charge induced gasification: a hybrid plasma-partial

Innovative Energy Solution


Charge Induced Gasification: A Hybrid Plasma-Partial Oxidation Process

Brad Culbertson, PhDChief Operations Officer


Disclaimer: We would like to apologize in advance for only presenting results of the charge induced gasification process and not the reactor itself or methods of how to reduce the device to practice.


BackgroundEnergy technology development founded in 2004.

• 7 Employees: 6 engineers and 1 technician. • Growing and constantly pushing the limit.• In the process of spinning off first technology.

Mission Statement: • Innovative Energy Solution is dedicated to developing

innovative, robust, and cost efficient solutions for the global energy sector.

Goals: • Provide our customers with a single yet simple solution for

solving multiple problems.


Business PositionFocused portfolio of unique thermal-based solutions in renewable and non-renewable hydrogen generation

• Superadiabatic Auto-Thermal Reformer (SuperATR).• Charge Induced Gasification (CIG).

Combined Heat & Power

CIG

Glycerin(biodiesel wastes)

Hydrogen Sulfide(petroleum wastes)

SuperATR

HYDROGEN & SULFUR(carbon-free)

SYNTHETIC GAS(CO & H2 )

Biomass(renewable)

Municipal Solid Wastes(renewable)

Coal (250 years worth)

SYNTHETIC GAS(CO & H2 )

Synthetic Natural Gas

Fischer-Tropsch Diesel

Combined Heat & Power


SuperATRThe cheapest and cleanest cogeneration plants from a toxic gas (hydrogen sulfide):

• Carbon-free hydrogen (and sulfur).• Less expensive than Claus-based sulfur recovery units (present

day method than only recuperates sulfur and wastes the hydrogen).• Decrease overall emissions: greenhouse and acid rain.

Ignition PilotU-Shape Cyclic Flow Reactor

Incinerator

Sulfur Condenser3-Way Valves (x2) Inlet/Outlet Piping

Flanges with Gasket (x7)

Reactor

Stand

Three-Way

Valve

Igniter

Auxiliary

Ignition

Port

Exhaust

Pipe

Igniter

Reactor

Body

Three-Way

Valve


Motivation for a New Gasification ProcessTraditional gasification processes (entrained flow, fluidized/fixed beds) are characterized by:

• High capital cost (especially entrained flow): − Cryogenic air separation for oxygen generation.− Large reactors with expensive refractories (chrome bricks).

• High operating cost: − Refractory maintenance.− Oxygen generation (efficiency penalty).− High temperatures (heat losses / expensive heat exchangers).

C. Higman and M. van der Burgt, Gasification, Elsevier 2008.

Operating Cost Breakdown

2%

82%

4%

5%2%5%

ASU

Coal Handling

Gasification Block

Gas Cleanup

Balance of Plant

Power Generation


Charge Induced Gasification

Hybridization of partial oxidation (ultra-substoichiometric) with gliding-arc plasma:

• Ultra-substoichiometric partial oxidation: − Less oxygen than normal partial oxidation of present system: small

and cheaper oxygen generation units.− Lower temperatures: less expensive refractories.

• Gliding arc plasma discharge (very different from normal plasma): − Electro-catalyst: energetic ions and charged particles.− Low temperature and low electric power.


Use of Gliding Arc Plasma DischargeUsed only for catalytic effect and stabilization of ultra-substoichiometric partial oxidation:

• Generation of charged particles: − Ions: create catalytic surfaces.− Electrons: generation of strong radical pool.

• Produce synthetic gas with high hydrogen and methane content.

CH4

H

C

C

O

H

CO

H2

i

e-

O2

H2O

C

O

OH

CCharged Particles

Radicals

Radicals

(Catalytic Surfaces)

O

O

i

e-

i

e-


Bench-scale reactor (1 foot tall)• Initial configuration with coal and natural gas.• Electrode design with biomass, coal, natural gas.

Laboratory scale reactor (5 feet tall)• Updraft configuration with biomass, coal.• Downdraft configuration with coal, biomass/coal blend.

Proof-of-Concept Project


Bench-scale reactor (1 foot tall)

• Initial configuration with coal and natural gas.

• Electrode design with biomass, coal, natural gas.

Proof-of-Concept Project

Laboratory scale reactor (5 feet tall)

• Updraft configuration with biomass, coal.

• Downdraft configuration with coal, biomass/coal blend.

Reactant

InletQuartz

Plates

Exhaust

Ceramic

Sealant

Electrodes

Steam

Inlets


Experimental Set-up

Tank

Carrier Gas Outlet (Solids, Nitrogen, Air)

Pneumatic Conveying Fluid

Gas Inlet (Nitrogen, Air)

Feeding Screw

Control valve

Carrier Gas Tube

Feeding Motor

In addition to the reactor:

• Steam maker• Steam flow meter• Solid fuel feeder• Gas chromatograph

Biomass Coal

Steam Maker Gas Chromatograph Solid Fuel Screwfeeder


Bench-scale Reactor“Up-draft” configuration

• Methane/oxygen-enriched air.• Biomass + methane.

Reactant Inlet

ThermalPlasma

Non-thermal(non-equilibrium)Zone

TransitionZone

Methane/airFlame

Exhaust

Reactant Inlet

ThermalPlasma

Non-thermalPlasma

Biomass/Oxygen-enriched air Flame

Exhaust


Efficiency Determination

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Hydrogen Carbon Monoxide

Methane Reformation

Flame Only

With Plasma

Pro

du

ct

Str

ea

m C

on

cn

etr

ati

on

(%

)Natural gas reforming

• Hydrogen produced by reforming rather than water-gas shift.• Concept proven.

Determination of power (thus efficiency)• Chemical power (ultra-substoichiometric partial oxidation): at least 91%.• Electrical power: 9% and can be lowered to ~2.5%.

Gliding Arc Plasma

(Electrical Power)

Methane Flame

(Chemical Power)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Total Power (W)

Ele

ctri

cal

& C

hem

ica

l P

ow

er (

W)


CIG In Operation


Solid Fuel Gasification (High Volatile)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Hydrogen Carbon Monoxide Methane

No Plasma

With Plasma

Pro

du

ct S

trea

m C

on

cnet

rati

on

(%

)

Biomass Gasification• Syngas produced by steam-carbon reaction mechanism.• Both hydrogen and carbon monoxide production is

almost doubled.• Methane production increase by over 300%.


Solid Fuel Gasification (Low Volatile)

Coal Gasification

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Hydrogen CO Methane

Flame Only

With Plasma

Pro

du

ct S

trea

m C

on

cnet

rati

on

(%

)

Coal Gasification

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Hydrogen

CO

Methane

In

crea

se o

f Y

ield

wit

h P

lasm

a (

%)

Coal Gasification• Hydrogen production increased by over 100%• Carbon monoxide production increased by 25%• Methane production increased marginally


Solid Fuel Gasification (Combination)

Coal/Biomass Mix Gasification

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

Hydrogen CO Methane

Flame Only

With Plasma

Pro

du

ct S

trea

m C

on

cnet

rati

on

(%

)

Coal/Biomass Mix Gasification

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

HydrogenCOMethane

Increa

se o

f Y

ield

wit

h P

lasm

a (

%)

Coal/Biomass Blend Gasification• Hydrogen production increased by 20%• Carbon monoxide increased by 40%• Methane production increase by 25%


Optimization

• Optimum electrical power

• Argon lowers electrical breakdown energy

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 250 500 750 1000

Total Power (W)

Hyd

rog

en P

rod

uct

ion

(%

)

Poly. (Biomass)

Poly. (Coal/N2)

Poly. (Coal/Ar)

Poly. (Coal/Biomass)

Biomass

Coal/N2

Coal/Ar

Coal/Biomass

• Optimum C/O ratio depends on fuel type

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 1 2 3 4

Carbon/Oxygen Ratio

Hyd

rog

en P

rod

ucti

on

(%

)

Poly. (Biomass)

Poly. (Coal)

Poly. (Coal/Biomass)

Biomass

Coal

Coal/Biomass


Summary & Comparative AnalysisEfficiency

• 10-15% higher efficiency than commercially available technology− Lower temperatures (higher methane production).− Higher C/O ratios hydrogen from water.

• Electrical power can be further reduced with− Higher partial oxidation temperatures.− Better insulation to improve heat losses.

Capital Costs are 25 to 50% lower than the Shell process.

0102030405060708090

100

Fixed

Bed

Fluidized

Bed

Entrained

Flow

Charge

Induced

Cold Gas Efficiency

Thermal Efficiency

Eff

icie

ncie

s (%

)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Shell

Coal

CIG

Coal

Shell

MSW

CIG

MSW

Balance of PlantOxygen UnitGasification BlockAcid Gas RemovalPower Generation Block

Cap

ital C

ost

($/k

W)


CIG Commercial PotentialHeat & power (small to large)

• Refuse from large military installations• Agricultural residue from farm communities

and forest residue• Dust from saw mills

Synthetic natural gas• Coal• Municipal solid wastes

Fischer-Tropsch Liquids:• Coal• Municipal solid wastes• Biomass


Next StepMore testing at the small scale

• Blends of coal municipal solid wastes.• Blends of coal and more varieties or biomass.

Scaling: 1 ton/hour process development unit• Small pilot plant with “real world reactor”: steel shell,

refractory, feeder, etc.

Financing: $3 million for 2 years• US Army.• Department of Energy.• State Agencies: Indiana, Illinois, California, New York, etc.• Private partners (cash and in-kind).


Acknowledgments

• Center for Coal Technology Research

• Department of Defense

• Department of Energy

• Hoosier Energy

• Indiana 21st Century Fund

charge induced gasification: a hybrid plasma-partial

Documents