Coal Gasification as Alternative Fuel for Glass Industry - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – Coal Gasification as Alternative Fuel for Glass Industry PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 567a34-MDgzM


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

Coal Gasification as Alternative Fuel for Glass Industry


Title: Gasification-Based Energy Production System Concepts Author: NETL User Created Date: 7/19/2005 8:54:49 PM Document presentation format: On-screen Show – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:382
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 32
Provided by: NETL4
Learn more at:


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Coal Gasification as Alternative Fuel for Glass Industry

Coal Gasification as Alternative Fuel for Glass
  • Gasification Primer
  • Presented By
  • Donald L. Bonk
  • Senior Technical Advisor
  • National Energy Technology Laboratory
  • U. S. Department of Energy
  • Owens Corning Corporate Headquarters
  • 1, Owens Corning Parkway, Toledo, OH
  • July 27, 2005
  • 1000 400
  • Meeting Objective Develop plans to obtain glass
    industry support for an investigation to
    determine the viability of using coal
    gasification "synfuel" as an economical
    alternative to natural gas for melting glass.

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
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 - 1 NH3
HCN 0 -0.3 Ash/Slag/PM
History of GasificationTown Gas
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, with 3 to 6 carbon
  • 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
  • Baltimore, Maryland began the first commercial
    gas lighting of residences, streets, and
    businesses in 1816

History of Gasification
  • Used during World War II to convert coal into
    transportation fuels (Fischer Tropsch)
  • Used extensively in the last 50 years to convert
    coal and heavy oil into hydrogen for the
    production of ammonia/urea fertilizer
  • Chemical industry (1960s)
  • Refinery industry (1980s)
  • Global power industry (Today)

Major Gasification Milestone
1842 Baltimore Electric Town Gas 1887 Lurgi
Gasification Patent 1910 Coal Gasification Common
in U.S. / Europe for Town Gas 1940 Gasification
of Nature Gas for Hydrogen in the Chemical
Industry (Ammonia) 1950 Gasification of Coal for
Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) Liquids (Sasol-Sasolburg) 19
60 Coal Tested as Fuel for Gas Turbines (Direct
Firing) 1970s IGCC Studies by U.S. DOE 1970
Gasification of Oil for Hydrogen in the Refining
Industry 1983 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 Operation 1995 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
Plant 2002 IGCC is now an Accepted Refinery and
Coal Plant Option
Characteristics of a Gasification Process
Combined Cycle Power Block
  • Alternatives
  • Asphalt
  • Coal
  • Heavy Oil
  • Petroleum Coke
  • Orimulsion
  • Natural Gas
  • Wastes
  • Clean Fuels

Electricity Steam
Gas Steam Turbines
Sulfur Removal
  • Alternatives
  • Hydrogen
  • Ammonia
  • Chemicals
  • Methanol

Marketable Byproducts Sulfur
Byproducts Solids (ash)
Source ChevronTexaco
Gasifier Configurations
Moving Bed
Entrained Flow
Fluidized Bed
Gasifier Types
Gasifier Characteristic Comparison
Moving Bed Moving Bed Fluidized Bed Fluidized Bed Entrained Flow Transport Flow
Ash Cond. Dry Slagging Dry Agglomerate Slagging Dry
Coal Feed 2in 2in 1/4 in 1/4 in 100 Mesh 1/16in
Fines Limited Better than dry 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 gt2,300 1,500-1,900
Oxidant Req. Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate
Steam Req. High Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate
Issues Fines and Hydrocarbon liquids Fines and Hydrocarbon liquids Carbon Conversion Carbon Conversion Raw gas cooling Control carbon inventory and carryover
  • Oxygen 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 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
  • FERCO/Silva

Gasification-Based Energy Production System
Gasification-Based Industrial Concept
Moving Bed Gasifier Lurgi, BGC
  • Counter current flow of reactants, products
    gases and solids
  • Separate zones for coal processing
  • Products top gases, hcs, tars bottom dry ash
    or slag
  • Issues uniform flow of solids and gases
  • Design bottom temperature determines H2O/O2
  • Effects of dry or slagging bottom
  • High cold gas efficiency, low O2

Mixed Bed Gasifier Winkler, KRW, IGT
  • Fluidized bed, mixed flow of reactants, products
  • Mixed zones of heating, drying, devolatilization,
    gasification, combustion dependent on feed
  • Process conditions temperature limited by ash
    fusion high temperatures promote gasification,
    limit desulfurization flow velocity determined
    by fluidization requirements
  • Products top gases, no hcs tars, potentially
    desulfurized, particulates (C, ash) bottom, ash
    perhaps agglomerated
  • Issues reactant feed means, locations ash
    removal means
  • Design bed volume, by gasification requirements
    cross section, velocity
  • Moderate cold gas efficiency O2 H2O
    requirements broad range of coals

Co Current Gasifier Krupp Koppers, Texaco, Shell
  • Entrained flow of coal in O2 H2O, reactants
  • Widely dispersed particles heated by radiation,
    gas mixing
  • Process conditions high temperature for ash
    fusion, rapid gasification
  • Products CO, H2 (no CH4, hcs, oils tars) ash
  • Issues uniform feed of pulverized coal, slurry,
    dry separation of gases and ash heat recovery
    from high temperature product fuel gases
  • Design required volume is the time weighted
    average of reactant and product gas volumes/wt
    coal the coal flow rate the coal conversion
  • Low cold gas efficiency, high O2 demand

Entrained Staged Gasifier Kellogg Rust
  • Coal flow into recirculating particulates,
    devolatilization char, particulates introduced
    to fluid bed, combustion, gasification
  • Process conditions nearly uniform temperature
    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 char
    for gasification, combustion. Stand pipe,
    particulates from cyclones, delivers to fluid
    bed. Fluid bed combustion, gasification of char
    product gases, particles enter riser
  • Moderate efficiency, O2 demand, control of

  • Independence does not come cheap for
  • the
  • small utility

Based on NETL StudiesRepowered Total Plant Cost
vs. Original Size of Steam Plant
Cedar Lane Farms FGR-FBC
  • A Study
  • of
  • Small Project
  • Success Cost

Cedar Lane Coal-Fired Flue Gas Recirculating
Fluidized Bed Boiler
  • Unit achieved 7 months of continuous computer
    control operation
  • 96.9 availability over the 193 day heating
  • 200,000 Saved over Natural Gas this season (2
    of 5 Acres)
  • 20 reduction in coal usage compared to old
    under-grate stokers
  • 2 types of computer controlled operation
    demonstrated demand and slumping
  • Only 2 man-hours of labor required daily
  • Unit up to 40,000,000 Btu Input Available

Cedar Lane Farms
Wooster, Ohio
9,000,000 Btu FGC- FBB Demonstration
Economic Advantage Estimated Annual Fuel Cost
Savings with Coal-Fired AFBC at Cedar Lane
FarmsBased upon a 10 million Btu high sulfur
coal fired AFBC for hot water application.
Heating season set AT 250 days per year at 100
06-FBC015-21 Cedar Lane Farms FBC
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

2005 Ex Works Budget Costs for Hopper-to-Stack
Equipment Similar to Cedar Lane Farms ABFB
  • 10 MM BTU/hr Coal Input
  • 20 MM Btu/hr Coal Input
  • 30 MM BTU/hr Coal Input
  • NOT Included in Above
  • Financing Permitting
  • Foundations Building(s)
  • Freight to Site
  • Installation Mechanical Electrical
  • Compliance Stack Testing
  • Generic cost not project estimate

Fuel and Ash Storage Considerations based upon
Cedar Lane Farms Experience
  • Where To Start - Good Engineering and
    Creditable Vendors
  • 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

Storage Types
  • Storage Horizontal or Vertical with Preparation
  • List below arranged from highest labor cost to
  • Agriculture Horizontal (BFG) 100,000
  • Agriculture Vertical (ML) 287,000
  • Industrial Vertical (FP) 689,000
  • Utility Vertical (RS) 910,000

Cedar Lane Farms Actual Computer Graphic Of FBC
FGR-FBC Easily Met OEPA Requirements Testing
March 25, 2004
  • Ohio require sulfur release below 1.3 lbs/MMBtu
    and under 20 opacity on this size unit if
    equipped with baghouse
  • Local coal was an Ohio 6 having 12,877 Btu/lbs,
    6.57 moisture and 3.46 sulfur on an as received
  • 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

NETLs Compact Industrial Hybrid Gasifier Concept
  • Based Upon Cedar Lane Experience and the Hybrid
    Gasification/Combustion Studies

Combustion/Gasification Fluidized Bed Combustion
Combined Cycle (CGFBCC)
pressurized circulating fluidized-bed partial
syngas airfeed compressor
Metallic filters
steam turbine
topping combustor
ID fan
air compressor
gas turbine
gas turbine
gas turbine exhaust used CFB combustion air
NETLs Compact Industrial Hybrid Gasifier Concept
Addresses Issues of Carbon Utilization Typical of
Fluidized Bed Gasifiers
Typical Gasifier Syngas Compositions
  Wabash River Texaco Koppers-Totzek Shell (Lurgi) Winkler Possible NETL Compact Gasifier 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