Gasification - Versatile Solutions

8/14/2019 Gasification - Versatile Solutions

1/35

Gasification - Versatile Solutions

Gary J. Stiegel - Gasification Technology ManagerNational Energy Technology Laboratory

Gasification TechnologiesOverview

NASEO 2006 Annual MeetingSeattle, WA

September 10-13, 2006


2/35

Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

Why the Interest in Gasification?

Continuing high price of fuelsNatural gas for home heating and industrial uses

Highway transportation fuels (gasoline and diesel)

Excellent environmental performance of IGCCs forpower generation

Growing environmental community view of IGCCs asbest technology option for coal systems

Gasification is baseline technology for H2, SNG, fuels

from coal and capture of CO2 for sequestration Consolidation of IGCC development companies

Uncertainty of carbon management requirements and

potential suitability of IGCC for CO2 controls


3/35


History of GasificationTown Gas

First practical use of town gas in modern times was for

street lighting The first public street lighting with gas took place in Pall

Mall, London on January 28, 1807

Town gas, a gaseous product manufactured from coal,supplies lighting and heating for America and Europe.

Town gas is approximately 50% hydrogen, with the rest

comprised of mostly methane and carbon dioxide, with3% to 6% carbon monoxide.

Baltimore, Maryland beganthe first commercial gaslighting of residences,streets, and businesses in

1816
http://www.hatheway.net/images/baltimore_bayard_station_large.jpghttp://www.hatheway.net/images/baltimore_bayard_station_large.jpghttp://www.hatheway.net/images/baltimore_bayard_station_large.jpghttp://www.hatheway.net/images/baltimore_bayard_station_large.jpghttp://www.hatheway.net/images/baltimore_bayard_station_large.jpghttp://www.hatheway.net/images/baltimore_bayard_station_large.jpghttp://www.hatheway.net/images/baltimore_bayard_station_large.jpghttp://www.hatheway.net/images/baltimore_bayard_station_large.jpghttp://www.hatheway.net/images/baltimore_bayard_station_large.jpghttp://www.hatheway.net/images/baltimore_bayard_station_large.jpghttp://www.hatheway.net/images/baltimore_bayard_station_large.jpghttp://www.hatheway.net/images/baltimore_bayard_station_large.jpghttp://www.hatheway.net/images/baltimore_bayard_station_large.jpghttp://www.hatheway.net/images/baltimore_bayard_station_large.jpghttp://www.hatheway.net/images/baltimore_bayard_station_large.jpghttp://www.hatheway.net/images/baltimore_bayard_station_large.jpghttp://www.hatheway.net/images/baltimore_bayard_station_large.jpghttp://www.hatheway.net/images/baltimore_bayard_station_large.jpg


4/35


What is Gasification?

Coal

Water

Oxygen Extreme Conditions: 1,000 psig or more 2,600 Deg F

Corrosive slag and H2S gas

Products (syngas)CO (Carbon Monoxide)

H2 (Hydrogen)[CO/H2 ratio can be adjusted]

By-productsH2S (Hydrogen Sulfide)

CO2 (Carbon Dioxide)Slag (Minerals from Coal)

Gas

Clean-UpBefore

ProductUse


5/35


So what can you do with CO and H2 ?

Clean

Electricity

Transportation Fuels(Hydrogen)

Building Blocks forChemical Industry


6/35


Chemicals from Coal - Final Products

Coal

Acetic Anhydride

Acetic Acid

It is likely you have recently used a productbased on coal gasification.


7/35


8/35


Fundamental Comparison of

IGCC with Advanced PC-Fired Plant

IGCC PC

Operating Principles Partial oxidation Full Oxidation Fuel Oxidant Oxygen or Air Air

Pressure 400-1000 psi Atmospheric

Sulfur Control Concentrate gas Dilute gas

Nitrogen Control Not needed Pre/post combustion Ash Control Low Vol slag Fly/bottom ash

Trace Elements Slag Capture ESP/Stack

Wastes/Byproducts Several Markets Limited Markets Performance -- eff. (%) 40-44 35-41


9/35


Gasification Chemistry

Gasification with Oxygen

C + 1/2 O2 CO

Combustion with Oxygen

C + O2 CO2

Gasification with Carbon Dioxide

C + CO2 2CO

Gasification with SteamC + H2O CO + H2

Gasification with Hydrogen

C + 2H2 CH4

Water-Gas Shift

CO + H2O H2 + CO2

Methanation

CO + 3H2 CH4 + H2O

Coal

Oxygen

Steam

Gasifier Gas

Composition

(Vol %)

H2 25 - 30

CO 30 - 60

CO2 5 - 15

H2O 2 - 30

CH4 0 - 5

H2S 0.2 - 1

COS 0 - 0.1

N2 0.5 - 4

Ar 0.2 - 1NH3 + HCN 0 -0.3

Ash/Slag/PM


10/35


Combustion Chemistry

Combustion with Oxygen

C + O2 CO2

1/2 O2 + H2 H2O

Coal

Air

Combustion Gas

Composition(Vol %)

CO2 13.5

H2O 9.8SO2 0.4

N2 73.2

O2 3.2

Ash/Slag/PM


11/35


Gasification Phase Diagram

An Example

CO

C CO2

H2H2O

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.1 0.7 1.3 1.9 2.5 3.1

O2/MAF Coal Feed

Mo

le%

Gasification Zone

Complete

Combustion

O2

H2SCH4 SO2

Coal: Illinois #6, Dry Feed


12/35


Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle(IGCC)


13/35


Gasification-Based Energy ProductionSystem Concepts

Sulfur

By-Product

Sulfur

By-Product

Fly AshBy-Product

Fly AshBy-Product

SlagBy-Product

SlagBy-Product


14/35


Conventional Coal Plant(Illustration only)

100 MW

15 MW

85 MW

40 MW

45 MW

40 % Efficiency


15/35


Combined Cycle(Illustration only)

100 MW

Fuel

38 MW19 MW

62 MW

22 MW

21 MW to

condenser

40 MW

19 + 38 = 57 MW57% Efficiency!


16/35


Coal-Based IGCC Power Plant

Gasification Island

Converts coal to synthesis gas

Synthesis gas cleaned and conditioned

Natural gas is replacedby coal-based fuel gas


17/35


Coal-Based IGCC Power Plant(Illustration only)

15MW

80MW

30MW50MW

47MW

22MW

9MW

Net Coal to Power:30 + 22 9 = 43%

18MW

100MW


18/35


Gasification

A Commercial Reality Sarlux

Polk Wabash

Buggenum


19/35


Commercial-Scale Coal IGCC Power Plants

U.S.Southern California Edison's 100 MWe Cool Water

Coal Gasification Plant (1984-1988)

Dow Chemical's 160 MWe Louisiana GasificationTechnology Inc (LGTI) Project (1987-1995)

PSI Energy's (now Cinergy) 262 MWe WabashRiver Generating Station (1995 - present)

Tampa Electric's 250 MWe Polk Power Station(1996-present)

Foreign

NUON/Demkolecs 253 MWe Buggenum Plant(1994-present)

ELCOGAS 298 MWe Puertollano Plant (1998-present)


20/35


Cumulative Worldwide GasificationCapacity and Growth

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Planned

Operating

MWth Syngas

Planned

Operating


21/35


Gasification by Primary Feedstock

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

MWthSyngas

Coal Petroleum Gas Petcoke Biomass/Waste

Planned

Operating


22/35


Gasification by Product

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

MWth

Syngas

FT liquids Chemicals Power Gaseous

fuels

Not specified

Planned

Operating


23/35


Summary of Gasification Projects

160 commercial projects -- in operation/constructions/design

450 gasifier vessels in 28 countries

68,000 MW thermal energy

430 million normal cubic meter per day ofsyngas

770,000 barrels of oil equivalent energy perday


24/35


Environmental Benefits
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=www.macdevcenter.com/mac/2002/10/22/graphics/fig-7b-water.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2002/10/22/digi_photo_tips.html&h=232&w=320&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwater%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DGhttp://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=www.holymtn.com/fountain/water.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.holymtn.com/fountain/water.htm&h=338&w=222&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwater%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DG


25/35


Wabash River Clean Coal ProjectA Case Study for Cleaner Air

0

1

2

33.1

0.1

0.8

E

missions,Poundsp

er

MillionBTUs

BEFORE

CCT

BEFORE

CCT

AFTER

CCT

SO2

NOx

AFTER

CCT

0.15

The Wabash River Plant in Terre Haute, Indiana,

was repowered with gasification technology


26/35


Tampa Electric (TECO) Clean Coal ProjectA Case Study for Cleaner Air

OlderCoal

Plant

SO2

NOx

0.5

0

1.0Emis

sions

(P

oundsperMillionBtu

s)

1.5

2.0

2.5

OlderCoal

Plant

FleetAvg.

FleetAvg.

TECOCCT

Plant

TECOCCT

Plant

2.07

0.6 to 1.21.2

0.47

0.07(15ppm)0.1

TECOs coal-to-gas plant in Polk County, FL,

is the pioneer of a new type of clean coal plant.

Comparison of Environmental Factors


27/35


Comparison of Environmental FactorsPulverized Coal-Fired, NGCC, and IGCC Plants

Without CO2

Capture

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

SO2

(lb/MWh)

NOx

(lb/MWh)

Particulates

(lb/MWh)

CO2

(lb/1000 MWh)

= GEE Radiant IGCC

= E-Gas IGCC

= Shell IGCC

* Based on Study for DOE : Cost and Performance Comparison of Fossil Energy Power Plants

= SubCritical PC

= SuperCritical PC

= NGCC


28/35


Comparison of Water Consumption forVarious Fossil Plants

Note: Cooling water requirements areestimated for generic eastern site

E-Gas Shell GE R-C GEQuench PC Sub PCSuper

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Gallo

nsperMW

h

NGCC

Process Losses

Flue Gas Losses

Cooling Tower Losses

C l Fi d P Pl t E i i


29/35


Coal-Fired Power Plant Emissions Recent Permits

1. WePower SCPC and IGCC information from April 2003 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Elm Road Generating Station, Volume1, Public Service Commission of Wisconsin & Department of Natural Resources, Table 7-11, p. 157 (Pittsburgh 8 coal)

2. Wabash River Repowering Project, 1997 and 1998 average reported to IDNR, including fuel oil (Illinois 6 coal)3. Wabash River has demonstrated 0.03 lb/MMBtu SOx, but operates nearer the 0.20 lb/MMBtu permit for economic reasons

4. Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit Mercury Test Program, USEPA, October 1999 (no controls)

5. Project Summary for a Construction Permit Application from the Prairie State Generating Company, LLC, Illinois EnvironmentalProtection Agency. BOILER STACK ONLY

6. Supplemental Information for Air Permit Application, March 25, 2003,EarthtechInc.

7. Analysis and Preliminary Determination for the construction and Operation Permits for the proposed Construction of an ElectricGeneration Facility for Elm Road Generating Station, October 2, 2003, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

(lb/106Btu)

SCPC7

WePowerPC5

PrairieState

CFB6

IndeckIGCC1

WePowerIGCC2

Wabash

SO2 0.15 0.18 0.15 0.03 0.1333

NOx 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.103

VOC 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.002

CO 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.03 0.045

PM/PM10 0.018 0.015 0.015 0.011 0.011

Hg(lb/1012Btu)

1.12 ~ 2 4.0 0.5 3.244

Source: ConocoPhillips


30/35


IGCC without Mercury Removal and with itIGCC with Mercury Removal

COAL SLURRY

OXYGEN

BFW

SLAG

FINES

PARTICULATEREMOVAL

HPSTEAM

SYNGAS

COOLER

COSHYDROLYSIS

WATER

AIR

STEAM TURBINE

BFW

HRSG

GASTUBINE

ACID GASREMOVAL

CONDENSER

MERCURYREMOVAL


31/35


Mercury Removal SystemPerformance and Cost

Remove greater than 90% of mercury

Stable adsorption of mercury in carbon beds as

mercury sulfide Incremental capital costs of $3.34 / kW for carbon-

bed removal system

Incremental cost of electricity of $0.254 / MWh forO&M and capital repayment

Estimates for IGCCreference plant based on

Tampa ElectricGasification Plant withGE Energy gasifier andsized to 287-MWe net


32/35


Gasification Technology WorkshopsState Economic/Environmental Regulators

DOE in cooperation with the Gasification Technologies Council(GTC), NARUC, and SSEB conducts Workshops to:

Educate federal, state, and local environmental/economic

regulators on the environmental benefits of gasification Expanding to include state legislators/energy officials

Improve communication between the industry and regulators

Eight workshops have already been held throughout the country Next workshops scheduled for March 2007 (Denver) and June 2007

(Indianapolis)

Last workshop in Bismarck, ND (June 2006)

150 attendees; 50% of states represented; 8 state legislators All travel expenses for State and Local Officials are reimbursed

in entirety

NASEO is invited to participate

h B fi


33/35


the Benefits

GASIFICATION

Stable, affordable, high-efficiency energy supply with aminimal environmental impact

Feedstock Flexibility/Product Flexibility Flexible applications for new power generation, as well as

for repowering older coal-fired plants

BIG PICTURE

Energy Security - -Maintain coal as a significantcomponent in the US energy mix

A Cleaner Environment (reduced emissions of pollutants)

The most economical technology for CO2 capture

Ultra-clean Liquids from Coal -- Early Source of Hydrogen

Visit NETL G sifi ti W bsit


34/35


Visit NETL Gasification Websitewww.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/gasification/index.html

Comparison of Environmental Factors


35/35


pPulverized Coal-Fired, NGCC, and IGCC Plants

With CO2

Capture

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

SO2

(lb/MWh)

NOx

(lb/MWh)

Particulates

(lb/MWh)

CO2

(lb/1000 MWh)

= GEE Radiant IGCC

= E-Gas IGCC

= Shell IGCC

* Based on 2006 Parson study for DOE : Cost and Performance Comparison of Fossil Energy Power Plants

= SubCritical PC

= SuperCritical PC

= NGCC

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	sebascian
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Gasification - Versatile Solutions

Documents