DOCSLIB.ORG

Gasification of Coal and Biomass Char Using a Superheated Steam Flame

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gasification of Coal and Biomass Char Using a Superheated Steam Flame Gasification of Coal and Biomass Char Using a Superheated Steam Flame By: Thomas Edward Lakey, MEng (Hons), AMIChemE, GradEI A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Sheffield Faculty of Engineering Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering October 2016 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisors Professor Vida N. Sharifi and Professor Jim Swithenbank for the opportunity to undertake this research work, and their continued guidance throughout the project. Also thanks to Dr Yajue Wu for taking over supervisory duties after Professor Sharifi’s retirement. I would also like to extend thanks and gratitude to the technical staff of the University of Sheffield, in particular Mr David Palmer and Mr Mike O’Meara for their invaluable input in bringing this project to fruition. Finally, thanks and appreciation are extended to the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) for providing the funding which made this work possible and to Carbon Compost Co. for provision of softwood char material used in this experimental work. ii Summary Gasification of coal or biomass can produce hydrogen rich synthetic gas (syngas) for use in fuel cells, liquid fuels or chemicals. While coal gasification is well established, biomass gasifiers have been hindered by costs and difficulties such as tar and ash deposition. Ultra-Superheated Steam (USS) has been proposed as an economical method to maximise gasification temperatures and hydrogen yields. A novel entrained flow USS gasification system showed promise with coal in a previous investigation. The main objectives were to investigate how a USS gasification system produced high hydrogen yields and feedstock conversion within a short residence time. Secondly, apply the system to biomass gasification for sustainable hydrogen production. The principle tasks were to identify the factors affecting the product composition, and experimentally compare the conversion and yields from coal and biomass materials. Numerical software was used to investigate gas and particle behaviour inside the burner. Coal and a unique high ash softwood char were successfully gasified. Char yielded up to 34.9%mol H2 and 25.1%mol CO in the dry gas, demonstrating higher conversion and yields than coal despite lower feedstock heating value and feeding rates. Biomass ash was considered to catalyse char conversion. No detrimental effect was observed from ash deposition, which was dry and easily removed. A fluid model mapped temperature distribution, showing good correlation with validation measurements and supporting the observation that wall temperature greatly affected particle conversion. Particle residence times were inversely proportional to particle diameter and density. High ash biochar showed greater conversion than coal. Economic analysis revealed the system would be most competitive on an existing site with available feedstocks and steam. A longer reactor would increase time for homogeneous reactions to play a greater role. With further development this technology has potential to produce hydrogen competitively on a commercial scale. iii Table of Contents Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... ii Summary ...................................................................................................................................... iii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ x List of Tables................................................................................................................................ xiv Nomenclature ............................................................................................................................. xvi Greek Letters .............................................................................................................................. xvii Super / Subscripts ....................................................................................................................... xvii Acronyms .................................................................................................................................. xviii 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Global Energy Demand ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Traditional Electricity Generation ....................................................................................... 2 1.2.1 Coal Power ................................................................................................................. 2 1.2.2 Natural Gas ................................................................................................................ 3 1.2.3 Nuclear Power ............................................................................................................ 4 1.3 Renewable Energy Sources ................................................................................................. 5 1.3.1 Wind and Solar Power ....................................................................................................... 5 1.3.2 Biomass Energy ................................................................................................................. 5 1.3.3 Hydrogen Fuel ................................................................................................................... 6 1.3.4 Waste to Energy Systems .................................................................................................. 6 1.4 Efficient Energy Use ........................................................................................................... 7 1.4.1 Large Scale Energy Storage ......................................................................................... 7 1.4.2 Combined Heat and Power (CHP) ...................................................................................... 8 1.5 Environmental Concerns .................................................................................................... 9 1.5.1 Global Warming ......................................................................................................... 9 1.5.2 Observable Environmental Effects ............................................................................ 10 1.5.4. Environmental Targets.............................................................................................. 11 1.6 The Cost of Power ............................................................................................................ 11 1.7 The Hydrogen Economy ................................................................................................... 13 1.8 Objectives of Research ..................................................................................................... 14 1.9 Layout of Report .............................................................................................................. 15 1.10 Summary.......................................................................................................................... 15 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................ 17 iv 2.1 Gasification Feedstocks .................................................................................................... 17 2.1.1 Coal .......................................................................................................................... 18 2.1.2 Biomass .................................................................................................................... 21 2.2 Thermal Technologies ...................................................................................................... 23 2.2.1 Combustion .............................................................................................................. 23 2.2.2 Pyrolysis ................................................................................................................... 25 2.2.3 Coal Gasification ....................................................................................................... 27 2.2.4 Commercial Biomass and Waste Gasification Systems .............................................. 34 2.2.5 Feedstock Preparation .............................................................................................. 36 2.3 Legislation ........................................................................................................................ 36 2.3.1 International Agreements ......................................................................................... 36 2.3.2 Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) ............................................................................ 37 2.3.3 UK National Policies .................................................................................................. 38 2.4 Gasification Research ....................................................................................................... 40 2.4.1 Tar Destruction Methods .......................................................................................... 40 2.4.2 Influence of Gasification Medium ............................................................................. 41 2.4.3 Catalytic
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Thesis a Modeling Tool for Household Biogas Burner
    THESIS A MODELING TOOL FOR HOUSEHOLD BIOGAS BURNER FLAME PORT DESIGN Submitted by Thomas J. Decker Department of Mechanical Engineering In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of Master of Science Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado Summer 2017 Master’s Committee: Advisor: Thomas Bradley Jason Prapas Sybil Sharvelle Copyright by Thomas J Decker 2017 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT A MODELING TOOL FOR HOUSEHOLD BIOGAS BURNER FLAME PORT DESIGN Anaerobic digestion is a well-known and potentially beneficial process for rural communities in emerging markets, providing the opportunity to generate usable gaseous fuel from agricultural waste. With recent developments in low-cost digestion technology, communities across the world are gaining affordable access to the benefits of anaerobic digestion derived biogas. For example, biogas can displace conventional cooking fuels such as biomass (wood, charcoal, dung) and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), effectively reducing harmful emissions and fuel cost respectively. To support the ongoing scaling effort of biogas in rural communities, this study has developed and tested a design tool aimed at optimizing flame port geometry for household biogas- fired burners. The tool consists of a multi-component simulation that incorporates three- dimensional CAD designs with simulated chemical kinetics and computational fluid dynamics. An array of circular and rectangular port designs was developed for a widely available biogas stove (called the Lotus) as part of this study. These port designs were created through guidance from previous studies found in the literature. The three highest performing designs identified by the tool were manufactured and tested experimentally to validate tool output and to compare against the original port geometry.
    [Show full text]
  • Biogas Stove Design: a Short Course
    Biogas Stove Design A short course Dr David Fulford Kingdom Bioenergy Ltd Originally written August 1996 Used in MSc Course on “Renewable Energy and the Environment” at the University of Reading, UK for an Advanced Biomass Module. Design Equations for a Gas Burner The force which drives the gas and air into the burner is the pressure of gas in the pipeline. The key equation that relates gas pressure to flow is Bernoulli’s theorem (assuming incompressible flow): p v2 + +z = constant ρ 2g where: p is the gas pressure (N m –2), ρ is the gas density (kg m –3), v is the gas velocity (m s –1), g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m s –2) and z is head (m). For a gas, head ( z) can be ignored. Bernoulli’s theorem essentially states that for an ideal gas flow, the potential energy due to the pressure, plus the kinetic energy due to the velocity of the flow is constant In practice, with gas flowing through a pipe, Bernoulli’s theorem must be modified. An extra term must be added to allow for energy loss due to friction in the pipe: p v2 + −f ()losses = constant . ρ 2g Using compressible flow theory, flow though a nozzle of area A is: γ p γ ()γ − γ m = C ρ A 2 0 r2 (1− r 1 ) & d 0 γ − ρ 1 0 ρ where p0 and 0 are the pressure and density of the gas upstream of the = nozzle and r p1 p0 , where p1 is the pressure downstream of the nozzle.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report Coal Project
    2011 Coal Electrolysis for the Production of Hydrogen and Liquid Fuels Dr. Gerardine Botte OHIO UNIVERSITY Center for Electrochemical Engineering Research CEER-Ohio University Final Executive Summary Report Clean technologies for the production of high value chemicals, such as hydrogen, liquid fuels, and refined organic and inorganic compounds, with significant impact in the different business spheres (e.g., petrochemical, polymers, and plastics) are very important for national security purposes and for preservation of the environment. Power is traditionally generated from coal by the complete combustion (oxidation) of coal. When hydrogen is desired as a product, coal gasification (partial oxidation) is employed. Most overall coal gasification schemes use a series of reactions ranging from combustion (for heat generation) to partial oxidation (for hydrogen generation), to the water-gas shift reaction and others to produce a fuel gas product stream. In order to produce a hydrogen (H2) product from this fuel gas stream, the hydrogen must be removed from a mixture that includes carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), particulates, and other gases (perhaps including nitrogen, if an oxygen plant is not used). In addition, CO2 needs to be captured and sequestered from the stream to reduce the emissions of this gas to the environment. These separations become an extremely complex and costly consideration. In order for CO2 to be captured, it either must be separated from other gases in a mixture (say, CO2 from N2), or O2 must be separated from air in order to be used as combustion feed to create “pure” CO2 product. In either case, significant capital and operating expenses, as well as significant power consumption, are incurred for either kind of separation.
    [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]
  • Structural Transformation of Nascent Char During the Fast Pyrolysis Of
    Structural transformation of nascent char during the fast pyrolysis of mallee wood and low-rank coals 5 Lei Zhang1, Tingting Li1, Dimple Quyn1, Li Dong1, Penghua Qiu1,2, Chun-Zhu Li1,* 1Fuels and Energy Technology Institute, Curtin University of Technology, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6845, Australia 10 2School of Energy Science and Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, 92 West Dazhi Street, Harbin, Heilongjiang 150001, People’s Republic of China 15 * Corresponding author: E-mail address: [email protected] (Chun-Zhu Li) Phone: +61 8 9266 1131 Fax: +61 8 9266 1138 20 February 2015 1 25 Abstract The changes in char structure during the fast pyrolysis of three different feedstocks from 600 °C to 1200 °C were investigated. Western Australian Collie sub-bituminous coal, Victorian Loy Yang brown coal and Australian mallee wood were pyrolysed in a wire-mesh 30 reactor at a heating rate of 1000 K s-1 with holding time ranging from 0 s to 50 s. FT- Raman/IR spectroscopy was used to characterise the structural features of the chars obtained at different temperatures. The combined use of a wire-mesh reactor and a FT-Raman/IR spectrometer has provided significant insights into the rapid changes in the chemical structure of nascent char during fast pyrolysis. Our results indicate that the three fuels began 35 significant ring condensation at different temperatures. Mallee wood showed significant growth of large rings within 1 s holding at 600 °C; however Loy Yang and Collie coals showed significant ring condensation at 800 °C and 900 °C respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Coal Characteristics
    CCTR Indiana Center for Coal Technology Research COAL CHARACTERISTICS CCTR Basic Facts File # 8 Brian H. Bowen, Marty W. Irwin The Energy Center at Discovery Park Purdue University CCTR, Potter Center, 500 Central Drive West Lafayette, IN 47907-2022 http://www.purdue.edu/dp/energy/CCTR/ Email: [email protected] October 2008 1 Indiana Center for Coal Technology Research CCTR COAL FORMATION As geological processes apply pressure to peat over time, it is transformed successively into different types of coal Source: Kentucky Geological Survey http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.uky.edu/KGS/coal/images/peatcoal.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.uky.edu/KGS/coal/coalform.htm&h=354&w=579&sz= 20&hl=en&start=5&um=1&tbnid=NavOy9_5HD07pM:&tbnh=82&tbnw=134&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcoal%2Bphotos%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX 2 Indiana Center for Coal Technology Research CCTR COAL ANALYSIS Elemental analysis of coal gives empirical formulas such as: C137H97O9NS for Bituminous Coal C240H90O4NS for high-grade Anthracite Coal is divided into 4 ranks: (1) Anthracite (2) Bituminous (3) Sub-bituminous (4) Lignite Source: http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=4929705428518&lang=en-US&mkt=en-US&FORM=CVRE8 3 Indiana Center for Coal Technology Research CCTR BITUMINOUS COAL Bituminous Coal: Great pressure results in the creation of bituminous, or “soft” coal. This is the type most commonly used for electric power generation in the U.S. It has a higher heating value than either lignite or sub-bituminous, but less than that of anthracite. Bituminous coal
    [Show full text]
  • A Wood-Gas Stove for Developing Countries T
    A WOOD-GAS STOVE FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES T. B. Reed and Ronal Larson The Biomass Energy Foundation, Golden, CO., USA ABSTRACT Through the millennia wood stoves for cooking have been notoriously inefficient and slow. Electricity, gas or liquid fuels are preferred for cooking - when they can be obtained. In the last few decades a number of improvements have been made in woodstoves, but still the improved wood stoves are difficult to control and manufacture and are often not accepted by the cook. Gasification of wood (or other biomass) offers the possibility of cleaner, better controlled gas cooking for developing countries. In this paper we describe a wood-gas stove based on a new, simplified wood gasifier. It offers the advantages of “cooking with gas” while using a wide variety of biomass fuels. Gas for the stove is generated using the “inverted downdraft gasifier” principle. In one mode of operation it also produces 20-25% charcoal (dry basis). The stove operates using natural convection only. It achieves clean “blue flame” combustion using an “air wick” that optimizes draft and stabilizes the flame position. The emissions from the close coupled gasifier-burner are quite low and the stove can be operated indoors. Keywords: inverted downdraft gasifier, domestic cooking stove, natural draft *Presented at the “Developments in Thermochemical Biomass Conversion” Conference, Banff, Canada, 20-24 May, 1996. 1 A WOOD-GAS STOVE FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES T. B. Reed and Ronal Larson The Biomass Energy Foundation, Golden, CO., USA 1. Introduction - 1.1. The Problem Since the beginning of civilization wood and biomass have been used for cooking.
    [Show full text]
  • HELE Coal Technology Roadmap -- Process
    HELE Coal Technology Roadmap -- Process Keith Burnard Energy Technology Policy Division International Energy Agency IEA, Paris, 8-9 June 2011 © OECD/IEA 2010 IEA Technology Roadmaps To date: Biofuels; Buildings; CCS; CSP; Cement; E&PIH Vehicles; Nuclear; Smart Grids; SPP; Wind © OECD/IEA 2010 Key technologies for reducing energy-related CO2 emissions 2 60 Baseline emissions 57 Gt 55 End-use fuel and electricity Gt CO Gt efficiency 38% 50 End-use fuel switching 15% 45 40 Power generation efficiency and 35 fuel switching 5% 30 Nuclear 6% 25 Renewables 17% 20 15 BLUE Map emissions 14 Gt CCS 19% 10 5 0 2010 Perspectives Technology Energy IEA 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 source: Analysis underpins development of technology roadmaps. © OECD/IEA 2010 The role of coal in meeting recent growth in energy demand World's Average Annual Growth Rates in Primary Energy Increase in PrimaryDemand Energy between Demand, 2000 and 2000 2008-08 5.58% Coal/peat 140 % = average annual rate of growth Oil 130 3.05% Gas 2.8% 120 2.52% Nuclear 110 1.38% 0.68% Hydro index: 2000=100 index: 100 Renewables 90 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Demand for coal has been growing faster than any other energy source and is projected to account for more than a third of incremental global energy demand to 2030. © OECD/IEA 2010 … and in meeting recent growth in electricity generation The growth in electricity from coal over the past decade represents almost half of total growth © OECD/IEA 2010 Annual hard coal consumption 3500 Mt 3000 2500 2000 China
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Char Properties and Reaction Parameters on Naphthalene Conversion in a Macro-TGA Fixed Char Bed Reactor
    Article Impact of Char Properties and Reaction Parameters on Naphthalene Conversion in a Macro-TGA Fixed Char Bed Reactor Ziad Abu El-Rub 1,*, Eddy Bramer 2, Samer Al-Gharabli 1 and Gerrit Brem 2 1 Pharmaceutical and Chemical Engineering Department, German Jordanian University, Amman 11180, Jordan; [email protected] 2 Laboratory of Thermal Engineering; University of Twente, P. O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands; [email protected] (E.B.); [email protected] (G.B) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +962-6-429-4412 Received: 18 February 2019; Accepted: 28 March 2019; Published: 28 March 2019 Abstract: Catalytic tar removal is one of the main challenges restricting the successful commercialization of biomass gasification. Hot gas cleaning using a heterogeneous catalyst is one of the methods used to remove tar. In order to economically remove tar, an efficient low-cost catalyst should be applied. Biomass char has the potential to be such a catalyst. In this work, the reactor parameters that affect the conversion of a model tar component “naphthalene” were investigated employing an in situ thermogravimetric analysis of a fixed bed of biomass char. The following reactor and catalyst parameters were investigated: bed temperature (750 to 900 °C), gas residence time in the char bed (0.4 to 2.4 s), char particle size (500 to 1700 μm), feed naphthalene concentration, feed gas composition (CO, CO2, H2O, H2, CH4, naphthalene, and N2), char properties, and char precursor. It was found that the biomass char has a high activity for naphthalene conversion.
    [Show full text]
  • Combustion of Low-Calorific Waste Biomass Syngas
    Flow Turbulence Combust (2013) 91:749–772 DOI 10.1007/s10494-013-9473-9 Combustion of Low-Calorific Waste Biomass Syngas Kamil Kwiatkowski · Marek Dudynski´ · Konrad Bajer Received: 7 March 2012 / Accepted: 31 May 2013 / Published online: 19 June 2013 © The Author(s) 2013. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract The industrial combustion chamber designed for burning low-calorific syngas from gasification of waste biomass is presented. For two different gases derived from gasification of waste wood chips and turkey feathers the non-premixed turbulent combustion in the chamber is simulated. It follows from our computations that for stable process the initial temperature of these fuels must be at least 800 K, with comparable influx of air and fuel. The numerical simulations reveal existence of the characteristic frequency of the process which is later observed in high-speed cam- era recordings from the industrial gasification plant where the combustion chamber operates. The analysis of NO formation and emission shows a difference between wood-derived syngas combustion, where thermal path is prominent, and feathers- derived fuel. In the latter case thermal, prompt and N2O paths of nitric oxides formation are marginal and the dominant source of NO is fuel-bound nitrogen. Keywords Biomass · Waste · Gasification · Syngas · Turbulent combustion K. Kwiatkowski (B) · M. Dudynski´ · K. Bajer Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, Pasteura 7, 02-093 Warsaw, Poland e-mail: [email protected] K. Kwiatkowski · K. Bajer Interdisciplinary Centre for Mathematical and Computational Modelling, University of Warsaw, Pawinskiego´ 5a, 02-106 Warsaw, Poland M. Dudynski´ Modern Technologies and Filtration Sp.
    [Show full text]
  • “Peak Coal” Mean for International Coal Exporters? a Global Modelling Analysis on the Future of the International Steam Coal Market
    What does “peak coal” mean for international coal exporters? A global modelling analysis on the future of the international steam coal market 2018 Authors Franziska Holz (DIW Berlin) Ivo Valentin Kafemann (DIW Berlin) Oliver Sartor (IDDRI) Tim Scherwath (DIW Berlin) Thomas Spencer (TERI, IDDRI) COAL TRANSITIONS www.coaltransitions.org What does “peak coal” mean for international coal exporters? A global modelling analysis on the future of the international steam coal market A project funded by the KR Foundation Authors Franziska Holz1, Ivo Valentin Kafemann1, Oliver Sartor2, Tim Scherwath1, Thomas Spencer2,3 1DIW Berlin, 2IDDRI, 3TERI Cite this report as Holz F., Kafemann I. V., Sartor O., Scherwath T., Spencer T.(2018). What does “peak coal” mean for international coal exporters? A global modelling analysis on the future of the international steam coal market. IDDRI and Climate Strategies. Acknowledgments The project team is grateful to the KR Foundation for its financial support. We would like to thank Roman Mendelevitch, Jesse Burton and Tara Caetano, Frank Jotzo and Salim Mazouz, as well as Fergus Green for their helpful comments and suggestions. We would also like to thank Amit Garg from the Indian Institute of Management Ahmedebad (IIMA) as well as Teng Fei from Tsinghua University for providing input to the scenario assumptions. We acknowledge funding from the KR Foundation. All remaining errors are ours. Contact information Oliver Sartor, IDDRI, [email protected] Andrzej Błachowicz, Climate Strategies, [email protected] Copyright © 2018 IDDRI and Climate Strategies IDDRI and Climate Strategies encourage reproduction and communication of their copyrighted materials to the public, with proper credit (bibliographical reference and/or corresponding URL), for personal, corporate or public policy research, or educational purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Status of Global Coal Markets and Major Demand Trends in Key Regions
    Études de l’Ifri STATUS OF GLOBAL COAL MARKETS AND MAJOR DEMAND TRENDS IN KEY REGIONS Sylvie CORNOT-GANDOLPHE June 2019 Center for Energy The Institut français des relations internationales (Ifri) is a research center and a forum for debate on major international political and economic issues. Headed by Thierry de Montbrial since its founding in 1979, Ifri is a non-governmental, non-profit organization. As an independent think tank, Ifri sets its own research agenda, publishing its findings regularly for a global audience. Taking an interdisciplinary approach, Ifri brings together political and economic decision-makers, researchers and internationally renowned experts to animate its debate and research activities. The opinions expressed in this text are the responsibility of the author alone. ISBN: 979-10-373-0042-3 © All rights reserved, Ifri, 2019 Cover: “Large bucket wheel excavators in a lignite (brown-coal) mine after sunset, Germany”. © Shutterstock.com How to cite this publication: Sylvie Cornot-Gandolphe, “Status of Global Coal Markets and Major Demand Trends in Key Regions”, Études de l’Ifri, Ifri, June 2019. Ifri 27 rue de la Procession 75740 Paris Cedex 15 – FRANCE Tel. : +33 (0)1 40 61 60 00 – Fax : +33 (0)1 40 61 60 60 Email: [email protected] Website: Ifri.org Author Sylvie Cornot-Gandolphe is an independent consultant on energy and raw materials, focusing on international issues. Since 2012, she has been Associate Research Fellow at the Ifri Centre for Energy. She is also collaborating with the Oxford Institute on Energy Studies (OIES), with CEDIGAZ, the international centre of information on natural gas of IFPEN, and with CyclOpe, the reference publication on commodities.
    [Show full text]