The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Production costs of the chemical industry in the EU and other countries: Ammonia, methanol and light olefins
Open accessAbstract
Our study compares chemical production costs in the European Union (EU) and other countries in order to understand whether these costs are higher in the case of Europe than in other countries. Our analysis focuses on ammonia, methanol and light olefins (ethylene and propylene), as all of them are considered chemical compounds produced in large scale. The countries selected for comparison are USA, Russia, Ukraine and Saudi Arabia, since they have high shares of extra-EU28 trade and/or the global installed capacity of the selected products. A bottom-up approach (based on information at facility level) has been followed, including 116, 29, 122 and 224 facilities producing ammonia, methanol, ethylene and propylene respectively. Taking into consideration the complex differences in technologies and co-products between operators, costs are broken down to six components: (1) feedstock, (2) credits (due to co-products), (3) electricity, (4) thermal energy 5) other materials (chemicals, catalysts etc.) and (6) labour and other costs (salaries, overheads etc.). Our findings suggest that it is not easy to reach a common conclusion about the whole chemical industry. Overall costs compare more favourably among countries than initially thought in the case of processes producing co-products, but maybe less favourably when processes are without co-products. The European industry has lower production costs than the industries in the other countries in the case of ethylene and propylene, but higher in the case of ammonia and methanol. Feedstock costs play the most important role in the total production costs of all four products, but the presence of credits due to by-products could change the behaviour of the total costs.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
What would it take for renewably powered electrosynthesis to displace petrochemical processes?
De Luna, P., Hahn, C., Higgins, D., Jaffer, S. A., Jaramillo, T. F., & Sargent, E. H. (2019) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aav3506 · Cited by 3,052
Oxidative dehydrogenation of ethane: catalytic and mechanistic aspects and future trends
Najari, S., Saeidi, S., Concepcion, P., Dionysiou, D. D., Bhargava, S. K., Lee, A. F., & Wilson, K. (2021) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/d0cs01518k · Cited by 293
Towards sustainable agriculture: Fossil-free ammonia
Pfromm, P. H. (2017) · Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy · doi:10.1063/1.4985090 · Cited by 285
Lopez, G., Keiner, D., Fasihi, M., Koiranen, T., & Breyer, C. (2023) · Energy & Environmental Science · doi:10.1039/d3ee00478c · Cited by 284
Green ammonia production technologies: A review of practical progress
Ojelade, O. A., Zaman, S. F., & Ni, B.-J. (2023) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118348 · Cited by 172
Metadata
- Authors
- Boulamanti, A., & Moya, J. A.
- Venue
- Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-02
- Volume
- 68
- Pages
- 1205-1212
- ISSN
- 1364-0321 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2299976293
- Cited by
- 168
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 24.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Production costs of the chemical industry in the EU and other countries: Ammonia, methanol and light olefins. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.rser.2016.02.021
- The paper
- Boulamanti, A., & Moya, J. A. (2017). Production costs of the chemical industry in the EU and other countries: Ammonia, methanol and light olefins. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.02.021
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.