DOCSLIB.ORG

The Water Requirements and Pollutant Potential in the Gasification of Carbonaceous Shales

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Water Requirements and Pollutant Potential in the Gasification of Carbonaceous Shales Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU Reports Utah Water Research Laboratory January 1982 The Water Requirements and Pollutant Potential in the Gasification of Carbonaceous Shales Jeffery A. Cissell V. Dean Adams Joel E. Fletcher Daniel S. Filip Dennis B. George Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/water_rep Part of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Recommended Citation Cissell, Jeffery A.; Adams, V. Dean; Fletcher, Joel E.; Filip, Daniel S.; and George, Dennis B., "The Water Requirements and Pollutant Potential in the Gasification of Carbonaceous Shales" (1982). Reports. Paper 545. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/water_rep/545 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Utah Water Research Laboratory at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Water Requirements And Pollutant .Potential In The Gasification Of Carbonaceous Shales . by jeffery A. Cissell V. Dean Adams Joel E. Fletcher . Daniel S. Filip Dennis B. George Utah Water Research Laboratory College of Engineering Utah State University Logan, Utah .84322 WATER QUAUTY SERIES October 1982 UWRL/Q-82/04 THE WATER REQUIREMENTS AND POLLUTANT POTENTIAL IN THE GASIFICATION OF CARBONACEOUS SHALES by Jeffery A. Cissell v. Dean Adams Joel E. Fletcher Daniel S. Filip Dennis B. George The work upon which this report is based was supported in part by federal funds provided by the United States Department of the Interior under the Water Research and Development Act of 1978, as amended, Project No. A-043-UTAH, Contract No. 14-34-0001-9047. WATER QUALITY SERIES UWRL/Q-82/04 Utah Water Research Laboratory College of Engineering Utah State University Logan, Utah 84322 October 1982 Contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U. S. Department of the Interior, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute their endorsement or recommendation by the U.S. Government. ABSTRACT A laboratory-scale, batch operated gasifier was used to evaluate the heating value, process and cooling water require­ ments, and water pollution potential of gasification of car­ bonaceous shales. These potentially valuable fossil fuels are found over large areas of Southern and Eastern Utah and vary widely in quality depending on the amount of intermixed inorganic material. The results indicate that a synthesis gas, consisting primarily of hydrogen and carbon monoxide, can be produced from carbonaceous shales. The total heating values of the synthesis gas from the carbon shales examined ranged from 4 to 62 percent of that of coal. The process water requirements per unit of heating value obtained for gasification of the carbonaceous shales tended to be 5 to 15 percent higher than that for coal. Cooling water requirements were similarly higher due to the greater quantity of ash quenching water needed for the shales. The quantity of phenols, ammonia-N, and total organic carbon produced from the gasification of coal was significantly greater than for either of the shales, when compared on a mass basis. Differences in process condensate constituents, such as muta­ genicity and trace elements, were also determined for the coal and shale samples. iii ACKNOWL EDGMENTS We would like to acknowledge the United States Department of the Interior {Project No. A-043-UTAH, Contract No. 14-34-0001- 9047, which provided funds for research and publication (JER- 043) • In addi t ion we would 1 ike to thank Annet te Bruns on, Barbara South, and Betty Hansen for typing the manuscript, Peter Brunson and Art Rivers for preparing the figures, and Donna Falkenborg for editorial assistance. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES 1 Introduction 1 Objectives 1 LITERATURE REVIEW 3 Background 3 Classification of Carbon Sources • 3 Coal and Carbonaceous Shale Characterization 3 Gasification Fundamentals 6 Process Descriptions 8 Water Requirements 9 Wastewater Characteristics • 11 Chlorine and the alkali metals 14 Gasification of fuel-nitrogen 14 Gasification of fuel-sulfur 14 Phenols and polynuclear aromatics 15 Trace elements 15 METHODOLOGY 19 Phase I: Survey of Existing Carbon-Shale Deposits • 19 Phase II~ Sample Acquisition and Characterization • 19 Samples used 19 Analysis of samples used 19 Phase III: Experimental Gasification 19 Phase IV: Pollutant Analysis . 20 Operational Problems • 23 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION • 25 Location, Acquisition, and Characterization of Poten- tial Carbon-Shale Deposits in Utah 25 Experimental Gasification 27 Summary 35 Water Requirements 35 Wastewater Characteristics • 39 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 47 v TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Page RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY 49 REFERENCES 51 APPENDIX A • 55 APPENDIX B 59 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Heat content and proximate analyses of ash-free coals of different rank (Probstein and Gold 1978). 4 2 Methods of producing clean synthetic gaseous, liquid, and solid fuels (Probstein and Gold 1978) 6 3 Net water consumption for standard-size coal gasifi­ cation plants utilizing 18,000 metric tons of coal per day 9 4 Process water requirements, Synthane plant, 250 million std. cu. ft/day (Chiang et aL 1978) 10 5 Required cooling water circulation, Synthane plant, 250 million std. cu. ft/day (Chiang et al. 1978) • 10 6 Schematic of batch operated carbon gasification unit 22 7 Existing probable lignite shale deposits in Utah • 26 8 The composition, heating val~e, and volume of fuel gas produced from the experimental gasification of the high-volatile bituminous coal . 30 9 The composition, heating value, and volume of fuel gas produced from the experimental gasification of the #6 carbonaceous shale 33 10 The composition, heating value, and volume of fuel gas produced from the experimental gasification of the #1 carbonaceous shale 34 11 Pollutant levels in process water condensate after gasification of .shales and coal--mass/unit. mass of shale or coal 41 12 Pollutant levels in process water condensate after gasification of shales and coal--mass/unit heat value 42 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Ultimate analyses in weight percent of representa­ tive coals of the United States (after Probstein and Gold 1978) • 5 2 Weight of solids and water of hydration per unit weight of sulfur in lime and limestone sludges, and for crystalline forms of calcium sulfite and sulfate (Probstein and Gold 1978) 11 3 Typical condensate quality from various processes (Luthy 1977, Massey 1976, Farnsworth 1975, Forney et ale 1974) 13 4 Estimated volatility of trace elements (Jahnig and Bertrand 1977) . 16 5 Form and distribution of select trace elements in raw gasifier product gas (Anderson et ale 1979) . 17 6 Procedures for analysis performed at the Utah Water Research Laboratory 21 7 Proximate and ultimate analyses of samples 23 8 Water and oxygen used in the experimental gasifier compared with typical steam and oxygen requirements of other gasifiers 27 9 Summary of the experimental gasification results of #8 coal, #1 shale, #6 shale, and sludge 29 10 The quantities of gases produced during experimental gasification 31 11 Hydrogen balance in the experimental gasifier for a coal and two shales 36 12 Total estimated water consumption of a Synthane plant producing 7.0 million cubic meters/day of synthesis gas 38 13 Quality of experimental process condensate compared with the range of commercial process condensate quality 40 ix ------.-. LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) Table Page 14 Trace metals analysis results from gasification experiments 45 x INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Introduction Objettives The energy crisis in the world and The specific objectives of the the United States in particular lends a present research are directed at answer­ note of urgency to the search for new ing the following questions: energy sources. A possible energy 1. Can carbon sources other than source which is not now being considered coal be gasified by the coal processes? is the vast deposits of lignaceous shales in the areas adjacent to coal 2 • I f so, how dot he s ega s e s deposits now considered as waste. compare to the gases from Utah coal? Coal has long been gasified as a 3. What are the water requirements source of commercial fuel gas. Can for the production of steam to process the same processes being used to produce these materials? gas from coal be utilized to produce gas from the lignite shales and other 4. What percentage of the waters forms of carbon bearing materials? If condensed from steam in (3) can be this can be accomplished, what quan­ reused? tities of water will be required? What 5. How much ammonia-nitrogen, quality of fuel gas or gases can be phenol, and organic carbons relative obtained? What about pollutants? to Utah coal is produced? The thrust of the present investi­ 6. What is the fate of selected gation is to shed light, in a prelimi­ trace elements in the carbon sources nary way, on the above questions. compared to coal, during gasification? 1 LITERATURE REVIEW Background anthracite) and characteristics (fria­ bility, caking, etc.) of coal. These Coal gas was an import ant fue 1 characteristics and properties are source in the United States prior to the important for determination of the most early 1900s, when natural gas replaced appropriate fue 1 convers ion me thod, the use of coal gas in most applications characterizing the products, and deter­ (Tetra Tech, Inc. 1976). Recently, m1.n1.ng the process water requirements interest in the gasification of coal has (Probstein and Gold 1978). The amount been renewed by the increas ing demand of moisture in the coal sample does not and decreasing supplies of natural gas change the quantity of steam required and oil. An intensive program has been because the moisture is usually driven undertaken by both the public and off in a countercurrent gasifier and private sectors to develop processes will not enter into the reaction with producing clean liquid and gaseous fuel coal.
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]
  • 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
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • The Future of Gasification
    STRATEGIC ANALYSIS The Future of Gasification By DeLome Fair coal gasification projects in the U.S. then slowed significantly, President and Chief Executive Officer, with the exception of a few that were far enough along in Synthesis Energy Systems, Inc. development to avoid being cancelled. However, during this time period and on into the early 2010s, China continued to build a large number of coal-to-chemicals projects, beginning first with ammonia, and then moving on to methanol, olefins, asification technology has experienced periods of both and a variety of other products. China’s use of coal gasification high and low growth, driven by energy and chemical technology today is by far the largest of any country. China markets and geopolitical forces, since introduced into G rapidly grew its use of coal gasification technology to feed its commercial-scale operation several decades ago. The first industrialization-driven demand for chemicals. However, as large-scale commercial application of coal gasification was China’s GDP growth has slowed, the world’s largest and most in South Africa in 1955 for the production of coal-to-liquids. consistent market for coal gasification technology has begun During the 1970s development of coal gasification was pro- to slow new builds. pelled in the U.S. by the energy crisis, which created a political climate for the country to be less reliant on foreign oil by converting domestic coal into alternative energy options. Further growth of commercial-scale coal gasification began in “Market forces in high-growth the early 1980s in the U.S., Europe, Japan, and China in the coal-to-chemicals market.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogen-Rich Syngas Production Through Synergistic Methane
    Research Article Cite This: ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX pubs.acs.org/journal/ascecg Hydrogen-Rich Syngas Production through Synergistic Methane- Activated Catalytic Biomass Gasification † † † ‡ † Amoolya Lalsare, Yuxin Wang, Qingyuan Li, Ali Sivri, Roman J. Vukmanovich, ‡ † Cosmin E. Dumitrescu, and Jianli Hu*, † ‡ Department of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering and Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, West Virginia University, 395 Evansdale Drive, Morgantown, West Virginia 26505, United States *S Supporting Information ABSTRACT: The abundance of natural gas and biomass in the U.S. was the motivation to investigate the effect of adding methane to catalytic nonoxidative high-temperature biomass gasification. The catalyst used in this study was Fe− Mo/ZSM-5. Methane concentration was varied from 5 to 15 vol %, and the reaction was performed at 850 and 950 °C. While biomass gasification without methane on the same catalysts produced ∼60 mol % methane in the total gas yield, methane addition had a strong effect on the biomass gasification, with more than 80 mol % hydrogen in the product gas. This indicates that the reverse steam methane reformation (SMR) reaction is favored in the absence of additional methane in the gas feed as the formation of H2 and CO shifts the equilibrium to the left. Results showed that 5 mol % additional methane in the feed gas allowed for SMR due to formation of steam adsorbates from oxygen in the functional groups of aromatic lignin being liberated on the oxophilic transition metals like Mo and Fe. This oxygen was then available for the SMR reaction with methane to form H2, CO, and CO2.
    [Show full text]