coal use should be changed.
(2) The ranking order from highest to lowest potential for industrial pollution reduction shows that wastewater zero
discharge in the ammonia and methanol integrated production process and emission reduction of water pollutants
in coal-water slurry gasication have signicant and
comprehensive mitigation effects on wastewater, COD and
Ammonia-N. Both of them can be applied in most production
processes in the CTM industry. And as their popularizing rate
rises, industrial pollution reduction will also rise accordingly.
(3) The promotion priority of BATs for industrial pollutants and
wastewater can be determined based on the emission
reduction cost per unit. Using wastewater reduction as an
example, one can compare BATs using cumulative mitigation
potential for wastewater prevention and control. The same is
also true for COD and Ammonia-N.
(4) By comparing emission standards and technical indexes of
BATs, advanced production control processes should be
promoted in new enterprises. Applicable and operative
promoting policies for BATs should be implemented to

Table 10
Average emission level of industrial pollutants in China's CTM industry (mg/l).
Technology name

Traditional atmospheric xed-bed without water reuse

Traditional atmospheric xed-bed with water reuse
Pressured xed-bed with circulation, no water reuse
Pressured xed-bed with circulating water reuse
Coal water slurry without closed circulation
Coal water slurry with closed circulation technology
for saving water
Ammonia and methanol integrated (xed-bed)
without closed circulation
Ammonia and methanol integrated (xed-bed) with
closed circulation technology for saving water
Coke oven gas production wastewater without reuse
Coke oven gas production wastewater with reuse

Direct discharge

Discharge after biochemical treatment

COD

Ammonia-N

Cyanide

Volatile
phenol

Petroleum

COD

2176.7
2128.3
4125.0
3066.7
2232.5
2114.2

88.3
30.8
2166.7
583.3
65.8
18.3

0.9
0.3
5.6
3.1
0.1
0.0

0.2
0.1
74.2
27.4
0.0
0.0

9.3
2.7
1935.2
2.3
3.0
0.2

122.9
74.3
771.4
145.0
52.9
28.6

2608.3

183.3

2.1

2.9

28.3

2172.5

49.2

0.5

0.7

5.3

1776.7
1578.3

59.2
5.8

e
e

e
e

e
e

Ammonia-N

Cyanide

Volatile
phenol

Petroleum

51.4
22.9
38.6
0.6
15.7
6.4

0.4
0.2
0.1
e
0.1
0.0

0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0

6.3
1.8
4.6
2.0
1.2
0.2

214.3

125.7

1.5

1.5

17.6

125.7

34.3

0.4

0.5

4.1

45.7
4.3

5.7
0.6

e
e

e
e

e
e

240

Z. Wen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 113 (2016) 231e240

upgrade and reform outdated technologies in existing

methanol enterprises employing old processes.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the nancial support from
National Natural Science Fund for Outstanding Young Scholars of
China (71522011) and the National Commonwealth Program on
Environmental Protection (No. 200809062). The contents of this
paper reect the views of the authors and do not necessarily
indicate acceptance by the sponsors. We also highly appreciate
comments and advice from the two anonymous reviewers.
References
Carnevale, C., Gabusi, V., Volta, M., 2006. POEM-PM: an emission model for secondary pollution control scenarios. Environ. Model. Softw. 21, 320e329.
Choi, D.G., Park, S.Y., Hong, J.C., 2015. Quantitatively exploring the future of
renewable portfolio standard in the Korean electricity sector via a bottom-up
energy model. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 50, 793e803.
Claude Berger, A.H.R.L., 1987. Modeling Long Range Energy/Technology Choices: the
MARKAL Approach. GERAD, Montreal, Canada.
CMEP, 2007. National Environmental Technology Management System Construction
Planning.
Coleman, J., Peng, S., 2003. Sino EU Environmental Management Cooperation Program (EMCP) e helping to develop cleaner production and environmental
management in China. Ind. Environ. 83e86.
Du, B., Wen, Z., Li, G., Chen, J., 2007. Key technology choices for industrial water
conservation in China based on an IWCPA mode. Acta Sci. Circumstantiae 27,
1753e1760.
Fishbone, L.G., Abilock, H., 1981. Markal, a linear-programming model for energy
systems analysis: technical description of the bnl version. Int. J. Energ Res. 5,
353e375.

, C., Caballero, Y., 2015. InteGirard, C., Pulido-Velazquez, M., Rinaudo, J.-D., Page
grating topedown and bottomeup approaches to design global change adaptation at the river basin scale. Glob. Environ. Change 34, 132e146.
Hainoun, A., Seif-Eldin, M.K., Almoustafa, S., 2006. Analysis of the Syrian long-term
energy and electricity demand projection using the end-use methodology.
Energy Policy 34, 1958e1970.
Hicks, C., Dietmar, R., 2007. Improving cleaner production through the application
of environmental management tools in China. J. Clean. Prod. 15, 395e408.
derbergh, B., Aleklett, K., 2012. The end of cheap oil:
Jakobsson, K., Bentley, R., So
bottom-up economic and geologic modeling of aggregate oil production curves.
Energy Policy 41, 860e870.
derbergh, B., Snowden, S., Aleklett, K., 2014. Bottom-up modeling
Jakobsson, K., So
of oil production: a review of approaches. Energy Policy 64, 113e123.
Karali, N., Xu, T., Sathaye, J., 2014. Reducing energy consumption and CO2 emissions
by energy efciency measures and international trading: a bottom-up modeling
for the U.S. iron and steel sector. Appl. Energy 120, 133e146.
Kim, H., Paik, C., Chung, Y., Kim, Y.J., 2014. Mathematical properties and constraints
representation for bottom-up approaches to the evaluation of GHG mitigation
policies. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 32, 48e56.

Liu, X., Wen, Z., 2012. Best available techniques and pollution control: a case study
on China's thermal power industry. J. Clean. Prod. 23, 113e121.
Matsuoka, Y., Kainuma, M., Morita, T., 1995. Scenario Analysis of Global Warming
Using the Asian Pacic Integrated Model (AIM), pp. 357e371.
MEP, 2014. Guideline on available technologies of pollution prevention and control
for coal to methanol Industry (Draft for comments).
Park, S.Y., Yun, B.-Y., Yun, C.Y., Lee, D.H., Choi, D.G., 2016. An analysis of the optimum
renewable energy portfolio using the bottomeup model: focusing on the
electricity generation sector in South Korea. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 53,
319e329.
Schollenberger, H., Treitz, M., Geldermann, J., 2008. Adapting the European
approach of Best Available Techniques: case studies from Chile and China.
J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1856e1864.
Seck, G.S., Guerassimoff, G., Mazi, N., 2013. Heat recovery with heat pumps in nonenergy intensive industry: a detailed bottom-up model analysis in the French
food & drink industry. Appl. Energy 111, 489e504.
SETC, 2000. Guide List of National Cleaner Production Technologies in Key Industries (First Batch).
SETC, 2003. Guide List of National Cleaner Production Technologies in Key Industries (Second Batch).
State-Council, 2006. 11th Five-Year Guidelines for National Economy and Social
Development.
State-Council, 2007. Comprehensive Working Program on Energy Saving and
Emission Elimination.
State-Council, 2011. The 12th Five-Year Plan Guideline for the Chinese State Economic and Social Development.
Tan, Q., Wen, Z., Chen, J., Goal and technology path of CO2 mitigation in China's
cement industry: from the perspective of co-benet. Journal of Cleaner
Production.
Vijay, S., DeCarolis, J.F., Srivastava, R.K., 2010. A bottom-up method to develop
pollution abatement cost curves for coal-red utility boilers. Energy Policy 38,
2255e2261.
Wang, Z., Zhao, Z., Lin, B., Zhu, Y., Ouyang, Q., 2015. Residential heating energy
consumption modeling through a bottom-up approach for China's hot summerecold winter climatic region. Energy Build. 109, 65e74.
Wen, Z., Li, H., 2014. Analysis of potential energy conservation and CO2 emissions
reduction in China's non-ferrous metals industry from a technology perspective. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 28, 45e56.
Wen, Z., Meng, F., Chen, M., 2014. Estimates of the potential for energy conservation
and CO2 emissions mitigation based on Asian-Pacic Integrated Model (AIM):
the case of the iron and steel industry in China. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 120e130.
Xie, K., Li, W., Zhao, W., 2010. Coal chemical industry and its sustainable development in China. Energy 35, 4349e4355.
Yin, X., Chen, W., 2013. Trends and development of steel demand in China: a bottomeup analysis. Resour. Policy 38, 407e415.
Yu, Y., 2010. Study on the Selection of Best Available Techniques for Industrial
Pollution Prevention: Case of Coal-to-methanol. Tsinghua University, Beijing,
China.
Zhang, C., Chen, J., Wen, Z., 2012. Assessment of policy alternatives and key technologies for energy conservation and water pollution reduction in China's
synthetic ammonia industry. J. Clean. Prod. 25, 96e105.
Zhang, C., Wen, Z., 2008. Forecasting of COD reduction technologies in China's
future pulp industry. J. Tsinghua Univ. Sci. Technol. 2083e2087.
Zhang, C., Wen, Z., Chen, J., 2009. An integrated model for technology forecasting to
reduce pollutant emission in China's pulp industry. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54,
62e72.