1.2.1 Different Types of Gasifiers and Their Integration with Gas Turbines

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

1.2.1 Different Types of Gasifiers and Their Integration with Gas Turbines 1.2.1 1.2.1-1 Introduction Different Types of Gasifi ers and Their Integration with What is gasifi cation? Gas Turbines Gasifi cation is a process in which combustible materials are partially oxi- dized or partially combusted. The product of gasifi cation is a combustible synthesis gas, or syngas. Because gasifi cation involves the partial, rather than complete, oxi- dization of the feed, gasifi cation processes operate in an oxygen-lean environment. As fi gure 1 indicates, the stoichiometric oxygen-to-coal ratio for combustion is al- most four times the stoichiometric oxygen-to-coal ratio for gasifi cation of Illinois #6 coal. Fig. 1. Diagram showing the products of reaction as a function of oxygen-to- coal ratio ( Reprinted from M. Ramezan, “Coal-based Gasifi cation Technolo- gies: An Overview” NETL Gasifi cation Technologies Training Course, Sept. 2004.) Just as most combustion-based processes such as power plants operate with excess oxygen to ensure complete conversion of the fuel, gasifi cation processes also typically operate above their stoichiometric oxygen-to-fuel ratio to ensure near com- plete conversion to syngas. The amount of oxygen used in gasifi cation, however, is Jeffrey Phillips always far less than that used in combustion and typically is less than half. In addition to coal, gasifi cation processes can use petroleum coke, biomass, EPRI / Advanced Coal Generation heavy oil, or even natural gas as the feedstock; however, this document will focus on P.O. Box 217097 coal gasifi cation processes. Charlotte, NC 28221 Comparison to coal combustion phone: (704) 595-2250 (advantages/disadvantages) email: [email protected] As indicated in fi gure 1, the products of reaction change signifi cantly as the oxygen-to-fuel ratio changes from combustion to gasifi cation conditions. These changes are summarized in table 1. Because the mixture under gasifying conditions is fuel-rich, there are not enough oxygen atoms available to fully react with the feed. Consequently, instead of producing CO2, the carbon in the feed is converted primar- ily to CO, and the hydrogen in the fuel is converted mostly to H2 rather than H2O. Both CO and H2 are excellent fuels for use in a combustion turbine; however, their combustion characteristics are signifi cantly different from natural gas. 67 Fig. 1. Diagram showing the products of reaction as a function of oxygen-to-coal ratio ( Reprinted from M. Ramezan, “Coal-based Gasification Technologies: An Overview” ( NETL Gasification Technologies Training Course, Sept. 2004.) Just as most combustion-based processes such as power plants operate with excess oxygen to ensure complete conversion of the fuel, gasification processes also typically operate above their stoichiometric oxygen-to-fuel ratio to ensure near complete conversion to syngas. The amount of oxygen used in gasification, however, is always far less than that used in combustion and typically is less than half. In addition to coal, gasification processes can use petroleum coke, biomass, heavy oil, or even natural gas as the feedstock; however, this document will focus on coal gasification processes. ���������� �� ���� ���������� �������������������������� As indicated in Fig. 1, the products of reaction change significantly as the oxygen-to-fuel ratio changes from combustion to gasification conditions. These changes are summarized in Table 1. Because the mixture under gasify conditions is fuel-rich, there are not enough oxygen atoms available to fully react with the feed. Consequently, instead of producing CO2, the carbon in the feed is converted primarily to CO, and the hydrogen in the fuel is converted mostly to H2 rather than H2O. Both CO and H2 are excellent fuels for use in a combustion turbine; however, their combustion characteristics are significantly different from natural gas. The implications of this will be fully covered in Section 3.1. Comparison of the primary products created by the ����� � Comparison of tTablehe pr im1 ary products created by the main fuel constituents in combustion and main fuel constituents in combustion and gasification gasification ���������� ������������ Carbon CO2 CO Hydrogen H2O H2 Nitrogen NO, NO2 HCN, NH3 or N2 Sulfur SO2 or SO3 H2S or COS Water H2O H2 TheThe fatefat eofo thef th fuel’se fuel ’nitrogens nitrog anden a sulfurnd su linfu ar igasificationn a gasific aprocesstion pr hasoce simportants has im pandort abeneficialnt and b econsequencesneficial on the environ- mental performance of an IGCC. Fuel-bound nitrogen, which is predominantly converted to NOx in combustion, is converted to N , consequences on the environmental performance of an IGCC. Fuel-bound nitrogen, which is 2 NH or HCN in gasification. As discussed in the “Syngas Clean-up Requirements” section of this chapter, both NH and HCN can be 3 predominantly converted to NOx in combustion, is converted to N2, NH3 or HCN in gasification3. As removed to very low levels with the resulting cleaned syngas having essentially no fuel-bound nitrogen. This significantly limits NOx emissionsd ofis canus IGCC.sed in the “Syngas Clean-up Requirements” section of this chapter, both NH3 and HCN can be Therem sulfuroved into fuelvery produceslow lev eSOls w init hcombustionthe result iprocessesng clean ebutd s isyn convertedgas havin tog eHssSe nandtia lCOSly no inf ugasificationel-bound n conditions.itrogen. As will This significantly limits NOxx emissions of an IGCC. 2 be described further on, both H2S and COS can be removed from the syngas using technology developed for the natural gas industry to levels of less than 20 ppm, which means that more than 99% of the sulfur can be removed from the fuel and will not be emitted as The sulfur in fuel produces SOx in combustion processes but is converted to H2S and COS in gasification SOx. Anotherconditi omajorns. A differences will be betweendescrib ecombustiond further o andn, b gasificationoth H2S an isd theCO amountS can b ofe rheatemo thatved isf rreleasedom the bysy nthega schemicalusing reactions. In combustion,techn allolo ofgy thede fuel’svelop chemicaled for th eenergynatur isal releasedgas ind uass theatry to (assuminglevels of itle isss fullythan converted),20 ppm, w buthic inh gasificationmeans that mostmor eof the fuel’s chemical energythan 9 9is% notof releasedthe sulf uasr cheat.an b eInr efact,mov aned importantfrom the measurefuel and ofw theill nefficiencyot be em ioftte ad gasificationas SOx. process is the fraction of the feedstock’s chemical energy, or heating value, which remains in the product syngas. This fraction is termed the “cold gas efficiency,” and most commercial-scaleAnother major d gasificationifference b eprocessestween co havembu as tcoldion agasnd efficiencygasificati oofn atis leastthe a65%mou andnt o somef hea exceedt that i s80%.rele a sed by the Becausechemic asignificantlyl reactions. lessIn cheatom bisu releasedstion, al lbyo ftheth egasificationfuel’s che process,mical en ite risg yimportantis releas toed limitas h etheat (amountassum iofng heatit is thatful lisy trans- ferred outc ofon theve rzoneted), wherebut in thega sgasificationification m reactionsost of th earefu occurring.el’s chem iIfca not,l en theerg ytemperaturesis not relea withinsed as thehe agasificationt. In fact, azonen could be too o o low to allowimp theort areactionsnt meas utor egoo fforwardthe eff i(aci eminimumncy of a ofga 1000sificaCti oorn 1800proceFs sisi stypicallythe frac neededtion of toth gasifye feed scoal).tock ’ sConsequently,chemical unlike a boiler whereene thergy ,entireor h efireboxating v isal ulinede, w hwithich water-filledremains in tubesthe p rthatodu capturect syng athes. heatThi sreleasedfractio nbyis theter mprocessed the and“co produceld gas steam, many gasifiers areeff refractory-linediciency,” and m withost cnoom watermer ccoolingial-sca ltoe gensureasific aasti olittlen pr heatoces lossses hasa vpossible.e a cold gGasifiersas effic ialsoenc ytypicallyof at le aoperatest 65% at elevated pressure, sometimes as high as 6.2 MPa (900 psia), which allows them to have very compact construction with minimum surface area and some exceed 80%. and minimal heat loss. Because significantly less heat is released by the gasification process, it is important to limit the amount of 1.2.1-2h e aGenerict that is tran sTypesferred ou oft of Gasifiersthe zone where the gasification reactions are occurring. If not, the temperatures within the gasification zone could be too low to allow the reactions to go forward (a minimum Movingo fBed1000ºC or 1800ºF is typically needed to gasify coal). Consequently, unlike a boiler where the entire Af idiagramrebox is ofli na egenericd with movingwater- fbedille dgasifiertubes isth shownat cap tinu rfiguree the 2.he Movingat relea sbeded gasifiersby the p areroc countercurrentess and produ flowce st reactorseam, in which the coal entersmany atg theasi ftopier sofa rthee r ereactorfracto randy-li naired orw oxygenith no wentersater cato othelin bottom.g to en s uAsre theas lcoalittle slowlyheat lo movesss as p downossib throughle. Gas ithefie rreactor,s it is gasifieda andlso ttheyp iremainingcally oper ashate dropsat ele voutate ofd pthere sbottomsure, s oofm theeti mreactor.es as h iBecausegh as 6 .of2 MtheP acountercurrent(900 psia), w flowhich arrangement,allows them theto heat of reaction fromhave theve rgasificationy compact reactionsconstruc tservesion w itoth pre-heatminimu them s coalurfa cbeforee area ita nentersd mi ntheim agasificationl heat loss .reaction zone. Consequently, the temperature of the syngas exiting the gasifier is significantly lower than the temperature needed for complete conversion of the coal. ������� ������� ����� �� ��������� ������ ��� A diagram of a generic moving bed gasifier is shown in Fig. 2. Moving bed gasifiers are countercurrent flow reactors in which the coal enters at the top of the reactor and air or oxygen enters at the bottom. As the coal slowly moves down through the reactor, it is gasified and the remaining ash drops out of the bottom of the reactor. Because of the countercurrent flow arrangement, the heat of reaction from the gasification reactions serves to pre-heat the coal before it enters the gasification reaction zone.
Recommended publications
  • Combustion and Heat Release Characteristics of Biogas Under Hydrogen- and Oxygen-Enriched Condition
    energies Article Combustion and Heat Release Characteristics of Biogas under Hydrogen- and Oxygen-Enriched Condition Jun Li 1, Hongyu Huang 2,*, Huhetaoli 2, Yugo Osaka 3, Yu Bai 2, Noriyuki Kobayashi 1,* and Yong Chen 2 1 Department of Chemical Engineering, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Aichi 464-8603, Japan; [email protected] 2 Guangzhou Institute of Energy Conversion, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510640, China; [email protected] (H.); [email protected] (Y.B.); [email protected] (Y.C.) 3 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Kanazawa University, Kakuma, Kanazawa, Ishikawa 920-1192, Japan; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] (H.H.); [email protected] (N.K.); Tel.: +86-20-870-48394 (H.H.); +81-52-789-5428 (N.K.) Received: 10 May 2017; Accepted: 20 July 2017; Published: 13 August 2017 Abstract: Combustion and heat release characteristics of biogas non-premixed flames under various hydrogen-enriched and oxygen-enriched conditions were investigated through chemical kinetics simulation using detailed chemical mechanisms. The heat release rates, chemical reaction rates, and molar fraction of all species of biogas at various methane contents (35.3–58.7%, mass fraction), hydrogen addition ratios (10–50%), and oxygen enrichment levels (21–35%) were calculated considering the GRI 3.0 mechanism and P1 radiation model. Results showed that the net reaction rate of biogas increases with increasing hydrogen addition ratio and oxygen levels, leading to a higher net heat release rate of biogas flame. Meanwhile, flame length was shortened with the increase in hydrogen addition ratio and oxygen levels.
    [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]
  • Energy and the Hydrogen Economy
    Energy and the Hydrogen Economy Ulf Bossel Fuel Cell Consultant Morgenacherstrasse 2F CH-5452 Oberrohrdorf / Switzerland +41-56-496-7292 and Baldur Eliasson ABB Switzerland Ltd. Corporate Research CH-5405 Baden-Dättwil / Switzerland Abstract Between production and use any commercial product is subject to the following processes: packaging, transportation, storage and transfer. The same is true for hydrogen in a “Hydrogen Economy”. Hydrogen has to be packaged by compression or liquefaction, it has to be transported by surface vehicles or pipelines, it has to be stored and transferred. Generated by electrolysis or chemistry, the fuel gas has to go through theses market procedures before it can be used by the customer, even if it is produced locally at filling stations. As there are no environmental or energetic advantages in producing hydrogen from natural gas or other hydrocarbons, we do not consider this option, although hydrogen can be chemically synthesized at relative low cost. In the past, hydrogen production and hydrogen use have been addressed by many, assuming that hydrogen gas is just another gaseous energy carrier and that it can be handled much like natural gas in today’s energy economy. With this study we present an analysis of the energy required to operate a pure hydrogen economy. High-grade electricity from renewable or nuclear sources is needed not only to generate hydrogen, but also for all other essential steps of a hydrogen economy. But because of the molecular structure of hydrogen, a hydrogen infrastructure is much more energy-intensive than a natural gas economy. In this study, the energy consumed by each stage is related to the energy content (higher heating value HHV) of the delivered hydrogen itself.
    [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]
  • 2002-00201-01-E.Pdf (Pdf)
    report no. 2/95 alternative fuels in the automotive market Prepared for the CONCAWE Automotive Emissions Management Group by its Technical Coordinator, R.C. Hutcheson Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement Ó CONCAWE Brussels October 1995 I report no. 2/95 ABSTRACT A review of the advantages and disadvantages of alternative fuels for road transport has been conducted. Based on numerous literature sources and in-house data, CONCAWE concludes that: · Alternatives to conventional automotive transport fuels are unlikely to make a significant impact in the foreseeable future for either economic or environmental reasons. · Gaseous fuels have some advantages and some growth can be expected. More specifically, compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) may be employed as an alternative to diesel fuel in urban fleet applications. · Bio-fuels remain marginal products and their use can only be justified if societal and/or agricultural policy outweigh market forces. · Methanol has a number of disadvantages in terms of its acute toxicity and the emissions of “air toxics”, notably formaldehyde. In addition, recent estimates suggest that methanol will remain uneconomic when compared with conventional fuels. KEYWORDS Gasoline, diesel fuel, natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, CNG, LNG, Methanol, LPG, bio-fuels, ethanol, rape seed methyl ester, RSME, carbon dioxide, CO2, emissions. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This literature review is fully referenced (see Section 12). However, CONCAWE is grateful to the following for their permission to quote in detail from their publications: · SAE Paper No. 932778 ã1993 - reprinted with permission from the Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. (15) · “Road vehicles - Efficiency and emissions” - Dr. Walter Ospelt, AVL LIST GmbH.
    [Show full text]
  • Material Safety Data Sheet
    SAFETY DATA SHEET EFFECTIVE JUNE 2016 SECTION 1 – PRODUCT & COMPANY IDENTIFICATION Product Name: Commercial Odorized Propane Chemical Name: Propane (C3H8) Chemical Family: Petroleum Hydrocarbon Common Names: Liquefied Petroleum Gas, LP-Gas, LPG, Bottle Gas Intended Use: Propane is a liquid fuel Distributor: Campora Propane Service, PO Box 31717 Stockton, CA 95213 Emergency Response: CHEMTREC (800) 424-9300 General Information: (209) 941-2994 SECTION 2 – CHEMICAL HAZARD CLASSIFICATION & WARNING INFORMATION Fire Hazard NFPA CLASSES: 1-Slight 2-Moderate 3-Serious Health Hazard Reactivity 4-Severe Physical hazards Flammable gases Category 1 Gases under pressure Liquefied gas Health hazards Acute toxicity, inhalation Category 4 Germ cell mutagenicity Category 1B Carcinogenicity Category 1A Reproductive toxicity Category 1A Specific target organ toxicity, repeated Category 2 exposure OSHA defined hazards Not classified. Label Elements Signal Word Danger Hazard Statement Propane (also called LPG-Liquefied Petroleum Gas or LP-Gas) is a liquid fuel stored under pressure. In most systems, propane is vaporized to a gas before it leaves the tank. Propane is highly flammable when mixed with air (oxygen) and can be ignited by many sources, including open flames, smoking materials, electrical sparks, and static electricity. Severe “freeze burn” or frostbite can result if propane liquid comes in contact with your skin. Extremely flammable gas. Harmful if inhaled. May cause genetic defects. May cause cancer. May damage fertility or the unborn child. May cause damage to Blood through prolonged or repeated exposure. May cause cryogenic burns or injury. Propane is a simple asphyxiant. Precautionary statement General Read and follow all Safety Data Sheets (SDS’S) before use.
    [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]