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.