DOCSLIB.ORG

Cool GTL for the Production of Jet Fuel from Biogas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cool GTL for the Production of Jet Fuel from Biogas DOE Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO) 2021 Project Peer Review Cool GTL to Produce Jet Fuel from Biogas March 25, 2021 WBS: 3.5.1.405 Terry Marker Gas Technology Institute This presentation does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information 1 Cool GTL for the Production of Jet Fuel from Biogas Project Overview 2 Project Overview Cool GTL to Produce Jet Fuel from Biogas • Goal is to produce 100 gallons of Jet Fuel from Biogas using the Cool GTL Process – GTI will demonstrate a new simple GTL process which converts biogas, CO2, and methane directly to jet, gasoline, and diesel – Show the technology to be significantly lower cost, and more efficient than previous GTL processes- produce jet fuel at < $3/GGE – Also complete modeling, engineering, technoeconomic and LCA for Cool GTL biogas commercial process- advance from TRL 3 to 5 3 3 Cool GTL • Converts CO2-rich methane, ethane and propane to high-quality gasoline, diesel and jet fuel • Works well for any gas containing CO2 or CO • Uses unique CO2/steam reforming catalyst to directly make 2:1 H2/CO synthesis gas • Uses unique combined Fischer-Tropsch and wax-cracking reactor • Simple and compact with unique catalysts in each stage 4 SM Unique Cool GTL Technology Novel Features Beneficial Results • Unique bi-reforming catalyst • Modular, low-cost GTL • Unique wax cracking-FT catalyst • Small footprint • Unique electric reformer design • Great economics • Distributed plant locations Two patents issued Current GTL Cool GTLSM and several others pending 5 SM Cool GTL – High Quality Products Reforming Product Composition vs Time on Stream 70 Hydrogen 60 50 40 CO 30 20 CO2 10 Methane 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Hours on Stream Product Gas Internal Flow Heaters Catalyst material Electric reformer One reactor with internal heating elements Feed Gas Flow 6 Cool GTL for the Production of Jet Fuel from Biogas Management 7 Project Management Cool GTL to Produce Jet Fuel from Biogas GTI Experimental testing Hatch MTU Veolia Synsel CAAFI PSRI Engineering LCA Commercial Commercial Commercial Modeling technoeconomic Additional Contractors 1 INL-Forest Concepts- IH2 Feed Preparation 2 Intertek/SGS – Jet Product Workup 8 8 Project Management –Risk Mitigation Cool GTL to Produce Jet Fuel from Biogas • Monthly Team Meetings • Additional meetings as needed with engineering, modeling and LCA team. • 3 phase approach with important milestones and intermediate reports 9 Cool GTL for the Production of Jet Fuel from Biogas Approach 10 Approach Simplified Biogas to Jet Fuel Timeline 2019 2020 2021 2021 2022 Sept Feb Oct Initial verification Produce wood feed Tie-in/Shakedown Initial Reactor Modeling Reactor Modeling Produce 5 Gallons of Jet Produce 100 Gallons of Jet Fuel Fuel Jet Fuel work up Jet Fuel work up Final Engineering Preliminary Engineering Final Technoeconomic Preliminary Final LCA Technoeconomic Final report Preliminary LCA We are currently in Budget Period 2 11 Second Budget Period Key Tasks . Integrate/Tie in Cool GTL Pilot plant with IH2 Unit . Shakedown integrated system . Preliminary Engineering, modeling and LCA . Make 5 Gallons Jet fuel . Analyze the Jet fuel – pass specifications 12 Process Flow Diagram for the IH2 and Cool GTL Process Larger Pilot Plant for Budget Period 2 DOE Tests Existing IH2 Process Cool Reformer Process Char Removal HydroConversion Integrated with FT Process H2 steam Product Gases IH2 Bio Gases Char Gasoline+ 1-2 gallons per day Separation Jet +Diesel PS Cool FT Polishin Water HydroPyrolysis Separator A Reform Reactor g Water 2 IH er Reactor Gasoline+Diesel H2 Feed And Biomass Wood Biomass Conversion of Biogas into Conversion and liquid Liquids Upgrading 13 Key Milestones Budget Period 2 . Integrate Cool GTL with IH2 In Progress . Shakedown of the Cool GTL System with the IH2 system . Short term testing of the Cool GTL system. Make 5 Gallons of Jet Fuel . Cool reformer makes 2.1-2.4 H2/CO synthesis gas . Cool FT operates at >60% Conversion per pass . Catalyst deactivation < 5C./200hours . Modeling of the Fischer Tropsch Reactor . Initial Engineering design package . 2 commercial designs 800bbl/d for IH2 and 100bbl/d for digestor . DECISION POINT DOE verification – Initial analysis jet fuel at 3.5 /GGE 14 Key Technical Challenges Budget Period 2 . Integrated system working stably . Produce high quality jet fuel which makes freeze point . Reach $3.5/GGE in initial technoeconomic pass verification 15 Cool GTL to Produce Jet Fuel from Biogas Impacts 16 Cool GTL Applications & Markets • Biogas to GTL → Direct utilization of CO2 methane, ethane, propane • Increase liquid production from biomass conversion with IH2 and Gasifiers • CO2 from DAC plus Hydrogen conversion to liquid fuels • Flare gas mitigation → any CO2 containing natural gas, offshore, Africa • High CO2 content natural gas → utilize some shut-in natural gas Cool GTL is a versatile process with multiple applications 17 Cool GTL for the Production of Jet Fuel from Biogas Progress and Outcomes 18 Cool GTL to Produce Jet Fuel from Biogas Progress – Engineering - HATCH . Initial Process design and modeling complete . 800bl/d case IH2 feed . 100bbl/d digestor feed Bi-Reformer Optimization – IH2 Bi- Reformer Optimization – Biogas Case Carbon Conversion as a Function of H2 and H2O Addition Rates Reformer Conversion as a Function of Pressure 100 (Fixed Composition & Target H2:CO) 90 76 80 74 70 72 60 70 50 68 40 66 47.4% 30 64 42.9% 37.5% 62 20 31.0% Carbon Conversion in Feed Gas 60 2 10 23.1% 0.00 0.17 13.0% 0.34 0.51 0 0.67 0.84 1.01 1.18 1.35 1.52 44 58 73 87 102 116 131 145 160 174 189 203 218 1.69 1.85 0.0% 2.02 2.19 2.36 2.53 Molar % H 2.70 Pressure at Inlet to Prereformer (psia) 2.87 3.03 3.20 Carbon Conversion Through Reformer (%) Reformer Through Conversion Carbon CO2 Conversion CH4 Conversion Carbon Conversion H2O:CH4 Ratio of Reformer Feed Copyright © Hatch 2020. All Rights Reserved. 60-62 62-64 64-66 66-68 68-70 70-72 72-74 74-76 Copyright © Hatch 2020. All Rights Reserved. Capital cost and technoeconomic in progress 19 Cool GTL to Produce Jet Fuel from BiogasProgress – Fischer Tropsch Reactor Modeling - PSRI • Two reactor designs to be evaluated – Ebulliated bed reactor – Tubular Reactor Ebulliated Bed Tubular Reactor 20 Cool GTL Pilot Plant – Connected to IH2 21 Cool GTL Pilot Plant – Control Room and Product Recovery 22 Cool GTL Sulfur Guard Bed and Panoramic view 23 Cool GTL – Large Pilot Plant work • Integration complete • Shakedown In Progress • 5 Gallon Jet Fuel from Biogas to be produced April Cool GTL – Life Cycle Analysis . In Progress 24 Cool GTL for the Production of Jet Fuel to Biogas Summary . Unique new GTL technology for Biogas Conversion . Project in Budget Period 2 . Engineering, LCA, Modeling, Pilot Plant Shakedown Progressing 25 Quad Chart Overview Cool GTL for the Production of Jet Fuel from Biogas Timeline Project Goal • Project start date Sept 2019 Make 100 gallons of Jet fuel from Biogas using Cool GTL technology • Project end date March 2023 End of Project Milestones FY20 . Total Award 100 gallons of jet fuel while achieving catalyst Costed deactivation <5C/500hr . Jet fuel specifications are passed. DOE $538,208 $2,986,005 Funding . The model predicts pilot plant results well +/- 10C at 60% CO conversion . Complete engineering design package for 800bbl/day and 100bbl/day . Jet Fuel produced at <$3/GGE Project $258,000 $853,563 . Biogenic fuel reduces greenhouse gas Cost emissions by > 65% Share . DOE verification passed Project Partners* 5Funding Mechanism • Hatch, MTU, PSRI DOE DE-EE-0001926 – Topic area 1 , • Veolia, Synsel, CAAFI. FOA issued in 2018 . 26 26 Additional Slides 27 SM Cool GTL Reactions Cool Reforming Reactor H2 O + CH4 CO + 3H2 CO and H2 formation (800°C) CO2 + CH4 2CO + 2H2 CO and H2 formation (800°C) CO2 + H2 H2 O + CO Water-gas shift to equilibrium Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) Reactor CO + 2H2 -[CH2] + H2 O Hydro/oligomerization (200°C) H2 + -[CH2] -[CH2] + H2 Isomerization (200°C) 28 Initial verification – Passed – Feb 2020 Cool Reformer and FT Process Small Pilot Plant in 554 Cool Reformer Process FT Process 330 g/day Hydrocarbon product nd 1st Stage Heat 2 Stage Heat Polishing Exchanger Polishing Exchanger Reactor Reactor Reformer 246C,445psig 246C,445ps 870C, 50 psig ig Preheater Fuel/Water Fuel/Water st Feed Gas Synthesis 1 Stage 2nd Stage Gas FT Reactor FT Reactor Gas Product 215C,450psig 215C,440psig Water Water Synthesis Gas 29 Circulating water used for temperature control of FT system Cool GTL to Produce Jet Fuel from Biogas Veolia sells digestors Cool GTL for Biogas Conversion Biomass Digester Cool GTL BIOGAS Biomass Gasoline, Jet and Diesel Cool GTL Utilizes the CH4 + CO2 present in biogas 30 US Digestors Map Over 2200 Digestors in the United States 31 2® Synsel interested in IH Cool GTL Application Waste wood/MSW conversion Case 1 Case 2 IH2 plus CO2/H2O Reforming of IH2 Liqht Gas to Increase biogenic Liquid WOOD FEED CASE 2 in LCA BASE IH2 PROCESS Yields to 38%IH2 - LCA plus- Case 2 Cool GTL (showing more details) Cool GTL CO2 H2 Diesel Char Upgrading Boiler PSA H 2 Diesel Upgrading Electricity Electricity H2S adsorber +Steam H2S adsorber +Steam Ammonia-water Ammonia/water water CO2 86 GPT Liquid Yield 126 GPT Liquid Yield from wood from wood • Use natural gas to make H2, use Biogenic gas to make more biogenic liquid • LCA says IH2+Cool GTL still above 60% GHG reduction 32.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Blending Hydrogen Into Natural Gas Pipeline Networks: a Review of Key Issues
    Blending Hydrogen into Natural Gas Pipeline Networks: A Review of Key Issues M. W. Melaina, O. Antonia, and M. Penev NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. Technical Report NREL/TP-5600-51995 March 2013 Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 Blending Hydrogen into Natural Gas Pipeline Networks: A Review of Key Issues M. W. Melaina, O. Antonia, and M. Penev Prepared under Task No. HT12.2010 NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Report 15013 Denver West Parkway NREL/TP-5600-51995 Golden, Colorado 80401 March 2013 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.
    [Show full text]
  • LLNL Underground Coal Gasification: an Overview of Groundwater
    David W. Camp Joshua A. White Underground Coal Gasification: An Overview of Groundwater Contamination Hazards and Mitigation Strategies March 2015 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory LLNL-TR-668633 Disclaimer This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor Lawrence Livermore Na- tional Security, LLC, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or useful- ness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. v Acknowledgements This work was funded by a 2012 Applied Science Grant from the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract DE- AC52-07NA27344. The authors wish to thank Duane Matt and other members of the OSM Underground Coal Gasification Working Group for their support and recommendations. We also thank the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) for earlier funding that allowed LLNL to begin investi- gating groundwater contamination issues.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT Comparative Assessment of Technology Options for Biogas Clean‐Up
    Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program DRAFT INTERIM PROJECT REPORT DRAFT Comparative Assessment of Technology Options for Biogas Clean‐up Prepared for: California Energy Commission Prepared by: California Biomass Collaborative University of California, Davis OCTOBER 2014 CEC‐500‐11‐020, TASK 8 Prepared by: Primary Author(s): Matthew D. Ong Robert B. Williams Stephen R. Kaffka California Biomass Collaborative University of California, Davis 1 Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616 Contract Number: 500-11-020, Task 8 Prepared for: California Energy Commission Michael Sokol Contract Manager Aleecia Gutierrez Office Manager Energy Generation Research Office Laurie ten Hope Deputy Director Energy Research and Development Robert Oglesby Executive Director DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as the result of work sponsored by the California Energy Commission. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Energy Commission, its employees or the State of California. The Energy Commission, the State of California, its employees, contractors and subcontractors make no warrant, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report; nor does any party represent that the uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This report has not been approved or disapproved by the California Energy Commission nor has the California Energy Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this report. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to express his gratitude and appreciation to the following individuals for their various contributions to the development of this report: California Biomass Collaborative Robert Williams, Project Supervisor Dr. Stephen Kaffka, Project Manager Dr. Bryan Jenkins, Contract Manager American Biogas Council Bioenergy Association of California.
    [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]
  • Two Phase Flow Water Gas Separation in Biomass Energy Production
    Paper ID #12042 Two Phase Flow Water Gas Separation in Biomass Energy Production Prof. Yeong Ryu, State University of New York, Farmingdale YEONG S. RYU graduated from Columbia University with a Ph.D. and Master of Philosophy in Mechan- ical Engineering in 1994. He has served as an associate professor of Mechanical Engineering Technology at Farmingdale State College (SUNY) since 2006. In addition, he has conducted various research projects at Xerox Corporation (1994-1995), Hyundai Motor Corporation (1995-1997), and New Jersey Institute of Technology (2001-2003). He has been teaching and conducting research in a broad range of areas of system identification and control of nonlinear mechatronic systems and vibrations in structures requir- ing precision pointing to eliminate the detrimental effects of such diverse disturbance sources. He has authored or co-authored more than 70 publications. His work currently focuses on the development and implementation of modeling and control of renewable energy systems, characterization of nanomaterials, photovoltaics, and nanoscale integrated systems. He is a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) and the Materials Research Society (MRS). Dr. Hazem Tawfik, State University of New York, Farmingdale Prof. Tawfik obtained his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering, from University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. He has held a number of industrial & academic positions and affiliations with organizations that included Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), Stony Brook University (SBU), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Atomic Energy of Canada Inc., Ontario Hydro, NASA Kennedy, NASA Marshall Space Flight Centers, and the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Underground Coal Gasification and Coal Chemicals Around the World
    FUELLING THE FIRE The chequered history of Underground Coal Gasification and Coal Chemicals around the world ‘Fuelling the Fire: the chequered history of Underground Coal Gasification and Coal Chemicals around the world’ is a Friends of the Earth International report produced by Friends of the Earth Scotland and published in July 2016. Friends of the Earth International is the world’s largest grassroots environmental network, uniting 74 national member groups and some 2 million members and supporters around the world. We challenge the current model of economic and corporate globalisation, and promote solutions that will help to create environmentally sustainable and socially just societies. Our vision is of a peaceful and sustainable world based on societies living in harmony with nature. We envision a society of interdependent people living in dignity, wholeness and fulfilment in which equity and human and peoples’ rights are realised. This will be a society built upon peoples’ sovereignty and participation. It will be founded on social, economic, gender and environmental justice and be free from all forms of domination and exploitation, such as neoliberalism, corporate globalization, neo-colonialism and militarism. We believe that our children’s future will be better because of what we do. Friends of the Earth International has member groups in Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belgium (Flanders), Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Curaçao (Antilles), Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark,
    [Show full text]
  • Gasworks and Gasholders Introductions to Heritage Assets Summary
    Gasworks and Gasholders Introductions to Heritage Assets Summary Historic England’s Introductions to Heritage Assets (IHAs) are accessible, authoritative, illustrated summaries of what we know about specific types of archaeological site, building, landscape or marine asset. Typically they deal with subjects which lack such a summary. This can either be where the literature is dauntingly voluminous, or alternatively where little has been written. Most often it is the latter, and many IHAs bring understanding of site or building types which are neglected or little understood. Gas works, or sites where gas was manufactured by thermally decomposing fossil fuels and stored in gasholders, were one of the most ubiquitous and widely distributed industrial complexes of the 19th and 20th centuries. Frequently constructed on the edges of urban areas, close to their customers and adjacent to rivers, canals and railways - reflecting both the inability of the early works to transmit gas over large distances and the reliance Front cover: on a supply of coal – meant that gasworks and gasholders had a The Cheltenham Gas considerable visual impact on the landscape. Beginning with the Light & Coke Company formation of the Gas Light and Coke Company in London in 1812, works from the air in coal gas manufactured at gasworks in towns, cities and on private 1938. Formed in 1818, the company moved to a larger estates was transmitted via England’s first energy networks before site formed by the junction first nationalisation (1949) and the conversion to natural gas (from of Gloucester Road 1967), brought about the end of the industry and the clearance of and Tewkesbury Road.
    [Show full text]
  • The Potential of Sustainable Biomass Producer Gas As a Waste-To-Energy Alternative in Malaysia
    sustainability Review The Potential of Sustainable Biomass Producer Gas as a Waste-to-Energy Alternative in Malaysia Jun Sheng Teh 1, Yew Heng Teoh 1,* , Heoy Geok How 2, Thanh Danh Le 3,*, Yeoh Jun Jie Jason 2, Huu Tho Nguyen 4 and Dong Lin Loo 1 1 Engineering Campus, School of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Nibong Tebal 14300, Penang, Malaysia; [email protected] (J.S.T.); [email protected] (D.L.L.) 2 Department of Engineering, School of Engineering, Computing and Built Environment, UOW Malaysia KDU Penang University College, 32 Jalan Anson, Georgetown 10400, Penang, Malaysia; [email protected] (H.G.H.); [email protected] (Y.J.J.J.) 3 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City, 12 Nguyen Van Bao Street, Ward 4, Go Vap District, Ho Chi Minh City 71408, Vietnam 4 Department of Mechatronics Engineering Technology, Ho Chi Minh City University of Food Industry, 140 Le Trong Tan Street, Tan Phu District, Ho Chi Minh City 760310, Vietnam; tho.nh@hufi.edu.vn * Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected] (Y.H.T.); [email protected] (T.D.L.) Abstract: It has been widely accepted worldwide, that the greenhouse effect is by far the most challenging threat in the new century. Renewable energy has been adopted to prevent excessive greenhouse effects, and to enhance sustainable development. Malaysia has a large amount of biomass residue, which provides the country with the much needed support the foreseeable future. This investigation aims to analyze potentials biomass gases from major biomass residues in Malaysia.
    [Show full text]
  • Syngas Composition: Gasification of Wood Pellet with Water Steam
    energies Article Syngas Composition: Gasification of Wood Pellet with Water Steam through a Reactor with Continuous Biomass Feed System Jerzy Chojnacki 1,* , Jan Najser 2, Krzysztof Rokosz 1 , Vaclav Peer 2, Jan Kielar 2 and Bogusława Berner 1 1 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Koszalin University of Technology, Raclawicka Str.15-17, 75-620 Koszalin, Poland; [email protected] (K.R.); [email protected] (B.B.) 2 ENET Centre, VSB—Technical University of Ostrava, 17. Listopadu 2172/15, 708 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic; [email protected] (J.N.); [email protected] (V.P.); [email protected] (J.K.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +48-94-3478-359 Received: 15 July 2020; Accepted: 22 August 2020; Published: 25 August 2020 Abstract: Investigations were performed in relation to the thermal gasification of wood granulate using steam in an allothermal reactor with electric heaters. They studied the impact of the temperature inside the reactor and the steam flow rate on the percentage shares of H2, CH4, CO, and CO2 in synthesis gas and on the calorific value of syngas. The tests were conducted at temperatures inside the reactor equal to 750, 800, and 850 C and with a steam flow rate equal to 10.0, 15.0, and 20.0 kg h 1. ◦ · − The intensity of gasified biomass was 20 kg h 1. A significant impact of the temperature on the · − percentages of all the components of synthesis gas and a significant impact of the steam flow rate on the content of hydrogen and carbon dioxide in syngas were found.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Biogas in Hydrogen Production & Decarbonization
    The Role of Biogas & RNG in Hydrogen Production & Decarbonization Board of Directors Meeting The Role of Biogas in Hydrogen Production & Decarbonization “BayoTech‘s goal is to provide customers access to low-cost, lower carbon hydrogen to accelerate the global energy transition” Mo Vargas BayoTech CEO 3 Hydrogen Facts Hydrogen should be consumed at the point of = Electrolysis uses 2X the H2 Energy Gas production due to low volumetric energy density amount of feedstock process 1 kg 1 gallon water than SMRs + $1.69 per kg Hydrogen produced > using BayoTech has the lowest cost of production 2-3X Fuel cells are 2X-3X more efficient than Industrial gas companies are internal combustion engines accustomed to large onsite off- takers. Not well suited for low = price, low carbon distributed H2 70 miles/kg vs 24 miles/gal H2 Gas + Liquification and transporting H2 from central plants are carbon intense and are up to 2/3rd of price at point of consumption. The only emissions when H2 is used in a fuel cell are water H2 pipelines cost $1MM a mile 4 Hydrogen Applications Fuel Cells Agriculture Industrial Energy Confidential BayoTech On-site Hydrogen Generators The on-site generation system Includes: • Natural gas cleanup system • Water purification system • Steam generator • Furnace and Steam Methane Reformer (SMR) • Water Gas Shift (WGS) reactor • Hydrogen separator & cleaning system Intellectual Property – • • BayoTech holds the exclusive license Process Control System including safety and for the core design from Sandia shut down functions with
    [Show full text]
  • Windsor Street Gasworks ...Through the Years Contents
    Windsor Street Gasworks ...through the years Contents 02 Introduction 03 Early history 05 Leading the world 08 Further growth 10 Gasholder No.12 11 Social activities 12 Diversification 14 The war years 15 Today This publication is adapted with permission from “A History of the Gas Industry in Birmingham” by Professor Russell Thomas. Russell Thomas has a keen interest in the gas industry. He has been working on former gasworks sites since 1997, a subject he has grown to find fascinating. Russell works as a technical director for the International Engineering Consultancy WSP, advising on former industrial sites, with a special focus on former gasworks. “A History of the Gas Industry in Birmingham” can be downloaded from nationalgrid.com/windsorstreet Windsor Street Gasworks | 2021 01 Introduction For over 130 years, the Windsor Street Gasworks soon became a common feature gasholders have dominated the Aston in the heart of the city, with sites at Gas Street, skyline in Birmingham. They are steeped Fazeley Street, Adderley Street and Swan Village. in industrial history, providing a link to However, by the 1840s there was a growing call the pioneering age of gas. However, for them to be located out of the city along the times change, bringing new innovations River Rea. to produce and store fuel. Consequently, the Birmingham Gas Light After being unused for years, the three gasholders and Coke Company constructed a gasworks are now set to be dismantled. This will be the first at Windsor Street and the Birmingham and step towards returning the unused land back to Staffordshire Gas Light Company built their beneficial use.
    [Show full text]
  • Underground Coal Gasification
    David W. Camp Joshua A. White Underground Coal Gasification: An Overview of Groundwater Contamination Hazards and Mitigation Strategies March 2015 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory LLNL-TR-668633 Disclaimer This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor Lawrence Livermore Na­ tional Security, LLC, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or useful­ ness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. v Acknowledgements This work was funded by a 2012 Applied Science Grant from the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract DE­ AC52-07NA27344. The authors wish to thank Duane Matt and other members of the OSM Underground Coal Gasification Working Group for their support and recommendations. We also thank the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) for earlier funding that allowed LLNL to begin investi­ gating groundwater contamination issues.
    [Show full text]