DOCSLIB.ORG

Gasification Processes Old and New: a Basic Review of the Major Technologies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gasification Processes Old and New: a Basic Review of the Major Technologies Energies 2010, 3, 216-240; doi:10.3390/en3020216 OPEN ACCESS energies ISSN 1996-1073 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies Review Gasification Processes Old and New: A Basic Review of the Major Technologies Ronald W. Breault NETL-US DOE, PO Box 880 Morgantown, WV 26507, USA; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +01-304-285-4486; Fax: +01-304-285-4403. Received: 8 January 2010 / Accepted: 3 February 2010 / Published: 23 February 2010 Abstract: This paper has been put together to provide a single source document that not only reviews the historical development of gasification but also compares the process to combustion. It also provides a short discussion on integrated gasification and combined cycle processes. The major focus of the paper is to describe the twelve major gasifiers being marketed today. Some of these are already fully developed while others are in various stages of development. The hydrodynamics and kinetics of each are reviewed along with the most likely gas composition from each of the technologies when using a variety of fuels under different conditions from air blown to oxygen blown and atmospheric pressure to several atmospheres. Keywords: gasification; gasifier; IGCC; gas composition 1. Introduction Gasification has been around for more than 200 years, so why the interest in it now? There are to be sure, many reasons, but the two most significant reasons are the continuing high price of natural gas and highway transportation fuels. Granted, over the past year and a half, these prices have moderated considerably. However over the past month, the price of gasoline has inched upward about 30 cents per gallon. The second significant reason is the need for energy independence. In other words, the use of domestic energy sources such as coal not only for electricity production but also for synthetic natural gas (SNG) and liquids for transportation is a must. Gasification is a key fundamental baseline technology for converting coal to anything other than electrons and can potentially be competitive even there [1]. For example, gasification it the key conversion step for converting coal to H2, SNG, liquid fuels, and the capture of CO2 for sequestration. Energies 2010, 3 217 Gasification has excellent environmental performance such that some states’ Public Utility Commissions have identified Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plants for power generation as the best available control technology (BACT). In addition, the uncertainty of carbon management requirements and the potential suitability of IGCC for CO2 controls make it an ideal choice for power. So, what is gasification? Gasification is a conversion technology converts any carbon-containing material, coal for example, into synthesis gas as shown in Figure 1. Carbon reacts with water in the form of steam and oxygen at relatively high pressure typically greater that 30 Bar and at temperatures typically reaching 1,500 K to produce raw synthesis gas or syngas, a mixture composed primarily of carbon monoxide and hydrogen and some minor byproducts. The byproducts are removed to produce a clean syngas that can be used as a fuel to generate electricity or steam, as a basic chemical building block for a large number of uses in the petrochemical and refining industries, and for the production of hydrogen. Gasification adds value to low- or negative-value feed stocks by converting them to marketable fuels and products. Figure 1. Gasification process basics. Oxygen Extreme Conditions: 30 bar or more 1000 to 1,500 Deg K Corrosive slag and H2S gas Coal Products (syngas) CO (Carbon Monoxide) Gas H2 (Hydrogen) Clean-Up [CO/H2 ratio can be adjusted] Before Product By-products Use H2S (Hydrogen Sulfide) CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) Slag (Minerals from Coal) Water There are a number of previous reviews and extended writings on gasification that can be reviewed in conjunction with this paper to get a deeper understanding of the process and various gasification technologies. These include Higmans book sited as [4], the Gasification Technologies Council website http://www.gasification.org/, the DOE Gasification website http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/ coalpower/gasification/index.html, and numerous conferences including Gasification Technologies Annual Conference , the Clearwater Conference and the Pittsburgh Coal Conference. Energies 2010, 3 218 1.1. History of gasification Town gas, a gaseous product manufactured from coal, containing approximately 50% hydrogen, with the rest comprised of mostly methane and carbon dioxide, with 3% to 6% carbon monoxide, is a gaseous product manufactured from coal. It supplied lighting and heating for industrializing America and Europe beginning in the early 1800s. The first public street lighting with gas took place in Pall Mall, London on January 28, 1807. Not long after that, Baltimore, Maryland began the first commercial gas lighting of residences, streets, and businesses in 1816. A typical town gas plant for the era is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2. Baltimore’s Bayard Street Station from ―Progressive Magazine‖ of 1889 picturing plant prior to 1850 [2]. Since that time, gasification has had its ups and downs with more and longer periods of down as communities began to electrify. The few highpoints of gasification during the past hundred years are worthy of identification. Gasification was used extensively during World War II to convert coal into transportation fuels via the Fischer-Tropsch process. It has been used extensively in the last 50 to 60 years to convert coal and heavy oil into hydrogen—for the production of ammonia/urea fertilizer. The chemical industry and the refinery industry applied gasification in the 1960s and 1980s, respectively, for feedstock preparation. In the past 10 to 15 years, it has started to be used by the power industry in Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plants. 2. Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle IGCC plants as shown in Figure 3 convert carbonaceous fuels/materials into electricity and could be considered first generation plants—those not requiring CO2 separation or sequestration. In this plant, the carbon containing material is fed to the gasifier along with oxygen and steam to produce the raw syngas. The raw syngas is cleaned of particulate matter and sulfur. The clean syngas is fed to the combustion turbine with the products going to a heat recovery steam generator and steam turbine. IGCC systems with carbon capture are similar to IGCC systems without carbon capture as can be seen by comparing Figures 3 and 4. Figure 4 shows the IGCC system with pre-combustion capture of the carbon for sequestration. The primary difference between the two processes is that the clean syngas passes through a shift reactor and an absorption tower to remove the carbon in the form of carbon Energies 2010, 3 219 dioxide. The shift reactor converts the CO in the syngas by reacting it with water to form H2 and CO2 with the latter going to sequestration. Figure 3. IGCC system without carbon capture [1]. Figure 4. IGCC with carbon capture [1]. Particulate Gas Shift Gas Removal Cleanup Reactor Separator Carbon Dioxide to Sequestration Gasifier Particulates Sulfur By-product Fly ash Gaseous By-product Constituents Combustor Air Separator Oxygen Air Coal, Compressed Air Gas Petroleum coke, Solids Turbine Biomass, Waste, etc. Air Electric Power Generator Air Heat Recovery Steam Generator Steam Stack Slag By-product Steam Generator Electric Steam Turbine Power Energies 2010, 3 220 Figure 5 shows a conceptual poly-generation IGCC plant. In this concept, the clean syngas is shifted to change the CO/H2 ratio. A partial shift adjusts the ratio to be comparable to the end hydrocarbon product being synthesized. If power is being made as the product, the gas stream will undergo a full shift. Figure 5. Poly-generation plant [1]. Particulate Gas Shift Synthesis Gas Removal Cleanup Reactor Conversion Fuels and Chemicals Gasifier Particulates Sulfur Carbon Dioxide By-product Gas Sequestration Fly ash Separation Gaseous By-product Constituents Hydrogen Combustor Air Separator Fuel Cells Air Electric Power Oxygen Coal, Compressed Air Gas Petroleum coke, Solids Turbine Biomass, Waste, etc. Air Electric Power Generator Air Heat Recovery Steam Generator Steam Stack Slag By-product Steam Generator Electric Steam Turbine Power 3. Gasification Versus Combustion Gasification and combustion can essentially be considered as two ends of a continuum for reactions of coal and oxygen, although water can be added as a reactant to increase the H2 content of the products. Table 1 provides a list of the most significant reactions and the enthalpy change associated with each of these reactions. Looking at the first two reactions in the table, it is seen that coal denoted here with a C for carbon is reacted with one oxygen atom denoted here as 1/2 O2 to get carbon monoxide and with two oxygen atoms (2) to get carbon dioxide. In reality, this second reaction is not a one step process as the solid phase carbon reacts with one oxygen atom to produce carbon monoxide which then reacts with the second oxygen atom to form carbon dioxide. All of the reactions in the table are exothermic except the two reactions identified as gasification with steam and gasification with carbon dioxide. These two endothermic reactions are the reactions that are most often referred to as gasification, where the solids carbon is turned into a reactive gas through a reaction with a ―non-reactive‖ gas (H2O or CO2). In addition to these two reactions being endothermic, they also require high temperatures to proceed. Energies 2010, 3 221 Table 1. Gasification and Combustion Chemistry. Reaction Process Chemical Formula Change in Enthalpy Gasification with Oxygen C + ½ O2 → CO –3,922 Btu/lb C Combustion with Oxygen C + O2 → CO2 –14,111 Btu/lb C Gasification with Carbon Dioxide C + CO2 → 2 CO 6,267 Btu/lb C Gasification with Steam C + H2O → CO + H2 4,750 Btu/lb C Gasification with Hydrogen C + 2 H2 → CH4 –2,672 Btu/lb C Water Gas Shift CO + H2O → CO2 + H2 –650 Btu/lb CO Methanation CO + 3 H2 → CH4 + H2O –3,181 Btu/lb CO Table 2 contrasts combustion and gasification.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • U.S. Energy in the 21St Century: a Primer
    U.S. Energy in the 21st Century: A Primer March 16, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46723 SUMMARY R46723 U.S. Energy in the 21st Century: A Primer March 16, 2021 Since the start of the 21st century, the U.S. energy system has changed tremendously. Technological advances in energy production have driven changes in energy consumption, and Melissa N. Diaz, the United States has moved from being a net importer of most forms of energy to a declining Coordinator importer—and a net exporter in 2019. The United States remains the second largest producer and Analyst in Energy Policy consumer of energy in the world, behind China. Overall energy consumption in the United States has held relatively steady since 2000, while the mix of energy sources has changed. Between 2000 and 2019, consumption of natural gas and renewable energy increased, while oil and nuclear power were relatively flat and coal decreased. In the same period, production of oil, natural gas, and renewables increased, while nuclear power was relatively flat and coal decreased. Overall energy production increased by 42% over the same period. Increases in the production of oil and natural gas are due in part to technological improvements in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling that have facilitated access to resources in unconventional formations (e.g., shale). U.S. oil production (including natural gas liquids and crude oil) and natural gas production hit record highs in 2019. The United States is the largest producer of natural gas, a net exporter, and the largest consumer. Oil, natural gas, and other liquid fuels depend on a network of over three million miles of pipeline infrastructure.
    [Show full text]
  • Storing Syngas Lowers the Carbon Price for Profitable Coal Gasification
    Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center Working Paper CEIC-07-10 www.cmu.edu/electricity Storing syngas lowers the carbon price for profitable coal gasification ADAM NEWCOMER AND JAY APT Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center, Tepper School of Business, and Department of Engineering and Public Policy, 254 Posner Hall, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) electric power generation systems with carbon capture and sequestration have desirable environmental qualities, but are not profitable when the carbon dioxide price is less than approximately $50 per metric ton. We examine whether an IGCC facility that operates its gasifier continuously but stores the syngas and produces electricity only when daily prices are high may be profitable at significantly lower CO2 prices. Using a probabilistic analysis, we have calculated the plant-level return on investment (ROI) and the value of syngas storage for IGCC facilities located in the US Midwest using a range of storage configurations. Adding a second turbine to use the stored syngas to generate electricity at peak hours and implementing 12 hours of above ground high pressure syngas storage significantly increases the ROI and net present value. Storage lowers the carbon price at which IGCC enters the US generation mix by approximately 25%. 1 Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center Working Paper CEIC-07-10 www.cmu.edu/electricity Introduction Producing electricity from coal-derived synthesis gas (syngas) in an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) facility can improve criteria pollutant performance over other coal-fueled technologies such as pulverized coal (PC) facilities [1-5] and can be implemented with carbon capture and sequestration.
    [Show full text]
  • Process Technologies and Projects for Biolpg
    energies Review Process Technologies and Projects for BioLPG Eric Johnson Atlantic Consulting, 8136 Gattikon, Switzerland; [email protected]; Tel.: +41-44-772-1079 Received: 8 December 2018; Accepted: 9 January 2019; Published: 15 January 2019 Abstract: Liquified petroleum gas (LPG)—currently consumed at some 300 million tonnes per year—consists of propane, butane, or a mixture of the two. Most of the world’s LPG is fossil, but recently, BioLPG has been commercialized as well. This paper reviews all possible synthesis routes to BioLPG: conventional chemical processes, biological processes, advanced chemical processes, and other. Processes are described, and projects are documented as of early 2018. The paper was compiled through an extensive literature review and a series of interviews with participants and stakeholders. Only one process is already commercial: hydrotreatment of bio-oils. Another, fermentation of sugars, has reached demonstration scale. The process with the largest potential for volume is gaseous conversion and synthesis of two feedstocks, cellulosics or organic wastes. In most cases, BioLPG is produced as a byproduct, i.e., a minor output of a multi-product process. BioLPG’s proportion of output varies according to detailed process design: for example, the advanced chemical processes can produce BioLPG at anywhere from 0–10% of output. All these processes and projects will be of interest to researchers, developers and LPG producers/marketers. Keywords: Liquified petroleum gas (LPG); BioLPG; biofuels; process technologies; alternative fuels 1. Introduction Liquified petroleum gas (LPG) is a major fuel for heating and transport, with a current global market of around 300 million tonnes per year.
    [Show full text]
  • Gasification of Woody Biomasses and Forestry Residues
    fermentation Article Gasification of Woody Biomasses and Forestry Residues: Simulation, Performance Analysis, and Environmental Impact Sahar Safarian 1,*, Seyed Mohammad Ebrahimi Saryazdi 2, Runar Unnthorsson 1 and Christiaan Richter 1 1 Mechanical Engineering and Computer Science, Faculty of Industrial Engineering, University of Iceland, Hjardarhagi 6, 107 Reykjavik, Iceland; [email protected] (R.U.); [email protected] (C.R.) 2 Department of Energy Systems Engineering, Sharif University of Technologies, Tehran P.O. Box 14597-77611, Iran; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Wood and forestry residues are usually processed as wastes, but they can be recovered to produce electrical and thermal energy through processes of thermochemical conversion of gasification. This study proposes an equilibrium simulation model developed by ASPEN Plus to investigate the performance of 28 woody biomass and forestry residues’ (WB&FR) gasification in a downdraft gasifier linked with a power generation unit. The case study assesses power generation in Iceland from one ton of each feedstock. The results for the WB&FR alternatives show that the net power generated from one ton of input feedstock to the system is in intervals of 0 to 400 kW/ton, that more that 50% of the systems are located in the range of 100 to 200 kW/ton, and that, among them, the gasification system derived by tamarack bark significantly outranks all other systems by producing 363 kW/ton. Moreover, the environmental impact of these systems is assessed based on the impact categories of global warming (GWP), acidification (AP), and eutrophication (EP) potentials and Citation: Safarian, S.; Ebrahimi normalizes the environmental impact.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Gas and Propane
    Construction Concerns: Natural Gas and Propane Article by Gregory Havel September 28, 2015 For the purposes of this article, I will discuss the use of natural gas and propane [liquefied propane (LP)] gas in buildings under construction, in buildings undergoing renovation, and in the temporary structures that are found on construction job sites including scaffold enclosures. In permanent structures, natural gas is carried by pipe from the utility company meter to the location of the heating appliances. Natural gas from utility companies is lighter than air and is odorized. In temporary structures and in buildings under construction or renovation, the gas may be carried from the utility company meter by pipe or a hose rated for natural gas at the pressure to be used to the location of the heating appliances. These pipes and hoses must be properly supported and must be protected from damage including from foot and wheeled traffic. The hoses, pipes, and connections must be checked regularly for leaks. For permanent and temporary structures, LP gas is usually stored in horizontal tanks outside the structure (photo 1) at a distance from the structure. September 28, 2015 (1) In Photo 1, note the frost on the bottom third of the tank that indicates the approximate amount of LP that is left in the tank. LP gas for fuel is heavier than air and is odorized. It is carried from the tank to the heating appliances by pipe or hose rated for LP gas at the pressure to be used. As it is for natural gas, these pipes and hoses must be properly supported and protected from damage including from foot and wheeled traffic.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Technologies for Gasification of Biomass and Wastes
    Review of Technologies for Gasification of Biomass and Wastes Final report NNFCC project 09/008 A project funded by DECC, project managed by NNFCC and conducted by E4Tech June 2009 Review of technology for the gasification of biomass and wastes E4tech, June 2009 Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Approach ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Introduction to gasification and fuel production ...................................................................... 1 1.4 Introduction to gasifier types .................................................................................................... 3 2 Syngas conversion to liquid fuels .................................................................................... 6 2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 6 2.2 Fischer-Tropsch synthesis ......................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Methanol synthesis ................................................................................................................... 7 2.4 Mixed alcohols synthesis .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Proposal for Development of Dry Coking/Coal
    Development of Coking/Coal Gasification Concept to Use Indiana Coal for the Production of Metallurgical Coke, Liquid Transportation Fuels, Fertilizer, and Bulk Electric Power Phase II Final Report September 30, 2007 Submitted by Robert Kramer, Ph.D. Director, Energy Efficiency and Reliability Center Purdue University Calumet Table of Contents Page Executive Summary ………………………………………………..…………… 3 List of Figures …………………………………………………………………… 5 List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………. 6 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………… 7 Process Description ……………………………………………………………. 11 Importance to Indiana Coal Use ……………………………………………… 36 Relevance to Previous Studies ………………………………………………. 40 Policy, Scientific and Technical Barriers …………………………………….. 49 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………. 50 Appendix ………………………………………………………………………… 52 2 Executive Summary Coke is a solid carbon fuel and carbon source produced from coal that is used to melt and reduce iron ore. Although coke is an absolutely essential part of iron making and foundry processes, currently there is a shortfall of 5.5 million tons of coke per year in the United States. The shortfall has resulted in increased imports and drastic increases in coke prices and market volatility. For example, coke delivered FOB to a Chinese port in January 2004 was priced at $60/ton, but rose to $420/ton in March 2004 and in September 2004 was $220/ton. This makes clear the likelihood that prices will remain high. This effort that is the subject of this report has considered the suitability of and potential processes for using Indiana coal for the production of coke in a mine mouth or local coking/gasification-liquefaction process. Such processes involve multiple value streams that reduce technical and economic risk. Initial results indicate that it is possible to use blended coal with up to 40% Indiana coal in a non recovery coke oven to produce pyrolysis gas that can be selectively extracted and used for various purposes including the production of electricity and liquid transportation fuels and possibly fertilizer and hydrogen.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantifying the Potential of Renewable Natural Gas to Support a Reformed Energy Landscape: Estimates for New York State
    energies Review Quantifying the Potential of Renewable Natural Gas to Support a Reformed Energy Landscape: Estimates for New York State Stephanie Taboada 1,2, Lori Clark 2,3, Jake Lindberg 1,2, David J. Tonjes 2,3,4 and Devinder Mahajan 1,2,* 1 Department of Materials Science and Chemical Engineering, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA; [email protected] (S.T.); [email protected] (J.L.) 2 Institute of Gas Innovation and Technology, Advanced Energy Research and Technology, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA; [email protected] (L.C.); [email protected] (D.J.T.) 3 Department of Technology and Society, Stony Brook University, 100 Nicolls Rd, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA 4 Waste Data and Analysis Center, Stony Brook University, 100 Nicolls Rd, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Public attention to climate change challenges our locked-in fossil fuel-dependent energy sector. Natural gas is replacing other fossil fuels in our energy mix. One way to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) impact of fossil natural gas is to replace it with renewable natural gas (RNG). The benefits of utilizing RNG are that it has no climate change impact when combusted and utilized in the same applications as fossil natural gas. RNG can be injected into the gas grid, used as a transportation fuel, or used for heating and electricity generation. Less common applications include utilizing RNG to produce chemicals, such as methanol, dimethyl ether, and ammonia. The GHG impact should be quantified before committing to RNG. This study quantifies the potential production of biogas (i.e., Citation: Taboada, S.; Clark, L.; the precursor to RNG) and RNG from agricultural and waste sources in New York State (NYS).
    [Show full text]
  • Producing Fuel and Electricity from Coal with Low Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    Producing Fuel and Electricity from Coal with Low Carbon Dioxide Emissions K. Blok, C.A. Hendriks, W.C. Turkenburg Depanrnent of Science,Technology and Society University of Utrecht Oudegracht320, NL-351 1 PL Utrecht, The Netherlands R.H. Williams Center for Energy and Environmental Studies Princeton University Princeton, New Jersey08544, USA June 1991 Abstract. New energy technologies are needed to limit CO2 emissions and the detrimental effects of global warming. In this article we describe a process which produces a low-carbon gaseousfuel from coal. Synthesis gas from a coal gasifier is shifted to a gas mixture consisting mainly of H2 and CO2. The CO2 is isolated by a physical absorption process, compressed,and transported by pipeline to a depleted natural gas field where it is injected. What remains is a gaseousfuel consisting mainly of hydrogen. We describe two applications of this fuel. The first involves a combined cycle power plant integrated with the coal gasifier, the shift reactor and the CO2 recovery units. CO2 recovery and storage will increase the electricity production cost by one third. The secondprovides hydrogen or a hydrogen-rich fuel gas for distributed applications, including transportation; it is shown that the fuel can be produced at a cost comparable to projected costs for gasoline. A preliminary analysis reveals that all components of the process described here are in such a phase of development that the proposed technology is ready for demonstration. ~'> --. ~'"' .,.,""~ 0\ ~ 0\0 ;.., ::::. ~ ~ -.., 01) §~ .5~ c0 ~.., ~'> '" .~ ~ ..::. ~ ~ "'~'" '" 0\00--. ~~ ""00 Q....~~ '- ~~ --. ~.., ~ ~ ""~ 0000 .00 t¥") $ ~ .9 ~~~ .- ..~ c ~ ~ ~ .~ O"Oe) """1;3 .0 .-> ...~ 0 ~ ,9 u u "0 ...~ --.
    [Show full text]
  • Renewable Propane
    Renewable propane Pathways to the prize Eric Johnson Western Propane Gas Association 4 November 2020 A bit of background Headed to Carbon Neutral: 2/3rds of World Economy By 2050 By 2045+ By 2060 By 2050 Facing decarbonisation: you’re not alone! Refiners Gas suppliers Oil majors A new supply chain for refiners Some go completely bio, others partially Today’s r-propane: from vegetable/animal oils/fats Neste’s HVO plant in Rotterdam HVO biopropane (r-propane) capacity in the USA PROJECT OPERATOR kilotonnes Million gal /year /year EXISTING BP Cherry Point BP ? Diamond Green Louisiana Valero: Diamond Green Diesel 10 5.2 Kern Bakersfield Kern ? Marathon N Dakota Tesoro, Marathon (was Andeavor) 2 1 REG Geismar Renewable Energy 1.3 0.7 World Energy California AltAir Fuels, World Energy 7 3.6 PLANNED Diamond Green Texas Valero: Diamond Green Diesel, Darling 90 46.9 HollyFrontier Artesia/Navajo HollyFrontier, Haldor-Topsoe 25 13 Marathon ? Next Renewables Oregon Next Renewable Fuels 80 41.7 Phillips 66 ? Biggest trend: co-processing • Conventional refinery • Modified hydrotreater • Infrastructure exists already Fossil petroleum BP, Kern, Marathon, PREEM, ENI and others…… But there is not enough HVO to meet longer-term demand. LPG production Bio-oil potential What about the NGL industry? Many pathways to renewables…. The seven candidate pathways Gasification-syngas, from biomass Gasification-syngas, from waste Plus ammonia, Pyrolysis from DME, biomass hydrogen etc Glycerine-to-propane Biogas oligomerisation Power-to-X Alcohol to jet/LPG Gasification to syngas, from biomass Cellulose Criterium Finding Process Blast biomass (cellulose/lignin) into CO and H2 (syngas).
    [Show full text]
  • Process Intensification with Integrated Water-Gas-Shift Membrane Reactor Reactor Concept (Left)
    INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM Process Intensification with Integrated Water-Gas-Shift Membrane Reactor Reactor concept (left). Flow diagram (middle): Hydrogen (H2) permeates the membrane where nitrogen (N2) sweeps the gas to Hydrogen-Selective Membranes for High- produce a high-pressure H2/N2 gas stream. Membrane diagram Pressure Hydrogen Separation (right): The H2-selective membrane allows the continuous removal of the H2 produced in the water-gas-shift (WGS) reaction. This allows for the near-complete conversion of carbon monoxide (CO) This project will develop hydrogen-selective membranes for an innovative water-gas-shift reactor that improves gas separation to carbon dioxide (CO2) and for the separation of H2 from CO2. efficiency, enabling reduced energy use and greenhouse gas Image Courtesy of General Electric Company, Western Research Institute, emissions. and Idaho National Laboratory. Benefits for Our Industry and Our Nation Introduction The development of an integrated WGS-MR for hydrogen The goal of process intensification is to reduce the equipment purification and carbon capture will result in fuel flexibility footprint, energy consumption, and environmental impact of as well as environmental, energy, and economic benefits. manufacturing processes. Commercialization of this technology has the potential to achieve the following: One candidate for process intensification is gasification, a common method by which hydrocarbon feedstocks such as coal, • A reduction in energy use during the separation process by biomass, and organic waste are reacted with a controlled amount replacing a conventional WGS reactor and CO2 removal system of oxygen and steam to produce synthesis gas (syngas), which with a WGS-MR and downsized CO2 removal unit is composed primarily of hydrogen (H2) and carbon monoxide (CO).
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Gas Energy Efficiency: Progress and Opportunities
    Natural Gas Energy Efficiency: Progress and Opportunities Steven Nadel July 2017 Report U1708 © American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 529 14th Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20045 Phone: (202) 507-4000 • Twitter: @ACEEEDC Facebook.com/myACEEE • aceee.org NATURAL GAS ENERGY EFFICIENCY © ACEEE Contents About the Author ...............................................................................................................................iii Acknowledgments ..............................................................................................................................iii Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... iv Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 The Natural Gas Industry................................................................................................................... 1 Natural Gas Efficiency Trends ........................................................................................................... 2 Contributors to Natural Gas Efficiency Progress ............................................................................ 2 New Technologies .................................................................................................................... 3 Price Effects ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]