industrial gasification types and peripherals

8/6/2019 Industrial Gasification Types and Peripherals

1/31

Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

Coal Gasification as Alternative Fuel forGlass Industry

Gasification PrimerPresented By

Donald L. Bonk

Senior Technical Advisor

National Energy Technology Laboratory

U. S. Department of Energy

Owens Corning CorporateHeadquarters

1, Owens Corning Parkway,Toledo, OH

July 27, 200510:00 4:00

Meeting Objective:Develop plans toobtain glass industry support for aninvestigation to determine the

viability of using coal gasification"synfuel" as an economicalalternative to natural gas for meltingglass.


2/31


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 Steam

C + 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 GasComposition

(Vol %)

H2 25 - 30

CO 30 - 60

CO2 5 - 15H2O 2 - 30

CH4 0 - 5

H2S 0.2 - 1

COS 0 - 0.1

N2 0.5 - 4Ar 0.2 - 1

NH3 + HCN 0 -0.3

Ash/Slag/PM


3/31


History of GasificationTown Gas

First practical use of town gas in modern times was forstreet lighting

The first public street lighting with gas took place in PallMall, 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 restcomprised of mostly methane and carbon dioxide, with 3%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.jpg


4/31


History of Gasification

Used during World War II to convert coal intotransportation fuels (Fischer Tropsch)

Used extensively in the last 50+ years to convert coaland heavy oil into hydrogen for the production ofammonia/urea fertilizer

Chemical industry (1960s)

Refinery industry (1980s)

Global power industry (Today)
http://www.ctts.nrel.gov/transtimes/images/fischer-tropsch.jpghttp://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=www.foxboro.com/industries/ammonia/images/ammonia_photo.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.foxboro.com/industries/ammonia/&h=171&w=259&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dammonia%26start%3D40%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN


5/31


Major Gasification Milestone1842 Baltimore Electric Town Gas1887 Lurgi Gasification Patent

1910 Coal Gasification Common in U.S. / Europe for Town Gas1940 Gasification of Nature Gas for Hydrogen in the Chemical Industry

(Ammonia)1950 Gasification of Coal for Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) Liquids (Sasol-Sasolburg)1960 Coal Tested as Fuel for Gas Turbines (Direct Firing)1970s IGCC Studies by U.S. DOE1970 Gasification of Oil for Hydrogen in the Refining Industry1983 Gasification of Coal to Chemicals Plant (Eastman Chemical)1984 First Coal IGCC Demonstration (Coolwater Plant)1990s First Non-Recourse Project Financed Oil IGCC Projects (Italy)1993 First Natural Gas Gasification F-T Project (Shell Bintulu)

1994 NUON/Demkolecs 253 MWe Buggenum Plant Begins Operation1995 PSI Walbash, Indiana Coal IGCC Begins Operation (DOE CCT IV)1996 Tampa Electric Polk Coal IGCC Begins Operation (DOE CCT III)1997 First Oil Hydrogen/IGCC Plant Begin Operations (Shell Pernis)1998 ELCOGAS 298 MWe Puertollano Plant2002 IGCC is now an Accepted Refinery and Coal Plant Option


6/31


FEEDS GASIFICATION GAS CLEANUP END PRODUCTS

Alternatives: Asphalt Coal Heavy Oil Petroleum Coke Orimulsion Natural Gas Wastes Clean Fuels

Alternatives: Hydrogen Ammonia Chemicals

MethanolMarketableByproducts:

Sulfur

Gas & SteamTurbinesSulfurRemoval

Syngas

ElectricitySteam

Combined CyclePower Block

Byproducts:

Solids (ash)

Gasifier

Oxygen

Source: ChevronTexaco

Characteristics of a Gasification Process


7/31


Gasifier Configurations

S t e a m ,

O x y g e n

o r A i r

R e c y c l e D r i v e

G a s

P r o d u c t

G a s ,A s h

C o a l ,S o r b e n t o r

I n e r t

G a s i f i e r T o p

G a s i f i e r

B o t t o m0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 5 0 0

T r a n s p o r t

G a s i f i e r

C o a l , C h a r R e c y c l e , G a s

Moving Bed Entrained Flow

TransportFluidized Bed


8/31


Gasifier TypesFlow Regime Moving (or "Fixed") Bed Fluidized Bed Entrained Flow

Combustion

Analogygrate fired combustors fluidized bed combustors pulverized coal combustors

Fuel Type solids only solids only solids or liquidsFuel Size 5 - 50 mm 0.5 - 5 mm < 500 microns

Residence Time 15 - 30 minutes 5 - 50 seconds 1 - 10 seconds

Oxidant air- or oxygen-blown air- or oxygen-blown almost always oxygen-blown

Gas Outlet Temp. 400 - 500 C 700 900 C 900 1400 C

Ash Handling slagging and non-slagging non-slagging always slagging

Commercial

Examples

Lurgi dry-ash (non-slagging),

BGL (slagging)

GTI U-Gas, HT Winkler,

KRW

GE Energy, Shell, Prenflo,

ConocoPhillips, Noell

"moving" beds are

mechanically stirred, fixedbeds are not

bed temperature below ash

fusion point to preventagglomeration

not preferred for high-ash

fuels due to energy penaltyof ash-melting

gas and solid flows are

always countercurrent in

moving bed gasifiers

preferred for high-ash

feedstocks and waste fuels

unsuitable for fuels that are

hard to atomize or pulverize

Note: The "transport" gasifier flow regime is between fluidized and entrained and can be air- or oxygen-blown.

Comments


9/31


Gasifier Characteristic ComparisonMoving Bed Fluidized Bed Entrained

FlowTransport Flow

Ash Cond. Dry Slagging Dry AgglomerateSlagging Dry

Coal Feed ~2in ~2in ~1/4 in ~1/4 in ~ 100 Mesh ~1/16in

Fines Limited Better thandry ash

Good Better Unlimited Better

Rank Low High Low Any Any Any

Gas Temp.

(F)

800-1,200 800-1,200 1,700-1,900 1,700-1,900 >2,300 1,500-1,900

Oxidant Req. Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate

Steam Req. High Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate

Issues Fines and Hydrocarbonliquids

Carbon Conversion Raw gascooling

Control carboninventory andcarryover


10/31


Gasifiers

Oxygen BlownOxygen Blown Entrained Flow

Texaco E-GAS Shell Prenflo Noell

Fluidized Bed HT Winkler Foster Wheeler

Moving Bed British Gas Lurgi Sasol Lurgi

Transport Reactor Kellogg

Air BlownAir Blown Fluidized Bed

HT Winkler IGT Ugas KRW Foster Wheeler

Spouting Bed

British Coal Foster Wheeler Entrained Flow

Mitsubishi Transport Reactor

Kellogg Hybrid

Foster Wheeler

British Coal ENERCON FERCO/Silva


11/31


Gasification-Based Energy ProductionSystem Concepts

SulfurBy-Product

Fly AshBy-Product

SlagBy-Product


12/31


Gasification-Based Industrial Concept


13/31


Moving Bed Gasifier Lurgi, BGC

Counter current flow ofreactants, products: gases andsolids

Separate zones for coalprocessing

Products: top gases, hcs, tars;bottom dry ash or slag

Issues: uniform flow of solidsand gases

Design: bottom temperaturedetermines H

2

O/O2

Effects of dry or slaggingbottom

High cold gas efficiency, low O2


14/31


Mixed Bed Gasifier Winkler, KRW, IGT

Fluidized bed, mixed flow of reactants,products

Mixed zones of heating, drying,devolatilization, gasification,combustion; dependent on feedlocation

Process conditions: temperature limitedby ash fusion; high temperaturespromote gasification, limit

desulfurization; flow velocitydetermined by fluidization requirements Products: top gases, no hcs tars,

potentially desulfurized, particulates (C,ash); bottom, ash perhapsagglomerated

Issues: reactant feed means, locations;ash removal means

Design: bed volume, by gasificationrequirements; cross section, velocity

Moderate cold gas efficiency; O2 H2O

requirements; broad range of coals


15/31


Co Current Gasifier Krupp Koppers,Texaco, Shell

Entrained flow of coal in O2+ H

2O,

reactants

Widely dispersed particles heated byradiation, gas mixing

Process conditions: high temperature forash fusion, rapid gasification

Products: CO, H2(no CH

4, hcs, oils tars);

ash slag

Issues: uniform feed of pulverized coal,slurry, dry; separation of gases and ash;heat recovery from high temperatureproduct fuel gases

Design: required volume is the time

weighted average of reactant andproduct gas volumes/wt coal * the coalflow rate * the coal conversion time

Low cold gas efficiency, high O2demand


16/31


Entrained Staged Gasifier Kellogg Rust

Coal flow into recirculating particulates,

devolatilization; char, particulates introducedto fluid bed, combustion, gasification

Process conditions: nearly uniformtemperature limited by ash agglomeration

Products: CO, H2, devol products, ash fines

Issues: coal particle size, flow conditions for

rapid devol; recycle for char combustion,gasification; recirculation particulates

Design: riser entrains particulates, coal;devolatilizes, cracks oils, tars; delivers charfor gasification, combustion. Stand pipe,particulates from cyclones, delivers to fluidbed. Fluid bed combustion, gasification of

char; product gases, particles enter riser Moderate efficiency, O

2demand, control of

devolatilizationS t e a m ,O x y g e n

o r A i r

P r o d u c t

G a s ,

A s h

R e c y c l e D r i v e

G a s

C o a l ,S o r b e n t o r

I n e r t


17/31

Independence does not

come cheap forthe

small utility


18/31


Based on NETL StudiesRepowered Total Plant Cost vs. Original Size of Steam Plant


19/31

Cedar Lane Farms FGR-FBC

A Study

ofSmall Project

Success & Cost


20/31


Cedar Lane Coal-Fired Flue GasRecirculating Fluidized Bed Boiler

Unit achieved ~7 months ofcontinuous computer controloperation

96.9% availability over the 193day heating season

$200,000+ Saved over NaturalGas this season (2 of 5 Acres)

20% reduction in coal usagecompared to old under-gratestokers

2 types of computer controlledoperation demonstrated;demand and slumping

Only 2 man-hours of laborrequired daily

Unit up to 40,000,000 Btu InputAvailable

Cedar LaneCedar Lane

FarmsFarms

Wooster, OhioWooster, Ohio

9,000,000 Btu FGC- FBB Demonstration9,000,000 Btu FGC- FBB Demonstration


21/31


Economic Advantage Estimated Annual Fuel CostSavings with Coal-Fired AFBC at Cedar Lane Farms

Based upon a 10 million Btu high sulfur coal fired AFBC for hot water application.Heating season set AT 250 days per year at 100% capacity.

Economic Advantage Estimated Annual Fuel CostSavings with Coal-Fired AFBC at Cedar Lane Farms

Based upon a 10 million Btu high sulfur coal fired AFBC for hot water application.Heating season set AT 250 days per year at 100% capacity.

06-FBC015-21 Cedar Lane Farms FBC


22/31


FGR-FBC Features

Energy Type Possible:

Hot Water Steam Generation

Power Generation/ Co-Gen

Low Stack Emissions

Low Limestone Consumption High Efficiency

No In-Bed Heat Transfer Tubes

Flue Gas Recirculation

Automatic PLC Control


23/31


2005 Ex Works Budget Costs* for Hopper-to-StackEquipment Similar to Cedar Lane Farms ABFB

Equipment 10 MM BTU/hr [Coal Input] $750,000.

20 MM Btu/hr [Coal Input] $1,300,000.

30 MM BTU/hr [Coal Input] $1,800,000.

NOT Included in Above: Financing & Permitting Foundations & Building(s) Freight to Site Installation; Mechanical & Electrical

Compliance Stack Testing

*Generic cost not project estimate


24/31


Fuel and Ash Storage Considerations based uponCedar Lane Farms Experience

Where To Start - Good Engineering and CreditableVendors

Fuel, Limestone, and Ash Economics

Economic Loads = 26 tons Coal or Limestone Therefore Storage Needs =

Coal at 55 tons Limestone at 36 tons Alternate Fuel at 55 tons (Tire Chips or Waste) Ash at 55 tons


25/31


Storage Types

Storage Horizontal or Vertical withPreparation Equipment

List below arranged from highest labor costto lowest

Agriculture Horizontal (BFG) = $100,000 Agriculture Vertical (ML) = $287,000

Industrial Vertical (F&P) = $689,000

Utility Vertical (R&S) = $910,000


26/31


Cedar Lane Farms Actual ComputerGraphic Of FBC Operation


27/31


FGR-FBC Easily Met OEPA RequirementsTesting March 25, 2004

Ohio require sulfur release below 1.3 lbs/MMBtu andunder 20% opacity on this size unit if equipped withbaghouse

Local coal was an Ohio #6 having 12,877 Btu/lbs, 6.57%moisture and 3.46% sulfur on an as received basis

Local sorbent was a Bucyrus #18 dolomite having 80%

calcium Control was completely automatic for three tests at an

average 8.96 MM Btu/hr Average sorbent feed was 0.12 lbs/lbs of coal, approximately

a Ca/S ratio = 1 Average sulfur capture approximately 88% or a release of 0.65

lbs/MMBtu Opacity = Zero Average oxygen % dry = 3.122


28/31

NETLs Compact Industrial HybridGasifier Concept

Based Upon Cedar Lane

Experience and the HybridGasification/Combustion

Studies


29/31


gas turbine exhaustused CFB combustion air

steam

steam turbine

generator

air

limestone

syngas

coal

stackstackair

aircompressor

gasgasturbineturbine

gas turbine

exhaust

toppingtopping

combustorcombustor

generator

syngas airfeed compressor

ID fan

baghouse

charfluid bed heat exchangeratmospheric

circulating

fluid bedcombustorcoalSNC

R

urea

Syngascooler

Metallicfilters

Combustion/Gasification Fluidized BedCombustion Combined Cycle (CGFBCC)

pressurizedcirculating

fluidized-bed

partial gasifier


30/31


NETLs Compact Industrial Hybrid GasifierConcept

Addresses Issues of Carbon Utilization Typical of Fluidized Bed Gasifiers


31/31


Typical Gasifier Syngas Compositions

Wabash River Texaco Koppers-Totzek Shell (Lurgi) Winkler Possible NETL CompactGasifier Composition

Nitrogen 5.0% 5.8% 1.4% 5.1% 3.0%

Hydrogen 26.0% 27.0% 32.8% 29.7% 49.5% 32.5%

Carbon monoxide 45.0% 35.6% 58.7% 60.0% 25.0% 16.7%

Carbon dioxide 14.0% 12.6% 7.1% 2.3% 18.0% 11.1%

Water 6.7% 18.6% 2.1%

Methane 2.0% 0.1% 3.0% **37.4%

H2S 1.3% 0.8% 1.5% 2.0%

Ammonia 0.1%

Total 100.0% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7%

** Methane, Ethane, Ethylene

industrial gasification types and peripherals

Documents