diff --git a/doc/supply_demand.rst b/doc/supply_demand.rst index b3d28397..a8dba4da 100644 --- a/doc/supply_demand.rst +++ b/doc/supply_demand.rst @@ -448,12 +448,12 @@ N_2 + 3H_2 → 2NH_3 $$ -The Haber-Bosch process is not explicitly represented in the model, such that demand for ammonia enters the model as a demand for hydrogen ( $6.5 MWh_{H_2}$ / t $_{NH_3}$ ) and electricity ( $1.17 MWh_{el}$ /t $_{NH_3}$ ) (see `Wang et. al `_). Today, natural gas dominates in Europe as the source for the hydrogen used in the Haber-Bosch process, but the model can choose among the various hydrogen supply options described in the hydrogen section (see :ref:`Hydrogen supply`) +The Haber-Bosch process is not explicitly represented in the model, such that demand for ammonia enters the model as a demand for hydrogen ( 6.5 MWh_${H_2}$ / t$_{NH_3}$ ) and electricity ( 1.17 MWh$_{el}$ /t $_{NH_3}$ ) (see `Wang et. al `_). Today, natural gas dominates in Europe as the source for the hydrogen used in the Haber-Bosch process, but the model can choose among the various hydrogen supply options described in the hydrogen section (see :ref:`Hydrogen supply`) -The total production and specific energy consumption of chlorine and methanol is taken from a `DECHEMA report `_. According to this source, the production of chlorine amounts to 9.58 MtCl/a, which is assumed to require electricity at 3.6 MWh $_{el}$/t of chlorine and yield hydrogen at 0.937 MWh $_{H_2}$/t of chlorine in the chloralkali process. The production of methanol adds up to 1.5 MtMeOH/a, requiring electricity at 0.167 MWh $_{el}$/t of methanol and methane at 10.25 MWhCH4/t of methanol. +The total production and specific energy consumption of chlorine and methanol is taken from a `DECHEMA report `_. According to this source, the production of chlorine amounts to 9.58 MtCl/a, which is assumed to require electricity at 3.6 MWh $_{el}$/t of chlorine and yield hydrogen at 0.937 MWh $_{H_2}$/t of chlorine in the chloralkali process. The production of methanol adds up to 1.5 MtMeOH/a, requiring electricity at 0.167 MWh $_{el}$/t of methanol and methane at 10.25 MWh $_{CH_4}$/t of methanol. -The production of ammonia, methanol, and chlorine production is deducted from the JRC IDEES basic chemicals, leaving the production totals of high-value chemicals. For this, we assume that the liquid hydrocarbon feedstock comes from synthetic or fossil- origin naphtha (14 MWhnaphtha/t of HVC, similar to `Lechtenböhmer et al `_), ignoring the methanol-to-olefin route. Furthermore, we assume the following transformations of the energy-consuming processes in the production of plastics: the final energy consumption in steam processing is converted to methane since requires temperature above 500 °C (4.1 MWhCH4 /t of HVC, see `Rehfeldt et al. `_); and the remaining processes are electrified using the current efficiency of microwave for high-enthalpy heat processing, electric furnaces, electric process cooling and electric generic processes (2.85 MWh $_{el}$/t of HVC). +The production of ammonia, methanol, and chlorine production is deducted from the JRC IDEES basic chemicals, leaving the production totals of high-value chemicals. For this, we assume that the liquid hydrocarbon feedstock comes from synthetic or fossil- origin naphtha (14 MWh $_{naphtha}$/t of HVC, similar to `Lechtenböhmer et al `_), ignoring the methanol-to-olefin route. Furthermore, we assume the following transformations of the energy-consuming processes in the production of plastics: the final energy consumption in steam processing is converted to methane since requires temperature above 500 °C (4.1 MWh $_{CH_4}$ /t of HVC, see `Rehfeldt et al. `_); and the remaining processes are electrified using the current efficiency of microwave for high-enthalpy heat processing, electric furnaces, electric process cooling and electric generic processes (2.85 MWh $_{el}$/t of HVC). The process emissions from feedstock in the chemical industry are as high as 0.369 t$_{CO_2}$/t of ethylene equivalent. We consider process emissions for all the material output, which is a conservative approach since it assumes that all plastic-embedded CO $_2$ will eventually be released into the atmosphere. However, plastic disposal in landfilling will avoid, or at least delay, associated CO $_2$ emissions.