Thermodynamic Analysis of Coal to Synthetic Natural Gas Process
|
|
- Meghan Marsh
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Thermodynamic Analysis of Coal to Synthetic Natural Gas Process Lei Chen 1, Rane Nolan 1, Shakeel Avadhany 2 Supervisor: Professor Ahmed F. Ghoniem 1 1. Mechanical Engineering, MIT 2. Materials Science and Engineering, MIT 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Room Cambridge, MA Tel: (617) leichen@mit.edu, wrnolan@mit.edu, avadhany@mit.edu Submitted: May 11 th, 2009 Abstract Natural gas is a clean energy source of the fossil fuels that dominates today s energy supply. The Coal-to-Synthetic Natural Gas (SNG) concept has been successfully demonstrated as a feasible energy production concept. As a final report for term project of Fundamentals of Advanced Energy Conversion, the scope of this research includes a state-of-the-art technologies review for Coal-to-SNG, the thermodynamic parametric study of main components in this process, and the efficiency assessment of the overall energy system implementing different gasification technologies, as well as the novel hydromethanation process. Results show that the optimized oxygen-steam-carbon constraints for Coal-to-SNG are in the range of ~ for O 2 /C, and ~1.5-2 for H 2 O/C. High pressure is favorable to increase the methanation reaction, and increase the methane yield for hydromethanation. Efficiency analysis shows the moving-bed dry ash gasification achieves higher energy conversion efficiency (67%) than entrained flow gasification (57%) for the overall Coal-to-SNG process. Hydromethanation is a promising novel route with about 70% energy efficiency; however it is still under development because of the technique challenges on catalysts.
2 Table of Contents Table of Contents... i List of Tables and Figures...ii 1 INTRODUCTION Energy Landscape Motivation of Analysis OVERVIEW OF THE COAL-TO-SNG PLANTS IN OPERATION GREAT PLAINS SYNFUELS PLANT GREAT POINTS PILOT PLANT FUNDAMENTALS OF COAL-TO-SNG PROCESSES Gasification Water Gas Shift (WGS) Methanation Hydromethanation (Catalytic steam gasification) APPROACHES AND BASIC ASSUMPITIONS OF THE STUDY Thermodynamic analysis[12] Assumptions Process simplification Coal analysis RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Parametric studies Gasification process Water Gas Shift process Methanation process Hydromethanation (Catalytic steam gasification) process Efficiency analysis Base case study: GPSP process with Lurgi gasifier Efficiency analysis implementing alternative gasifier Efficiency analysis implementing hydromethanation technology CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES: i
3 List of Tables and Figures Table 1. Typical operating conditions and gas compositions in the 3-stage methanation process Table 2: Unit operation models and operating conditions Table 3: Proximate and ultimate analysis of coal samples Table 4: Operating condition of typical Lurgi dry ash and GE-Texaco gasifier[2, 11] Table 5: Syngas composition at process exit (with Lurgi Dry Ash gasification) Table 6: Syngas composition at process exit (with GE-Texaco gasification) Table 7: Comparison of efficiencies Figure 1. Simplifed process of the traditional methanation and hydromethanation technologies... 3 Figure 2. Detailed block flow diagram of the Great Plains Synfuel Plant Figure 3. ADAM II 3-stage methanation process at 45 bar, ºC... 7 Figure 4. The gas temperature and methane compositions in 3-stage and 1-stage methanation process at 30 bar... 8 Figure 5. Adiabatic gasification temperature map at varying O 2 /C and H 2 O/C ratios Figure 6. Cold gas efficiency under adiabatic condition varying O 2 /C and H 2 O/C ratios Figure 7. H2/CO ratio in syngas under adiabatic condition varying O 2 /C and H 2 O/C ratios Figure 8. Methane mole fraction in syngas under adiabatic condition at varying O 2 /C and H 2 O/C ratios Figure 9. Lurgi and GE-Texaco equilibrium compositions at elevated temperatures Figure 10. Sulfur occurrence in Lurgi syngas (equilibrium at elevated temperatures) Figure 11. CO Conversion ratio in the WGS reactor at varying H 2 O/CO ratios (GE-Texaco syngas, 280 ºC, 40 bar) Figure 12. Conversion ratio of CO in the methanation process at varying T and P. (Initial H 2 /CO=3:1, at varying pressures and temperatures) Figure 13. Equilibrium compositions of hydromethanation at elevated temperatures Figure 14. Energy input required for hydromethanation process at elevated temperatures Figure 15. CH 4 mole fraction in hydromethanation products at varying pressures and temperatures.. 20 Figure 16. Carbon conversion ratio in hydromethanation process at varying pressures and temperatures Figure 17: Heat balance in each component of the Coal-to-SNG process Figure 18: Energy conversion efficiency in Lurgi and GE-Texaco Coal-to-SNG process Figure 19: Comparison of energy conversion efficiency among different Coal-to-SNG processes ii
4 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Energy Landscape Natural gas is one of the cleanest and most efficient of all energy sources and provides approximately 24% of the world s energy. It provides 23% of U.S. energy consumed and heats 60% of U.S. homes. It also provides a feedstock and fuel for the country's chemical and manufacturing industries and, as of 2007, powered 30% of all U.S. power plants. However, the reserves of natural gas are limited compared with its consumption in the U.S. The U.S. has been the largest importer of natural gas in the world[1]. According to the United States Department of Energy, 90% of all new baseload power plants will be fueled by natural gas. The sudden increase in demand for natural gas will make its price point skyrocket. This presents an opportunity for novel ways to introduce supply into the market. One of these novel ways includes the conversion of coal, an abundant fossil fuel resource in the U.S., to SNG (Synthetic Natural Gas). SNG can be produced from coal, petroleum coke, biomass, or solid waste. The carbon containing mass is gasified and then converted to methane, a large component of natural gas. From a national security standpoint, SNG presents a means to alleviate the reliance on imported energy resources by making the most of an abundant American resource. SNG could be liquefied and transported throughout the U.S. via existing pipeline infrastructure already in-place. Coal is much more evenly distributed throughout the world compared to oil and natural gas, and remains the world s most abundant fossil fuel, with an R/P ratio of more than 130 years, twice that of natural gas[1]. In countries with significant proven reserves of coal but a relative scarcity of natural gas, the Coal-to-SNG process is a promising technology that may provide clean synthetic natural gas for the growing demands of power generation and home utilization. 1.2 Motivation of Analysis The motivation of this analysis is to present an assessment of Coal-to-SNG technologies based on thermodynamic analysis and heat and mass balances, as well as other necessary simplified assumptions. Optimized operating conditions will be investigated via parametric study. The overall performance of the Great Plains Synfuel Plant traditional methanation processes and Great Point Hydromethanation process will be investigated as a benchmark and optimization solutions will be proposed. The implications of a widespread implementation of this technology, i.e. delivery of SNG at competitive prices, will be profound. 1
5 2 OVERVIEW OF THE COAL-TO-SNG PLANTS IN OPERATION A Coal-to-SNG system converts solid hydrocarbons such as coal, biomass or petroleum coke into SNG. A conventional approach for Coal-to-SNG is by a process of gasification, gas shift, and methanation. This indirect approach has been demonstrated in the Great Plains Synfuel Plant for 20 years and proven to be successful in application. More recently, advancements have been made on the direct gasification approach by the Great Point Energy. This mechanism involves hydromethanation and circumvents the processes of gasification and water gas shift. Figure 1 shows the simplified flow diagram for these two processes. Both indirect and direct technologies for SNG production will be detailed in this report. 2.1 GREAT PLAINS SYNFUELS PLANT The traditional Coal-to-SNG processes have been demonstrated in the Great Plains Synfuel Plant for 20 years and proven to be successful in application. The Coal-to-SNG concept has grown in interest recently due to its capability for CO 2 capture and utilization in enhanced oil recovery. In the Great Plains Synfuel Plant, more than 5 million tons of CO 2 have been sequestered to date, while doubling the oil recovery rate of an oil field in Saskatchewan[2]. A detailed process diagram of the GPSP is shown in Figure 2[2]. The plant consists of coal and ash handling unit, Air Separation Unit (ASU), steam generation, gasifier, water gas shift, and methanation unit, as well as the AGR (Rectisol) and Flue Gas Desulphurization (FGD) unit to remove acid gas in syngas and flue gas. Besides methane, the plant also produces ammonia, ammonium sulfate, naphtha, and phenol as by-products. Although demonstrating successful and economical clean synthetic fuels production, the GPSP can be optimized in many aspects. For instance, the gasification technology, a Lurgi system, was adopted by GPSP 20 years ago and may not be the most favorable option today because of its small coal processing throughput and large production of waste water. Choosing a technology that produced less waste could eliminate or diminish ancillary processes such as gas liquor separation, wastewater treatment, ash handling, and so on. However, replacing the gasification system would require the adjustment of other processes, principally the water gas shift and methanation. We will conduct a parametric study comparing different gasification technologies in the system, to investigate the favorable configuration for optimized efficiency. 2.2 GREAT POINTS PILOT PLANT The hydromethanation, or catalytic steam gasificaiton technology, is considered to be more energy-efficient than the traditional methanation processes. This process was initially developed by Exxon in the 1970s using potassium carbonate (K 2 CO 3 ) as a catalyst. However the process is still under development and not commercialized. 2
6 O 2 Coal H 2O Steam Steam H 2O H 2S, CO 2 H 2O ASU Gasifier Quench Or Cooling Water Gas Shift Cooling Gas cleaning & CO 2 capture Methanation CH 4 Air Q Q Q Q Q Q Traditional methanation process H 2O H 2S, CO 2 H 2 H 2O Coal H 2O Hydromethanation Cooling Gas cleaning & CO 2 capture H 2 separation CH 4 Q Q Q Q Hydromethanation process Figure 1. Simplifed process of the traditional methanation and hydromethanation technologies. It is better known as direct gasification and involves a lesser number of components than the indirect process. Most notably, it replaces the gasifier and water-gas-shift reactor with a hydromethanation unit which essentially uses steam to react with the coal to form methane. The advantage of hydromethanation is that it doesn t require air separation unit; hence there is less energy penalty for the process. The challenges of catalytic steam gasification are the separation of catalyst from ash/slag and the loss of reactivity of the catalyst[3]. Great Point Energy is currently building a testing plant facility in Somerset, Massachusetts. The design and operating data are limited to obtain because of confidential issues. 3
7 Figure 2. Detailed block flow diagram of the Great Plains Synfuel Plant. 4
8 3 FUNDAMENTALS OF COAL-TO-SNG PROCESSES 3.1 Gasification The gasification of coal is a process that ultimately breaks down the fuel into its basic chemical constituents. Instead of burning the coal directly to perform energy conversion, gasification allows for energy in coal to be stored in the form of a gas. Better known as syngas, it consists primarily of carbon monoxide and hydrogen[4]. More specifically, carbonaceous material undergoes the following processes during gasification: pyrolysis (or devolatilization), combustion, gasification and water Gas Shift reaction. In pyrolysis, the carbonaceous material is heated after which volatile products are released and char is produced[5]. It is the char that undergoes the gasification reaction. When the volatiles and char react with oxygen in the gasifier, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide are formed. Thirdly, the gasification reaction occurs when carbon dioxide and steam produce carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Lastly, the water gas shift reaction occurs when carbon monoxide reacts with water to form carbon dioxide and hydrogen. The gasification reactions can be described by 1 Cs () + O2 CO (3.1) 2 Cs () + CO 2CO (3.2) 2 Cs () + HO CO+ H (3.3) 2 2 Gasification process can be accomplished via different established technologies. These include: entrained flow, fluidized bed, and transport reactor. Commercial vendors that sell gasifiers types include ConocoPhillips, GE Energy/Texaco, Shell, Siemens, KBR Transport, and Lurgi. Lurgi dry ash gasifier is a typical moving-bed gasification technology. A fixed bed of coal or biomass is subjected to the gasification agent, i.e. steam and oxygen or air. Ash is removed as a slag; this type of gasifier requires a high ratio of steam and oxygen to carbon in order to supersede the ash fusion temperature. The thermal efficiency of the process is high, while the syngas exit temperature is low. GE-Texaco gasifier is a typical entrained-flow gasification technology. Slurry of atomized coal becomes gasified in-flow with oxygen. High temperatures of this gasifier ensure that methane and tar are not part of the product gas, mostly H 2 and CO. Due to high temperatures, this gasification method requires great deal more oxygen than the other gasifiers. As a result it places more strain on the air separation unit than the other gasification technologies. Fluidized bed gasifier is another technology option for low rank coal. The carbonaceous material is fluidized in this type of reactor. The lower operating temperatures in dry ash gasifiers require that the fuel be highly reactive. 3.2 Water Gas Shift (WGS) The gas shift reaction can be described by: CO + H2O CO2 + H2. (3.4) 5
9 The hydrogen content of the syngas coming from the gasifier must be enhanced before it can be converted into methane. An additional injection of steam into the syngas flow under certain conditions promotes the water-gas shift (WGS) reaction of Equation (3.4). The ideal output of the WGS process is a stoichiometric mixture that can be reformed into methane as completely as possible. Carbon dioxide-with hydrogen-may be reformed into methane, or it may be separated from the syngas and sequestered or used for a different purpose to further improve the stoichiometric ratio. The principle reactants for methanation are carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The WGS reaction is exothermic, generating 42 kj per mole[6]. Le Chatelier s principle or a more explicit equilibrium calculation shows that the WGS reaction proceeds further at relatively low temperatures and is pressure insensitive, i.e. thermodynamic equilibrium favors high conversion of CO and steam to hydrogen and carbon dioxide at low temperatures. However, such low temperatures impede the kinetics of the reaction. The productive use of the WGS process at low temperatures therefore requires catalysts to accelerate the reaction rate to an acceptable throughput. Current implementations of the WGS use two stages with different catalysts[7]. The first shift occurs at relatively high temperature to accelerate the reaction. This High Temperature Shift (HTS) catalyst has conventionally been composed of magnetite (Fe 2 O 3 ) and chromium oxides and operates at C[8]. The syngas flow is then cooled and sent through a Low Temperature Shift (LTS), at C, the catalyst of which may be composed of copper or, for example, the Raney nickel-aluminum alloy. Ultimately, the kinetics of the WGS is the limiting factor, and a compromise must be made between throughput and lowering the reactor temperature to further the shift. Additionally, these conventional catalysts have many downsides: the HTS catalysts may be inactive below a certain temperature, LTS catalysts may degrade at a temperature slightly above their operating range, these catalysts may require complex activation procedures, and they may even be pyrophoric[9]. The Department of Energy has researched other catalysts without such downsides; indeed, progress has been made in developing catalysts that would operate in one stage (at a relatively low temperature)[9]. Such catalysts, possibly composed of platinum/mixed oxides, non-precious metals/mixed oxides, or vanadium-cobalt oxides, have the potential to function with greater activity and can survive exposure to air and a wide temperature range[9]. The improved activity of better catalysts would allow WGS systems to be built smaller and with greater throughput. 3.3 Methanation The methanation reaction can be described by CO + 3H CH + H O (3.5) CO + 4H CH + 2H O (3.6) As the methanation reactions are highly exothermic and pressure-favorable, the methanation reactors are designed running at low temperature and high pressure with catalysts. Three stages of methanation are a conventional design for methanation technology. Figure 3 shows the schematic diagram of the ADAM II methanation process, illustrating the three stages[10]. Three adiabatic methanation reactors, D 201, D 202 and 6
10 D 203 are equipped with fixed catalytic beds. The syngas coming from the WGS unit is preheated to a temperature above the starting temperature of the catalyst. At each methanation reactor outlet, the gas compositions are approximately at chemical equilibrium. Heat is generated during the methanation reactions, so syngas cooling is needed between stages. The typical operating temperatures and compositions at the inlets and outlets of the three stages are shown in Table 1. Figure 3. ADAM II 3-stage methanation process at 45 bar, ºC Table 1. Typical operating conditions and gas compositions in the 3-stage methanation process. 1 st stage 2 nd stage 3 rd stage Product Unit Inlet Outlet Outlet Outlet (dry basis) Gas flow rate m3/h P bar T ºC H2O mol% CH4 mol% CO mol% CO2 mol% H2 mol% N2 mol% An alternative technology for the methanation process is 1-stage methanation with cooling. The temperature and conversion rate for the 3-stage and 1-stage methanation process are compared in Figure 4. 7
11 Figure 4. The gas temperature and methane compositions in 3-stage and 1-stage methanation process at 30 bar 3.4 Hydromethanation (Catalytic steam gasification) The direct method of Coal-to-SNG is a process that performs the same function as the indirect method, except eliminates three of the six steps. With less steps of energy conversion, there is an increase in end-to-end efficiency of producing SNG from the coal. As mentioned previously, the Great Point pilot plant is experimenting with the direct process via hydromethanation. In this process, gasification and methanation occur in the same reactor in the presence of a catalyst[3]. Steam is the only gasification agent used so that gas shift and methanation steps are no longer necessary. The ideal reaction route is: 2C+ 2H O CH + CO (3.7) However with steam, low temperatures greatly limit the rate of reaction. At high temperatures, the thermodynamic environment is not favorable for methane production. The solution; introduce a catalyst to facilitate the reaction. Alkali metals catalyze carbon with steam to form CO and H 2, by so doing, increasing the reaction rate several fold. Selection of catalyst is based on affinity to reacting with coal. KCl and K 2 SO 4, for example, are ineffective despite their belonging to the alkali family[11]. In the processs of gasification, the actual catalyst is not retained in the gasifier but is carried out with the ash. In order for a commercial plant to maximize profits, it is essential that a recycling loop be implemented to recover the catalyst for re-use in the coal gasification process. From end-to-end in hydromethanation, coal is pulverized and mixed with the selected catalyst. Before feeding the impregnated catalyst-coal into the gasifier, it is dried to remove as much moisture from the fuel as possible. Gasifiers are then fed with the feedstock and begin introducing steam into the environment to perform the gasification. Post the hydromethanation process, carbon monoxide and hydrogen must be separated from the methane product. The cryogenic distillation process effectively separates methane from the synthesis gas (a process with an energy penalty lower than the oxygen separation from air in an ASU). 8
12 In all practicality, the use of catalysts in the methanation process enable lower temperature and operating pressures, thereby reducing the mechanical and thermal standards for materials used in the gasifier. 9
13 4 APPROACHES AND BASIC ASSUMPITIONS OF THE STUDY 4.1 Thermodynamic analysis[12] As most of the gasification processes are thermally auto-balanced, the equilibrium states (Temperature, compositions) under adiabatic conditions are calculated. At given constant pressure and initial enthalpy, the equilibrium state is reached when ds 0 at constant ( p, H ) (4.1) Therefore, at equilibrium, when conditions of constant pressure and enthalpy are applied, the total entropy is at maximum. Some of the processes are at specific pressure and temperature, exothermic or endothermic. Constraining the unit to constant T and p, we find that dg = dsg, and at equilibrium under these conditions, the following equation must be satisfied dg 0 at constant ( p, T ) (4.2) Therefore, at equilibrium, the Gibbs free energy must reach a minimum when the state is defined by the pressure and temperature. 4.2 Assumptions Process simplification The traditional coal-to-sng processes are simplified in this study, key components such as gasifier, quenching chamber, WGS reactor, and methanation reactor are modeled using thermodynamic equilibrium methodology. Other components such as ASU, hydrogen separation and AMINE process are simplified based on the second law efficiency or other models in the 2.62 class. A schematic diagram of the traditional methanation and hydromethanation process is shown in Figure 1. The basic assumptions for these processes are listed in Table 2, as well as their operating conditions. Table 2: Unit operation models and operating conditions Process Simplified unit model Temperature (ºC) Pressure (bar) ASU Second law efficiency[13] 20 25/40 Gasifier Equilibrium 450/ /40 Quench/cooling Steam-water phase equilibrium 200/230[11] 1/25/40 Water Gas Shift reactor WGS reaction equilibrium 250/280[2] 25/40 Gas cleaning and CO 2 capture Simplified AMINE process[13] 35 1/25/40 H 2 separation Second law efficiency[13] 35 1/40 Methanation Equilibrium /40 Hydromethanation Equilibrium 450 1/ Coal analysis Different coal types are adopted in the calculation for Lurgi and GE-Texaco gasification process, due to different coal type adaptability in these technologies. The reported proximate and ultimate analyses are given in Table 3, showing high moisture, high volatiles and low heating value for lignite coal than the bituminous coal. 10
14 Table 3: Proximate and ultimate analysis of coal samples Lignite coal #1[11] For Lurgi dry ash case study Approximate analysis (as received) wt% Moisture Ash Fixed Carbon Volatiles Ultimate analysis (dry ash free) wt% Carbon Hydrogen Oxygen Nitrogen Sulfur HHV (MJ/kg) Bituminous coal #2[14] For GE-Texaco case study 11
15 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Parametric studies are carried out to understand the fundamentals of three key processes in indirect methanation: Gasification, WGS and Methanation, as well as the hydromethanation concept. Base on the results for each component through thermodynamic simulation, the efficiency of the traditional and alternative gasification coal-to-sng processes are calculated. Although the hydromethanation process is a new concept (hence very limited design data is available), its efficiency analysis is also achieved with some assumptions and simplifications. 5.1 Parametric studies Gasification process Gasification is such a process that the chemical energy of carbon is used to produce synthetic gas products like CO, H 2 and CH 4. The carbon-steam gasification reactions o C+ H2O CO+ H2 Δ H298 = kJ/mol (5.1) C+ 2H O CO + 2H Δ H =+ 90.1kJ/mol (5.2) o are highly endothermic, so the heat should be supplied through the combustion reactions o C+ O2 CO2 Δ H298 = kj/mol (5.3) 2C+ O 2CO Δ H = kj/mol (5.4) o If all the heat is supplied by direct carbon combustion in the oxygen, rather than by indirect means via electricity or a heat transfer medium, then the carbon-oxygen-steam ratio should be optimized such that the global reaction is thermal self-balanced. The thermodynamic equilibrium temperature and compositions are obtained under adiabatic condition, in which the total enthalpy of products are the same as the feeding stocks (carbon, steam and oxygen at 20 ºC and 25 bar). The map of cold gas efficiency, CH 4 yields, and H 2 /CO ratios at varying O 2 /C and H 2 O/C ratios are calculated, as shown in Figure 5, Figure 6, and Figure 7 respectively. The adiabatic gasification temperature increases with increasing O 2 /C ratio and decreasing H 2 O/C ratio, as shown in Figure 5. Oxygen-carbon reactions are highly exothermic and can supply heat to other gasification reactions or increase the product gas temperature, while the steam-carbon gasification will absorb the heat into chemical energy in syngas. High temperature is favorable to chemical kinetics, so the entrained flow gasification technologies such as GE-Texaco runs at relatively higher O 2 /C ratios and relatively lower H 2 O/C ratios. In contrast, Lurgi dry ash gasification runs at lower O 2 /C ratios and relatively higher H 2 O/C ratios, so the syngas resident time in Lurgi gasifier is much longer. However, the greater oxygen consumption in entrained flow gasifier will require more energy consumption for air separation, and thus lead to higher efficiency penalty. 12
16 O 2 /C ratio E E E E E+02 Texaco 1.2E E E+03 Lurgi T ad ( o C) of product syngas Adiabatic 25 bar H 2 O/C ratio Figure 5. Adiabatic gasification temperature map at varying O 2 /C and H 2 O/C ratios O 2 /C ratio Texaco Lurgi Cold gas efficiency Adiabatic 25 bar H 2 O/C ratio Figure 6. Cold gas efficiency under adiabatic condition varying O 2 /C and H 2 O/C ratios. The cold gas efficiency ( η cg ) is a key factor assessing the energy conversion efficiency in gasification process, which is defined as nh LHV 2 H + n 2 COLHVCO + nch LHV 4 CH4 ηcg = 100% (5.5) LHV coal 13
17 H 2 /CO ratio in syngas Adiabatic bar O 2 /C ratio Texaco Lurgi E E E E E E E E E H 2 O/C ratio Figure 7. H2/CO ratio in syngas under adiabatic condition varying O 2 /C and H 2 O/C ratios. Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the cold gas efficiency and H 2 /CO ratio of syngas at varying O 2 /C and H 2 O/C ratios. η cg is mainly a function of the O 2 /C ratio, while the H 2 /CO ratio is a more determined by the H 2 O/C ratio. 0.5 is the stoichiometric ratio of oxygen-carbon reaction to produce carbon monoxide, smaller O 2 /C ratio will not convert carbon sufficiently, and CO will burn at greater O 2 /C ratios. So η cg reaches the maximum value at this ratio. On the other hand, the water gas shift reaction CO + H O( g) CO + H Δ H = 41.2 kj/mol (5.6) o is nearly thermal-neutral compared with other reactions, so it will convert CO into H2 without changing the η cg much. If the optimized O 2 /C ratio (about 0.5) is chosen, although lower H 2 O/C ratio will slightly increase the η cg, like that of GE-Texaco gasification technology, meanwhile lower O 2 /C ratio and higher H 2 O/C ratio is favorable to produce H 2. Were CH 4 the final product, then low temperature moving-bed gasification technology like Lurgi is favorable in terms of its higher H 2 /CO ratio (about 3-40) in syngas according to the ideal gasifier model. Figure 8 plots the CH 4 mole fractions in syngas at varying O 2 /C and H 2 O/C ratios. Unlike H 2 /CO ratio, the CH 4 mole fraction shows a maximum (about 14%) region around O 2 /C=0.25 and H 2 O/C=1.5. The operating condition of Lurgi dry ash gasification technology used in GPSP is near this region, but with slightly higher O 2 consumption and higher steam injection, as a result, the actual CH 4 mole fraction in Lurgi dry ash gasifier off syngas is about 6% in wet basis, and 11% in dry basis. The higher oxygen and steam ratio design might consider the heat loss and temperature control in the gasifier. Again, as 14
18 CH 4 is the final product, the high steam-carbon ratio low temperature Lurgi gasification will reduce the cost of water gas shift and methanation in the following processes, and might be favorable in terms of economic optimization CH 4 mole fraction in syngas Adiabatic bar 0.7 O 2 /C ratio Texaco Lurgi H 2 O/C ratio Figure 8. Methane mole fraction in syngas under adiabatic condition at varying O 2 /C and H 2 O/C ratios. Mole fraction Mole fraction H2 H2O CO CO2 CH4 N2 H2O(L) C(S) Lurgi dry ash gasification@25 bar GE-Texaco bar T ( o C) Figure 9. Lurgi and GE-Texaco equilibrium compositions at elevated temperatures. Lurgi dry ash gasification and GE-Texaco gasification processes are chosen as typical gasification technologies for coal-to-chemical in this case study. The typical operating 15
19 conditions of these two processes are listed in Table 4, and coal proximate and ultimate analysis data are shown in Table 3. Table 4: Operating condition of typical Lurgi dry ash and GE-Texaco gasifier[2, 11] Characteristic Lurgi Dry Ash GE-Texaco Entrained Flow Pressure, bar Temperature, ºC Combustion zone Gasification zone Gas exit Gas quenching Material input Coal input, kg/s Lignite, Bituminous, Steam/water, kg/s O 2 injection, kg/s Syngas compositions (wt%)* CO CO H H2O CH N2 and other balance balance * Lurgi case is cited from reference [11], GE-Texaco case is from the equilibrium calculation, compositions frozen at 1300 ºC Mole fraction in equilirium products Sulfur occurrence in syngas Lurgi case study H2S S(L) S(S) T ( o C) Figure 10. Sulfur occurrence in Lurgi syngas (equilibrium at elevated temperatures). Given the feeding stocks and operating pressure, the equilibrium compositions of the two gasification technologies are calculated at elevated temperatures shown in Figure 9. At the high gas exit temperature (about 1300 ºC), the composition of GE-Texaco syngas is almost in equilibrium state. But the case of Lurgi syngas is complicated, as the kinetics of different reactions from equation (5.1)-(5.4) and (5.6) are different, the compositions are 16
20 not in equilibrium state at lower gas exit temperatures (about ºC). As have been discussed in the oxygen-steam-carbon feeding ratio parametric study, more H 2 and CH 4 are produced in the Lurgi gasification process, indicating less WGS and Methanation duty in the down flow processes. Sulfur occurrence in the syngas is also plotted in Figure 10, showing the major species is H 2 S at temperatures higher than 400 ºC Water Gas Shift process Water gas shift process is employed in GPSP to partially convert carbon monoxide into hydrogen. It is also widely used in other coal-to-chemical processes required hydrogen production. In the coal-to-sng process, the favorable H 2 /CO ratio is 3:1 to avoid carbon deposition and achieve high conversion ratio in the methanation process. As shown in equation (5.6), the WGS reaction is slightly exothermic, nearly thermalneutral, and pressure-neutral, so given the operating temperature, only the H 2 O/CO ratio is variable to achieve the optimized H 2 /CO ratio objective. Figure 11 shows the CO conversion ratio and H 2 /CO ratio in product gas as function of feeding H 2 O/CO ratios given the upstream GE-Texaco syngas. The optimized steam/carbon monoxide ratio is 0.62, at which 57% of carbon monoxide will be converted to hydrogen Water Gas Shift Parametric Study Syngas from GE-Texaco gasifier Conversion ratio Conversion ratio H2/CO H2O/CO H2/CO ratio Figure 11. CO Conversion ratio in the WGS reactor at varying H 2 O/CO ratios (GE-Texaco syngas, 280 ºC, 40 bar). 17
21 1.00 Carbon Conversion Ratio Methanation process H 2 /CO=3, varying T and P Temperature ( o C) Figure 12. Conversion ratio of CO in the methanation process at varying T and P. (Initial H 2 /CO=3:1, at varying pressures and temperatures) Methanation process The compositions of feeding stream to methanation reactor are mainly CO, H 2 and CH 4, after removing all the CO 2, H 2 S and other impurities. From the methanation reactions CO + 3 H CH + H O( g) Δ H = 210 kj/mol (5.7) o CO + 4H CH + 2 H O( g) Δ H = kj/mol (5.8) o We know these reactions are highly exothermic, pressure-favorable. So low temperature and high pressure will facilitate the methanation reactions. Figure 12 shows the carbon monoxide conversion ratio in methanation at varying pressures and temperatures. The carbon monoxide conversion ratio increases with increasing pressure and decreasing temperature as predicted. At atmospheric pressure, the conversion ratio increases from ~90% to 99% with temperature decreasing from 400 to 200 ºC. However, at elevated pressure such as 20 bar and 40 bar, the temperature is not so sensitive, only 2 percentages change within the same temperature range Hydromethanation (Catalytic steam gasification) process 18
22 0.6 H2 CO CH4 C(S) H2O CO2 CH3OH Hydromethanation C/H 2 O=1:1, 1 bar 0.4 Mole fraction T ( o C) Figure 13. Equilibrium compositions of hydromethanation at elevated temperatures. Traditional coal-to-sng process has been demonstrated to be feasible in synthetic fuel production, however it involves a serial of separated reactors and processes. An integrated hydromethanation concept is raised based on the gasification, WGS and methanation reactions in equation (5.1), (5.6) and (5.7). Add these reactions one obtains C+ H O 0.5CH + 0.5CO Δ H =+ 7.7 kj/mol (5.9) o which is slightly endothermic, and more endothermic if written in terms of coal[11] CH H O 0.41CO CH Δ H = kj/mol (5.10) o The equilibrium compositions of hydromethanation at atmospheric pressure are plotted in Figure 13 as function of temperatures. The steam to carbon ratio is in stoichiometric 1:1 in this case study. CH 4 and CO 2 are main compositions at temperature lower than 300 ºC, although this temperature is low in terms of reaction kinetics, the H 2 yield will increase with increasing temperatures, which is not favorable to produce CH 4 as the final product. Moreover, the input heat required thermodynamically increases with increasing temperatures as well as shown in Figure 14. So the operating condition should be maintained at lower temperature. Two measures can be implemented to increase the CH 4 yield: by using catalytic and elevating the system pressure. Figure 15 shows the CH 4 yield in the equilibrium state at elevated pressures. Higher pressure converts H 2 to produce more CH 4. A problem for the hydromethanation is low carbon conversion ratio. Figure 16 shows the total carbon conversion ratio in hydromethanation at elevated pressures. It remains about 40% at any pressure in the feasible temperature range for CH 4 production. The features of hydromethanation such as low temperature, high pressure, and low 19
23 carbon conversion ratio determines that it is not feasible for entrained flow reactor, but other reactors in which the solid carbon and catalytic can be recirculated, or excessive steam can be used. Fluidized bed is one of the options for these characteristics. Heat needed (kj/kg Carbon) Hydromethanation C/H 2 O=1:1, 1 bar T ( o C) Figure 14. Energy input required for hydromethanation process at elevated temperatures Hydromethanation C/H 2 O=1:1, varying pressures CH 4 mole fraction CH H 2 mole fraction H T ( o C) Figure 15. CH 4 mole fraction in hydromethanation products at varying pressures and temperatures. 20
24 1.0 Carbon conversion ratio Operating pressure (bar) Hydromethanation C/H 2 O=1:1, varying pressures T ( o C) Figure 16. Carbon conversion ratio in hydromethanation process at varying pressures and temperatures. 5.2 Efficiency analysis To determine the overall efficiency of each methanation system design, we must first define an appropriate measure of efficiency. The yield of such a process is of prime concern, but do we define yield as the mass of product gas per mass of coal processed or do we examine the heating value of product gas compared with the heating value of coal to determine an efficiency of chemical energy conversion? Both measures of efficiency have merit: the mass yield can be easily considered in economic terms and the conversion efficiency may be compared with the efficiencies of other refining and energy production processes. The cold gas efficiency of equation (5.5), illustrating the conversion efficiency of chemical energy of coal into methane, must be altered to account for any enthalpy inputs into the system, for example heat for the hydromethanation reactor for this inherently endothermic direct conversion to occur. The altered efficiency used is, η alt n HHV + n HHV = HHV + h CO CO CH4 CH4 coal processing (5.11) where we include the heating value of hydrogen gas produced in hydromethanation separately, for it is removed from the product stream and is a by-product (the small fraction of CO is allowed to remain in the synthetic natural gas). The enthalpy of processing, h processing, is the additional energy required in the system for processing which is not provided by the exothermic reactions of conversion. 21
25 Table 5: Syngas composition at process exit (with Lurgi Dry Ash gasification) Gasifier exit Quenching WGS Cooling AGR Methanation Condensation T, ºC Pressure, bar Mole fraction H2O H CO CO CH N H2S Table 6: Syngas composition at process exit (with GE-Texaco gasification) Gasifier exit Quenching WGS Cooling AGR Methanation Condensation T, ºC Pressure, bar Mole fraction H2O H CO CO CH4 9.3E E E E N H2S This enthalpy is potentially a summation of many elements inside a methanation plant. Here, we will examine the effects of the Air Separation Unit (ASU), the hydrogen gas separation required in the hydromethanation process, hydrogen sulfide separation (required when using coal as a feedstock), and CO 2 capture. The first two will be estimated using fundamental thermodynamic principles, while the thermodynamics of CO 2 and H 2 S capture will examined by implementing a unique absorption/desorption process. The energies for separation of oxygen, hydrogen, and hydrogen sulfide are estimated using the isentropic enthalpy of gas separation and estimations of second law efficiencies for real separator systems. The work necessary for separation of one component from the others in such a model is given by the equation, w RT p p = χ ln χ + ( 1 χ ) ln ( 1 χ ) sep a a a a ηsecond law pa2 p2 (5.12) 22
26 where X a is the molar fraction of the component to be separated, P a2 is pressure of separated stream, and P 1 and P 2 are the pressure of the main stream before and after separation, respectively. The efficiencies of separation will be estimated as 0.15 for oxygen[13] and 0.3 for hydrogen the low molecular weight of hydrogen gas relative to the other components aids considerably in separation. The enthalpy required to operate the CO 2 and H 2 S capture system used in this analysis is heat energy (unlike for the other separators, for which we assume they are powered by another form of energy, e.g. electricity or shaft work). The input of heat to capture CO 2 and H 2 S works in the following way[13]: the gas stream enters an absorber chamber at low temperature into which a spray of water and amine (NH 2 -CH 2 -CH 2 -OH) is injected. Two moles of amine reacts and bonds with each mole of CO 2 captured. The water and amine solution does not evaporate and instead leaves the absorber rich in CO 2. It is then heated in a desorber chamber to 130 C to break the CO 2 -amine bonds. Additionally 1 mole of water evaporates for each mole of CO 2 captured. As the CO 2 leaves the desorber in gas form, the water and amine solution can be cooled and returned to the absorber. The rather considerable energy necessary to break the CO 2 -amine bonds and to evaporate a large mass of water, however, can be regenerated from cooling processes needed between processing operations according to our analysis. See Table 2 for temperatures of individual processing steps. Heat balance (kj/mole carbon in coal) ASU Lurgi GE-Texaco Gasification WGS Quenching AGR Syngas cooling Methanation Condensation Figure 17: Heat balance in each component of the Coal-to-SNG process 23
27 Energy conversion efficiency Original coal and power for ASU Gasification WGS Methanation Lurgi GE-Texaco Figure 18: Energy conversion efficiency in Lurgi and GE-Texaco Coal-to-SNG process Base case study: GPSP process with Lurgi gasifier The GPSP process, with the Lurgi gasifier, is capable of converting 45% of the carbon in lignite feedstock into methane as shown in Table 7. The only external energy needed to operate the process in our simplified model is for the ASU, which demands 0.26 MJ/kg lignite coal. The chemical energy of lignite was converted to the energy in methane at an efficiency of 0.67, considering the energy demands of the ASU Efficiency analysis implementing alternative gasifier The GE-Texaco entrained gasifier operates with a higher quality bituminous coal (Illinois # 6 in this study). GE-Texaco gasifier has a higher O 2 /Carbon ratio for high operating temperature and high coal throughout capability, however the higher temperature achieved in the gasifier occurs through a greater extent of combustion and conversion of carbon into CO 2. Only 33% of the carbon in the coal is therefore converted into methane. The greater oxygen requirements in this gasifier also demand more energy input for the ASU, 1.06 MJ/kg bituminous coal as shown by the External Energy Input in Table 7. The chemical conversion efficiency is, therefore, lower, at The higher mass yield of methane per kilogram coal, also shown in the table, only illustrates the higher carbon content of the feedstock. The heat balance of each component in the traditional methanation processes are shown in Figure 17 (positive means energy input, negative means heat output). Energy are required in ASU and AGR (Acid Gas Removal) units, while release in gasification, quenching, syngas cooling, methanation and condensation units. The WGS unit are close to thermal-neutral. GE-Texaco gasification consumes more oxygen, which leads to a 24
28 larger ASU, higher exothermic degree in gasification and quenching. Also because the syngas contains less H 2 and less CH 4, larger WGS and Methanation units are required, which all lead to energy penalty to the Coal-to-SNG process. The overall energy conversion efficiency through the whole Coal-to-SNG process descends because of heat loss or energy consumption. Figure 18 illustrates the chemical energy conversion efficiency (the chemical energy in syngas over total chemical energy in gasifier inlet, i.e, in coal, steam and power for ASU). Gasification and Methanation are the major components consuming chemical energy. However, exhausted heat shown in Figure 17 can be optimized and recovered, to supply heat for AGR process, or for power generation Efficiency analysis implementing hydromethanation technology Opposed to the indirect methanation techniques of gasification, water gas shift, and methanation, hydromethanation is fundamentally an endothermic process and therefore requires an external source of energy in the form of heat for the reaction to proceed. This energy input is the sole component of h processing, and is considered at 100% efficiency. Energy Conversion Efficiency H2 CH Lurgi GE-Texaco HM 1 bar HM 40 bar Process Figure 19: Comparison of energy conversion efficiency among different Coal-to-SNG processes. As discussed above, the carbon conversion ratio is only about 50% in hydromethanation process within one throughput. In this efficiency analysis, we assume the unconverted carbon will be recirculated and reused until the carbon conversion is 100%. The CH 4 yield is slightly positively correlated with pressure, which is illustrated in Table 7. However, the product gas composition is enriched with CO at higher pressures (0.6% and 2.2% CO at 1 bar and 40 bar, respectively). The appropriateness for operating at high pressures will depend on the desired specifications of the product gas. 25
29 Table 7: Comparison of efficiencies Process CH 4 yield Chemical energy External conversion efficiency energy input [kg/kg Coal] [mol/mol C] [MJ/kg Coal] GPSP/Lurgi Plant GE-Texaco gasifier Hydromethanation (1 bar) Hydromethanation (40 bar) Hydrogen is produced in the hydromethanation process, it can be recirculated into the hydromethanation reactor to produce CH 4, or separated as a by-product. The latter is chosen as an option in this study to avoid the analysis of recirculation. The overall energy conversion efficiency of indirect and direct methanation processes are shown in Figure 19, hydromethanation processes are higher than the indirect methanation processes, at about 70%, close to the results given by Chandel et. al[3]. Although the pressure doesn t affect the efficiency much, it may beneficial to chemical kinetics and the coal handling capacity. Energy conversion efficiency for indirect methanation implementing Lurgi gasification technology and GE-Texaco gasification technology are 67% and 57% respectively, which shows that the low oxygen consumption, low temperature, moving-bed gasification technology is more favorable in terms of energy conversion efficiency. The efficiency is also close to that given by Gray et. al[15]. The gap between these two gasification technologies might be close after optimizing the heat management. Many other considerations should be taken into account besides the energy efficiency, for instance, the waste water disposal, capacity optimization, and so on. More detail studies are needed in order to optimize the overall efficiency of the Coal-to-SNG process. 26
30 6. CONCLUSIONS The fundamentals, research and development status of Coal-to-SNG processes are reviewed followed by thermodynamic analysis in this study. Oxygen-steam-carbon constraint under adiabatic condition is investigated, and results show the practical constraint for syngas production. Optimized oxygen-steam-carbon ratios are different for different final products, efficiency, operating conditions and product compositions should be considered comprehensively. For Coal-to-SNG production, the O 2 /Carbon ratio ~ and H 2 O/Carbon ratio ~1.5-2 are favorable to produce a CH 4 -rich syngas with high H 2 /CO ratio at higher energy conversion efficiency. The optimized steam/co ratio is investigated for WGS reaction given the syngas compositions. The optimized steam/carbon monoxide ratio is 0.62 for methane production using GE-Texaco gasifier. High pressure is favorable for methanation reactions, the carbon monoxide conversion ratio increases from 97% to 99% as pressure increase from 1 to 10 bar at 300 ºC. Pressure doesn t change the compositions much for hydromethanation process, while lower temperature ( ºC) is favorable for CH4 yield within acceptable energy conversion ratio. Catalysts are the most critical technique in this reaction route. The analysis of the simplified models illustrates that coal methanation is practical thermodynamically. Two alternative gasification technologies are compared for the Coalto-SNG processes. The Great Plains method with Lurgi dry ash gasifier recovers 67% efficient at converting coal into methane, comparing with 57% with GE-Texaco gasificaiton. The Lurgi gasifier operates with lower quality coal than the GE-Texaco gasifier and combusts less of that coal for syngas production. Additionally, the ASU needed for the Lurgi gasifier also consumes much less energy than for the oxygen-rich GE-Texaco gasifier. The relatively higher efficiency of hydromethanation (about 70%) indicates that this technique has potential to supplement or supplant the Great Plains model, especially when considering the simpler plant design (shown in Figure 1). Ultimately, the kinetics of the three plant designs will also be of importance when analyzing the efficiency and practicality of the conversion processes. The long residence time for coal in the Lurgi reactor is an economic penalty, for it requires a larger reactor for a certain throughput. The infancy of the hydromethanation industry suggests that catalysts have yet to be developed or commercialized. Future coal methanation analyses will wish to examine in further detail the design of heater exchangers for the regeneration of heat to operate the amine scrubbing operation. 27
Carbon To X. Processes
World CTX Carbon To X Processes Processes and Commercial Operations World CTX: let s Optimize the Use of Carbon Resource Carbon To X Processes Carbon To X technologies are operated in more than 50 plants
More informationCustomizing Syngas Specifications with E-Gas Technology Gasifier
Customizing Syngas Specifications with E-Gas Technology Gasifier Arnold Keller, David Breton, Chancelor Williams and Graham Poulter, ConocoPhillips, Houston, Texas Gasification Technology Conference San
More informationAuthor: Andrea Milioni Chemical Engineer On Contract Cooperator University UCBM Rome (Italy)
Gasification Process Author: Andrea Milioni Chemical Engineer On Contract Cooperator University UCBM Rome (Italy) 1. Theme description The gasification process is the thermochemical conversion of a carbonaceous
More informationPRODUCTION OF SYNGAS BY METHANE AND COAL CO-CONVERSION IN FLUIDIZED BED REACTOR
PRODUCTION OF SYNGAS BY METHANE AND COAL CO-CONVERSION IN FLUIDIZED BED REACTOR Jinhu Wu, Yitain Fang, Yang Wang Institute of Coal Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences P. O. Box 165, Taiyuan, 030001,
More informationAnalysis of Exergy and Energy of Gasifier Systems for Coal-to-Fuel
Analysis of Exergy and Energy of Gasifier Systems for Coal-to-Fuel 1 Nishant Sharma, 2 Bhupendra Gupta, 3 Ranjeet Pratap Singh Chauhan 1 Govt Engg College Jabalpur 2 GEC College Gwalior 3 Department of
More informationQuestions. Downdraft biomass gasifier. Air. Air. Blower. Air. Syngas line Filter VFD. Gas analyzer(s) (vent)
Question 1 Questions Biomass gasification is a process where organic matter liberates flammable gases such as hydrogen (H 2 ) and carbon monoxide (CO) when heated to high temperatures. A gasifier is a
More informationMSW Processing- Gasifier Section
MSW Processing- Gasifier Section Chosen Flowsheet MSW Gasifier SynGas H2S/Solids Water wash Clean Syngas CO Conversion Shifted SynGas CO2 Separation CO 2 Urea H 2 O 2 Urea Plant Air Air Separation N 2
More informationPre-Combustion Technology for Coal-fired Power Plants
Pre-Combustion Technology for Coal-fired Power Plants Thomas F. Edgar University of Texas-Austin IEAGHG International CCS Summer School July, 2014 1 Introduction 2 CO 2 Absorption/Stripping of Power Plant
More informationPROCESS SIMULATION OF A ENTRAINED FLUIDIZED BED BIOMASS GASIFICATION USING ASPEN PLUS
PROCESS SIMULATION OF A ENTRAINED FLUIDIZED BED BIOMASS GASIFICATION USING ASPEN PLUS S.Ilaiah 1, D.Veerabhadra Sasikanth 2, B.Satyavathi 3 1 University College of Technology, Osmania University, Hyderabad,(India)
More informationDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Cagliari Piazza d Armi, Cagliari, Italia
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Cagliari Piazza d Armi, 09123 Cagliari, Italia CCT 2009 Fourth International Conference on Clean Coal Technologies for Our Future 18/21 May 2009 Dresden
More informationIntegration study for alternative methanation technologies for the production of synthetic natural gas from gasified biomass
Integration study for alternative methanation technologies for the production of synthetic natural gas from gasified biomass Stefan Heyne*, Martin C. Seemann, Simon Harvey Department of Energy and Environment,
More informationProcess Economics Program
IHS Chemical Process Economics Program Report 148C Synthesis Gas Production from Coal and Petroleum Coke Gasification By Jamie Lacson IHS Chemical agrees to assign professionally qualified personnel to
More informationChapter 13. Thermal Conversion Technologies. Fundamentals of Thermal Processing
Chapter 13 Thermal Conversion Technologies Fundamentals of Thermal Processing Thermal processing is the conversion of solid wastes into gaseous, liquid and solid conversion products with the concurrent
More informationEVALUATION OF AN INTEGRATED BIOMASS GASIFICATION/FUEL CELL POWER PLANT
EVALUATION OF AN INTEGRATED BIOMASS GASIFICATION/FUEL CELL POWER PLANT JEROD SMEENK 1, GEORGE STEINFELD 2, ROBERT C. BROWN 1, ERIC SIMPKINS 2, AND M. ROBERT DAWSON 1 1 Center for Coal and the Environment
More informationGreen is Seen in Fertilizers Municipal Solid Waste Management. Carrie Farberow Kevin Bailey University of Oklahoma May 1, 2007
Green is Seen in Fertilizers Municipal Solid Waste Management Carrie Farberow Kevin Bailey University of Oklahoma May 1, 007 MSW Overview EPA 005 Facts and Figures U.S. Waste Produced = 45.7 million ton
More information1. Process Description:
1. Process Description: The coal is converted to Raw Syngas in the Gasification Section. The Raw Syngas produced out of the Gasifier would be shifted (water gas shift) to adjust required H2/CO ratio and
More informationThe Production of Syngas Via High Temperature Electrolysis and Biomass Gasification
INL/CON-08-14673 PREPRINT The Production of Syngas Via High Temperature Electrolysis and Biomass Gasification 2008 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition M. G. McKellar G. L.
More informationGasification & Water Nexus
Gasification & Water Nexus GTC Workshop on Gasification Technologies Denver, Colorado March 14, 2007 Richard D. Boardman, Ph.D. INL R&D Lead for Gasification & Alternative Fuels (208) 526-3083; Richard.Boardman@inl.gov
More informationGATE Solution 2000 to 2015 GATE SOLUTION to Detailed solution of each question CHEMICAL ENGINEERING GATE SOLUTION
SAMPLE STUDY MATERIAL GATE SOLUTION 000 to 015 Detailed solution of each question CHEMICAL ENGINEERING GATE SOLUTION Subject-wise reducing year CONTENTS GATE Solution 1. Process Calculations 1-19. Thermodynamics
More informationProduction of synthesis gas from liquid or gaseous hydrocarbons, and the synthesis gas per se, are covered by group C01B 3/00.
C10J PRODUCTION OF PRODUCER GAS, WATER-GAS, SYNTHESIS GAS FROM SOLID CARBONACEOUS MATERIAL, OR MIXTURES CONTAINING THESE GASES (synthesis gas from liquid or gaseous hydrocarbons C01B; underground gasification
More informationLecture 4. Ammonia: Production and Storage - Part 1
Lecture 4 Ammonia: Production and Storage - Part 1 Ammonia or azane is a compound of nitrogen and hydrogen with the formula NH 3. It is a colourless gas with a characteristic pungent smell. Ammonia contributes
More informationADVANCES in NATURAL and APPLIED SCIENCES
ADVANCES in NATURAL and APPLIED SCIENCES ISSN: 1995-772 Published BY AENSI Publication EISSN: 1998-19 http://www.aensiweb.com/anas 216 April 1(4): pages 472-477 Open Access Journal Kinetic Modeling of
More informationAvailable online at Energy Procedia 1 (2009) (2008) GHGT-9. Sandra Heimel a *, Cliff Lowe a
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Energy Procedia 1 (2009) (2008) 4039 4046 000 000 Energy Procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/xxx GHGT-9 Technology Comparison of
More informationWRI S PRE GASIFICATION TREATMENT OF PRB COALS FOR IMPROVED ADVANCED CLEAN COAL GASIFIER DESIGN
WRI S PRE GASIFICATION TREATMENT OF PRB COALS FOR IMPROVED ADVANCED CLEAN COAL GASIFIER DESIGN SER Contract No. WY49975WRI Dr. Al Bland Western Research Institute FINAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT WRI S PRE
More informationCo-Production of Fuel Alcohols & Electricity via Refinery Coke Gasification Ravi Ravikumar & Paul Shepard
Co-Production of Fuel Alcohols & Electricity via Refinery Coke Gasification Ravi Ravikumar & Paul Shepard October 15, 2003 Gasification Technologies 2003 Conference San Francisco, CA Study Objectives Evaluate
More informationMethanol Production by Gasification of Heavy Residues
Methanol Production by Gasification of Heavy Residues by C. A. A. Higman Presented at the IChemE Conference "Gasification: An Alternative to Natural Gas" London, 22-23 23 November, 1995 Methanol Production
More informationSteam Gasification of Low Rank Fuel Biomass, Coal, and Sludge Mixture in A Small Scale Fluidized Bed
Steam Gasification of Low Rank Fuel Biomass, Coal, and Sludge Mixture in A Small Scale Fluidized Bed K.H. Ji 1, B.H. Song *1, Y.J. Kim 1, B.S. Kim 1, W. Yang 2, Y.T. Choi 2, S.D. Kim 3 1 Department of
More informationSustainable Energy Mod.1: Fuel Cells & Distributed Generation Systems
Sustainable Energy Mod.1: Fuel Cells & Distributed Generation Systems Dr. Ing. Mario L. Ferrari Thermochemical Power Group (TPG) - DiMSET University of Genoa, Italy : fuel cell systems (fuel processing)
More informationCALCIUM LOOPING PROCESS FOR CLEAN FOSSIL FUEL CONVERSION. Shwetha Ramkumar, Robert M. Statnick, Liang-Shih Fan. Daniel P. Connell
CALCIUM LOOPING PROCESS FOR CLEAN FOSSIL FUEL CONVERSION Shwetha Ramkumar, Robert M. Statnick, Liang-Shih Fan William G. Lowrie Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering The Ohio State University
More informationFocus on Gasification in the Western U.S.
Focus on Gasification in the Western U.S. GTC Workshop on Gasification Technologies Denver, Colorado March 14, 2007 Richard D. Boardman, Ph.D. INL R&D Lead for Gasification & Alternative Fuels (208) 526-3083;
More informationMETHANOL CONVERTER AND SYNLOOP DESIGNS FOR GASIFICATION PLANTS
METHANOL CONVERTER AND SYNLOOP DESIGNS FOR GASIFICATION PLANTS By E. Filippi, M. Badano METHANOL CASALE S.A. Lugano, Switzerland For presentation at the 2007 WORLD METHANOL CONFERENCE November 27-29 2007,
More informationSYNGAS-FIRED ALLAM CYCLE PROJECT UPDATE
Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) SYNGAS-FIRED ALLAM CYCLE PROJECT UPDATE Presented at the Global Syngas Technologies Conference October 28 30, 2018 Joshua J. Stanislowski and Jason D. Laumb
More informationWarm Syngas Clean-up Processes Applied in Synthetic Natural Gas (SNG) Production with Coal and Biomass
469 A publication of CHEMICAL ENGINEERING TRANSACTIONS VOL. 52, 2016 Guest Editors: Petar Sabev Varbanov, Peng-Yen Liew, Jun-Yow Yong, Jiří Jaromír Klemeš, Hon Loong Lam Copyright 2016, AIDIC Servizi S.r.l.,
More informationPilot Scale Production of Mixed Alcohols from Wood. Supplementary Information
Pilot Scale Production of Mixed Alcohols from Wood Supplementary Information Richard L. Bain, Kimberly A. Magrini-Bair, Jesse E. Hensley *, Whitney S. Jablonski, Kristin M. Smith, Katherine R. Gaston,
More informationPathways & industrial approaches for utilization of CO 2
Pathways & industrial approaches for utilization of CO 2 - by Dr. S. Sakthivel Background: CO 2 is a greenhouse gas and to reduce greenhouse effect, the CO 2 emissions need to be controlled. Large scale
More informationDrying, devolatilization & char oxidation of solid fuel
Drying, devolatilization & char oxidation of solid fuel Oskar Karlström Dr. Sc. Åbo Akademi 2017: Chemistry in Combustion Processes Solid fuel combustion Solid fuel combustion fuel In pulverized fuel combustion,
More informationProduction of Electric Power and Chemicals in a Carbon Constrained Environment
Production of Electric Power and Chemicals in a Carbon Constrained Environment Guido Collodi, Luca Mancuso, Federico Fazi Foster Wheeler Italiana SpA Via Caboto 1, 20094 Corsico Milan - Italy The Chemical
More informationEnergy Procedia
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Energy Procedia 4 (2011) 1066 1073 Energy Procedia 00 (2010) 000 000 Energy Procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/xxx GHGT-10 Development
More informationAPPLICATION OF BGL GASIFICATION OF SOLID HYDROCARBONS FOR IGCC POWER GENERATION
APPLICATION OF BGL GASIFICATION OF SOLID HYDROCARBONS FOR IGCC POWER GENERATION 2000 Gasification Technologies Conference San Francisco, California October 8-11, 2000 Presented by: GLOBAL ENERGY INC. Richard
More informationProcess Optimization of Hydrogen Production from Coal Gasification
Process Optimization of Hydrogen Production from Coal Gasification E. Biagini 1, G. Pannocchia 2, M. Zanobini 2, G. Gigliucci 3, I. Riccardi 3, F. Donatini 3, L. Tognotti 2 1. Consorzio Pisa Ricerche Divisione
More informationTesting and Feasibility Study of an Indirectly Heated Fluidized-Bed Coal Gasifier
Testing and Feasibility Study of an Indirectly Heated Fluidized-Bed Coal Gasifier Benjamin D. Phillips Clean Coal Conference Laramie, Wyoming August 20, 20141 Project Sponsor: Project Participants: 2 Emery
More informationAn Opportunity for Methanol; the Production Starting from Coal
An Opportunity for Methanol; the Production Starting from Coal by Luigi Bressan and Luca Mancuso Foster Wheeler Italiana and Ermanno Filippi, Methanol Casale S.A. presented at the 2008 WORLD METHANOL CONFERENCE
More informationBiomethane production via anaerobic digestion and biomass gasification
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Energy Procedia 105 (2017 ) 1172 1177 The 8 th International Conference on Applied Energy ICAE2016 Biomethane production via anaerobic digestion
More informationCO 2 capture processes: Novel approach to benchmarking and evaluation of improvement potentials
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Energy Procedia 37 (2013 ) 2536 2543 GHGT-11 CO 2 capture processes: Novel approach to benchmarking and evaluation of improvement potentials Rahul Anantharaman
More informationNuclear Hydrogen for Production of Liquid Hydrocarbon Transport Fuels
Nuclear Hydrogen for Production of Liquid Hydrocarbon Transport Fuels Charles W. Forsberg Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831 Email: forsbergcw@ornl.gov Abstract Liquid fuels (gasoline,
More informationParametric Exergy Analysis of Coal Gasifier and Gas Turbine Combustion Chamber with Emission Study
T. Srinivas, A.V.S.S.K.S. Gupta, B.V. Reddy / International Energy Journal 9 (28) 33-4 33 Parametric Exergy Analysis of Coal Gasifier and Gas Turbine Combustion Chamber with Emission Study www.serd.ait.ac.th/reric
More informationNON THERMAL PLASMA CONVERSION OF PYROGAS INTO SYNTHESIS GAS
NON THERMAL PLASMA CONVERSION OF PYROGAS INTO SYNTHESIS GAS Fela Odeyemi, Alexander Rabinovich, and Alexander Fridman Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics Department, Drexel University, Philadelphia PA
More informationSynthesis Gas Processes for Synfuels Production
Synthesis Gas Processes for Synfuels Production Christopher Higman presented at EUROGAS '90 Trondheim, June 1990 Abstract Synthesis Gas Processes for Synfuels Production Christopher Higman Synthetic fuels
More informationNitrogen oxide chemistry in combustion processes. Based on material originally by Prof. Mikko Hupa
Nitrogen oxide chemistry in combustion processes Based on material originally by Prof. Mikko Hupa Background - NOx Nitrogen oxides, NO X = NO + NO 2 In combustion flue gases >95% NO and
More informationCEMENT PLANT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY FOR ACHIEVING HIGH SO 2 REMOVAL
CEMENT PLANT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY FOR ACHIEVING HIGH SO 2 REMOVAL Sara Safariyeganeh sara.safariyeganeh@mecsglobal.com Cary Joe Lovett, PE joe.lovett@holcim.com Abstract - The EPA has adopted revised
More informationNew Power Plant Concept for Moist Fuels, IVOSDIG
ES THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS 91-GT-293 345 E. 47 St., New York, N.Y. 10017 The Society shall not be responsible for statements or opinions advanced in papers or in discussion at meetings
More informationOptimisation of hydrogen production with CO 2 capture by methane. steam reforming integrated with a chemical-looping combustion.
Optimisation of hydrogen production with CO 2 capture by methane steam reforming integrated with a chemical-looping combustion system Miguel A. Pans, Alberto Abad*, Luis. de Diego, rancisco García-Labiano,
More informationMk Plus The Next Generation Lurgi FBDB Gasification. Leipzig, 22/05/2012 Dr. Henrik Timmermann
Mk Plus The Next Generation Lurgi FBDB Gasification Leipzig, 22/05/2012 Dr. Henrik Timmermann Outline Air Liquide E&C Perspective Next Generation Lurgi FBDB TM Gasification Lurgi FBDB Clean Conversion
More informationDevelopment status of the EAGLE Gasification Pilot Plant
Development status of the EAGLE Gasification Pilot Plant Gasification Technologies 2002 San Francisco, California, USA October 27-30, 2002 Masaki Tajima Energy and Environment Technology Development Dept.
More informationThe Novel Design of an IGCC System with Zero Carbon Emissions
1621 A publication of CHEMICAL ENGINEERING TRANSACTIONS VOL. 61, 2017 Guest Editors: Petar S Varbanov, Rongxin Su, Hon Loong Lam, Xia Liu, Jiří J Klemeš Copyright 2017, AIDIC Servizi S.r.l. ISBN 978-88-95608-51-8;
More informationDETERMINATION OF AIR/FUEL AND STEAM/FUEL RATIO FOR COAL GASIFICATION PROCESS TO PRODUCE SYNTHESIS GAS
DETERMINATION OF AIR/FUEL AND STEAM/FUEL RATIO FOR COAL GASIFICATION PROCESS TO PRODUCE SYNTHESIS GAS Afşin Güngör, Murat Özbayoğlu, Coşku Kasnakoğlu 3, Atilla Bıyıkoğlu 4, B. Zühtü Uysal 5 Dept. of Mechanical
More informationGasification: A Key Technology Platform for Western Canada s Coal and Oil Sands Industries
Gasification: A Key Technology Platform for Western Canada s Coal and Oil Sands Industries Twenty-Fifth Annual International Pittsburgh Coal Conference Westin Conference Center September 20 October 2,
More informationGTL. and Edited and Revised 2016 by H M Fahmy
GTL Taken Partly from the Internet and Edited and Revised 2016 by H M Fahmy STEPS TO GET OIL FROM SEA OR EARTH SEISMIC SHOOTING SEISMIC INTERPRETATION ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES PREPARATION OF RIG DRILLING OIL
More informationThermodynamic performance of IGCC with oxycombustion
Thermodynamic performance of IGCC with oxycombustion CO 2 capture G.Lozza, M. Romano, A. Giuffrida Dip. Energia, Politecnico di Milano, Italy Purpose of the study CO 2 capture from coal power plant. Configurations
More informationImproved solutions for solid waste to energy conversion
Improved solutions for solid waste to energy conversion C. Marculescu * Polytechnic University Bucharest, Romania * Corresponding author. Tel: +40745133713, Fax: +40214029675, E-mail: cosminmarcul@yahoo.co.uk
More informationThe comparison study on the operating condition of gasification power plant with various feedstocks
Korean J. Chem. Eng., 26(2), 324-331 (2009) SHORT COMMUNICATION The comparison study on the operating condition of gasification power plant with various feedstocks Hyun-Min Shim, Su-Yong Jung, Hong Yue
More informationSYNERGI MELLEM BIOGAS- OPGRADERING OG SOEC
SYNERGI MELLEM BIOGAS- OPGRADERING OG SOEC Christian Dannesboe Center for Biorefinery Technologies AU BIOGAS PLANT FOULUM Biogas produced from manure Production of 100 Nm3/h Biogas is 40% CO 2. (Only 60%
More informationAdvanced integrated gasification combined cycle (A-IGCC) by exergy recuperation technical challenges for future generations
Open Access Journal Journal of Power Technologies 92 (2) (2012) 90 100 journal homepage:papers.itc.pw.edu.pl Advanced integrated gasification combined cycle (A-IGCC) by exergy recuperation technical challenges
More informationFlowsheet Modelling of Biomass Steam Gasification System with CO 2 Capture for Hydrogen Production
ISBN 978-967-5770-06-7 Proceedings of International Conference on Advances in Renewable Energy Technologies (ICARET 2010) 6-7 July 2010, Putrajaya, Malaysia ICARET2010-035 Flowsheet Modelling of Biomass
More informationPRECOMBUSTION TECHNOLOGY for Coal Fired Power Plant
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme 2013 Summer School. Nottingham, UK PRECOMBUSTION TECHNOLOGY for Coal Fired Power Plant MONICA LUPION Visiting Research Scientist MIT Energy Initiative MITEI's Research
More informationTable 1: BOIG-MeOH process specification in Aspen simulation...2. Table 2: Technology developers and capacities of the major process units...
Table 1: BOIG-MeOH process specification in Aspen simulation....2 Table 2: Technology developers and capacities of the major process units...3 Table 3: Validation of gasification model based on the proximate
More informationMethanol Production via Indirect Gasification of Switchgrass
Final Design Project CHEMICAL ENGINEERING 160 11 April 2012 Methanol Production via Indirect Gasification of Switchgrass Nick Nikbakht 1, Arjan Puniani 2, and Xiangbo Liang 3 Department of Chemical Engineering,
More informationFlexible Integration of the sco 2 Allam Cycle with Coal Gasification for Low-Cost, Emission-Free Electricity Generation
GTC 2014 28 October 2014 1 Allam Cycle Flexible Integration of the sco 2 Allam Cycle with Coal Gasification for Low-Cost, Emission-Free Electricity Generation GTC 2014 Dr. Xijia Lu, 8 Rivers Capital GTC
More informationC R. ombustion esources, Inc. Evaluation of Stratean Inc. Gasifier System. 18 March Consultants in Fuels, Combustion, and the Environment
C R ombustion esources, Inc. 1453 W. 820 N. Provo, Utah 84601 Consultants in Fuels, Combustion, and the Environment 18 March 2016 Submitted To: Stratean Inc. 1436 Legend Hills Drive Clearfield, UT 84015
More informationAbstract Process Economics Program Report 229 REFINERY RESIDUE GASIFICATION (June 2001)
Abstract Process Economics Program Report 229 REFINERY RESIDUE GASIFICATION (June 2001) Following an episode of intensive interest during the late 1970s and early 1980s as a means to converting coal to
More informationPlastic to Fuel Technologies
Plastic to Fuel Technologies Author: Mauro Capocelli, Researcher, University UCBM Rome (Italy) 1. Theme description The growth of economy and consumes, combined with the modern models of production, have
More informationMODELING OF BIOMASS GASIFICATION Venko Petkov, Emil Mihailov, Nadezhda Kazakova
Journal Journal of Chemical of Technology and and Metallurgy, 9, 9, 1, 01, 1, 01 9-98 MDELING F BIMASS GASIFICATIN enko etkov, Emil Mihailov, Nadezhda azakova Department of hysical Metallurgy and Thermal
More informationPower Generation and Utility Fuels Group. Reynolds Frimpong Andy Placido Director: Kunlei Liu
Power Generation and Utility Fuels Group Reynolds Frimpong Andy Placido Director: Kunlei Liu Gasification Background and Process Description Combustion vs. Gasification Combustion with oxygen Partial combustion
More informationCEE 452/652. Week 14, Lecture 1 NOx control. Dr. Dave DuBois Division of Atmospheric Sciences, Desert Research Institute
CEE 45/65 Week 14, Lecture 1 NOx control Dr. Dave DuBois Division of Atmospheric Sciences, Desert Research Institute Today s topics Today s topic: NOx control Read chapter 16 Presentations on Nov 9 and
More informationMeyer Steinberg Vice President and Chief Scientist HCE LLC, Melville, NY
The Highly Efficient Integrated Plasma Fuel Cell (IPFC) Energy Cycle for Conversion of Fossil and Biomass Fuels to Electric Power Generation and Hydrogen and Liquid Transportation Fuel Production with
More informationChemical-Looping with Oxygen Uncoupling for capture of carbon dioxide February 2, 2005 (Translation of Swedish patent application)
Chemical-Looping with Oxygen Uncoupling for capture of carbon dioxide February 2, 2005 (Translation of Swedish patent application) Applicants and inventors Anders Lyngfelt and Tobias Mattisson 1 Chemical-Looping
More informationA new HP version of Lurgi s FBDBTM gasifier is bringing more value to clients
A new HP version of Lurgi s FBDBTM gasifier is bringing more value to clients 2011 Max-Michael Weiss Air Liquide E&C/ Lurgi GmbH, Frankfurt, Germany GAP Conference Beijing 2011 Outline AIR LIQUIDE Group
More informationEquilibrium model of the gasification process of agro-industrial wastes for energy production Marcelo Echegaray, Rosa Rodríguez, María Rosa Castro
Equilibrium model of the gasification process of agro-industrial wastes for energy production Marcelo Echegaray, Rosa Rodríguez, María Rosa Castro Abstract Biomass is considered as one of the most promising
More informationTechnical Description Package Micro Auto Gasification System (MAGS )
1 Technical Description Package Micro Auto Gasification System (MAGS ) written consent of Terragon Environmental Technologies Inc. is forbidden. Date 2 1. TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION 1.1. Process Overview Terragon
More informationMODELLING THE LOW-TAR BIG GASIFICATION CONCEPT
MODELLING THE LOW-TAR BIG GASIFICATION CONCEPT Lars Andersen, Brian Elmegaard, Bjørn Qvale, Ulrik Henriksen Technical University of Denmark Jens Dall Bentzen 1 and Reto Hummelshøj COWI A/S ABSTRACT A low-tar,
More informationAutothermal Reforming of Hydrocarbon Fuels
Autothermal Reforming of Hydrocarbon Fuels Harald Zeman, Michael Url, Hermann Hofbauer Institute of Chemical Engineering, Vienna University of Technology Getreidemarkt 9/166, A-1060 Vienna, harald.zeman@tuwien.ac.at
More informationGASIFICATION THE WASTE-TO-ENERGY SOLUTION SYNGAS WASTE STEAM CONSUMER PRODUCTS TRANSPORTATION FUELS HYDROGEN FOR OIL REFINING FERTILIZERS CHEMICALS
GASIFICATION THE WASTE-TO-ENERGY SOLUTION WASTE SYNGAS STEAM CONSUMER PRODUCTS HYDROGEN FOR OIL REFINING TRANSPORTATION FUELS CHEMICALS FERTILIZERS POWER SUBSTITUTE NATURAL GAS W W W. G A S I F I C A T
More informationRedox reforming based, integrated solar-natural gas plants: Reforming and thermodynamic cycle efficiency
Redox reforming based, integrated solar-natural gas plants: Reforming and thermodynamic cycle efficiency The MIT Faculty has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you.
More informationBLUE OPTION White space is filled with one or more photos
Driving Innovation Delivering Results BLUE OPTION White space is filled with one or more photos Performance Baseline for Direct-Fired sco 2 Cycles Nathan Weiland, Wally Shelton NETL Chuck White, David
More informationBiomass gasification plant and syngas clean-up system
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Energy Procedia 75 (2015 ) 240 245 The 7 th International Conference on Applied Energy ICAE2015 Biomass gasification plant and syngas clean-up system
More informationGasification of Biomass and SulfurContaining Carbonaceous Fuels. Majid Charmchi
Gasification of Biomass and SulfurContaining Carbonaceous Fuels Majid Charmchi Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Massachusetts - Lowell 1 Introduction Biomass: Black Liquor Gasification
More informationKeywords: Reformer model; Preferential oxidation; Water-gas shift reaction
A Reformer Performance Model for Fuel Cell Applications S.S. Sandhu +,a, Y.A. Saif a, J.P. Fellner b a Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering, University of Dayton 300 College Park, Dayton, OH
More informationTHE ASSESSMENT OF A WATER-CYCLE FOR CAPTURE OF CO2
THE ASSESSMENT OF A WATER-CYCLE FOR CAPTURE OF CO2 Report Number PH3/4 November 1998 This document has been prepared for the Executive Committee of the Programme. It is not a publication of the Operating
More informationRECENT ADVANCES IN THE UNDERSTANDING OF PRESSURIZED BLACK LIQUOR GASIFICATION
CELLULOSE CHEMISTRY AND TECHNOLOGY RECENT ADVANCES IN THE UNDERSTANDING OF PRESSURIZED BLACK LIQUOR GASIFICATION B. RIKARD GEBART, *,** H. WIINIKKA, * M. MARKLUND, * P. CARLSSON, *,** C. GRÖNBERG, * F.
More informationScott Hume. Electric Power Research Institute, 1300 West WT Harris Blvd, Charlotte NC 28262
The 5th International Symposium - Supercritical CO 2 Power Cycles March 28-31, 2016, San Antonio, Texas Performance Evaluation of a Supercritical CO 2 Power Cycle Coal Gasification Plant Scott Hume Electric
More informationSimulation of methanol synthesis from syngas obtained through biomass gasification using Aspen Plus
6th International Conference on Sustainable Solid Waste Management (NAXOS 2018) Simulation of methanol synthesis from syngas biomass gasification using Aspen Plus M. Puig-Gamero, J. Argudo-Santamaria,
More informationThe Cost of Mercury Removal in an IGCC Plant
The Cost of Mercury Removal in an IGCC Plant M.D. Rutkowski, M.G. Klett, R.C. Maxwell October 1, 2002 Washington, D.C. Acknowledgments Gary J. Stiegel James R. Longanbach David L. Denton U.S. DOE/NETL
More informationTechno-Economic Analysis for Ethylene and Oxygenates Products from the Oxidative Coupling of Methane Process
Techno-Economic Analysis for Ethylene and Oxygenates Products from the Oxidative Coupling of Methane Process Daniel Salerno, Harvey Arellano-Garcia, Günter Wozny Berlin Institute of Technology Chair of
More informationNEW TECHNOLOGIES IN COAL-FIRED THERMAL POWER PLANTS FOR MORE EFFECTIVE WORK WITH LESS POLLUTION
UDK 621.311.22:502.174 Dip.el.eng. Igor SEKOVSKI NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN COAL-FIRED THERMAL POWER PLANTS FOR MORE EFFECTIVE WORK WITH LESS POLLUTION Abstract Today people make a lot of analysis, of work of
More informationCombined Cycle Gasification Plant
Combined Cycle Gasification Plant Kenneth Jørgensen and Robert Heeb Babcock & Wilcox Vølund A/S Abstract: The gasification technology promises many technological advantages compared to traditional steam
More informationSupercritical Water Coal Conversion with Aquifer-Based Sequestration of CO 2
Supercritical Water Coal Conversion with Aquifer-Based Sequestration of CO 2 Profs. Reginald Mitchell, 1 Christopher Edwards 1 and Scott Fendorf 2 1 Mechanical Engineering Department 2 Department of Geological
More informationHYDROGEN MANUFACTURING USING LOW CURRENT, NON-THERMAL PLASMA BOOSTED FUEL CONVERTERS
PSFC/RR-01-1 HYDROGEN MANUFACTURING USING LOW CURRENT, NON-THERMAL PLASMA BOOSTED FUEL CONVERTERS L. Bromberg, D.R. Cohn, A. Rabinovich and N. Alexeev December 11, 2000 * Plasma Science and Fusion Center
More informationDISCLAIMER. Portions of this document may be illegible electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document.
3 rn -I 0 ZLS TL-s DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document. INDIRECT-FIRED GAS TURBINE DUAL FUEL CELL
More informationHYL III: Status And Trends
HYL III: Status And Trends by Raúl Quintero, President HYL Technology Division, Hylsa, S.A. de C.V. presented at the Gorham/Intertech Conference on Iron & Steel Scrap, Scrap Substitutes and Direct Steel
More informationGasification of lignite coal in North America; Past experience and future opportunities
Gasification of lignite coal in North America; Past experience and future opportunities By Michael L. Jones, Ph.D VP for Research and Development Lignite Energy Council 1 Outline Key Properties of North
More information