Why Coal to SNG is problematic?

Why coal → SNG is problematic 1. Carbon intensity is intrinsic o Coal gasification starts with high carbon-to-hydrogen ratios o Even with good efficiency, CO₂ generation is unavoidable o Without permanent capture and disposal, lifecycle emissions are worse than those of natural gas 2. System logic is backwards o Carbon is treated as a fuel to be consumed, not a carrier o Large fractions of carbon are discarded as CO₂ during gasification, shift, and cleanup o Methanation only “polishes” the downstream chemistry — it cannot fix upstream carbon loss 3. CCS does not solve the core issue o CCS adds cost, complexity, and long-term liability o It addresses symptoms (emissions), not the cause (open carbon loop) o Storage availability and permanence remain non-trivial risks 4. Policy-driven, not system-optimal o Coal-to-SNG plants in China were built for:  energy security  stranded coal utilisation  regional air-quality improvement o They were never climate-optimal solutions, only transitional ones Why was it still licensed From a licensor’s perspective, the logic was: • Coal was abundant and cheap • Gas infrastructure already existed • SNG enabled cleaner end-use combustion • Methanation technology itself worked extremely well So the chemistry succeeded, but the system failed. The key distinction (important) • Methanation is not the problem • Coal-derived syngas is the problem That distinction matters because it preserves the value of methanation when paired with the right upstream logic. In other words: Coal-to-SNG failed because carbon was treated as a consumable fuel. Carbon recycling works because carbon is treated as a reusable carrier.