descriptor - include initials, /org#/date coal gasification as alternative fuel for glass industry...

Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

Coal Gasification as Alternative Fuel for Glass Industry

Gasification PrimerPresented By

Donald L. Bonk

Senior Technical Advisor

National Energy Technology Laboratory

U. S. Department of Energy

Owens Corning Corporate Headquarters

1, Owens Corning Parkway, Toledo, OH

July 27, 2005 10:00 – 4:00

Meeting Objective: Develop plans to obtain glass industry support for an investigation to determine the viability of using coal gasification "synfuel" as an economical alternative to natural gas for melting glass.


Gasification Chemistry

Gasification with OxygenC + 1/2 O2 CO

Combustion with OxygenC + O2 CO2

Gasification with Carbon DioxideC + CO2 2CO

Gasification with SteamC + H2O CO + H2

Gasification with HydrogenC + 2H2 CH4

Water-Gas ShiftCO + H2O H2 + CO2

MethanationCO + 3H2 CH4 + H2O

Coal

Oxygen

Steam

Gasifier Gas Composition

(Vol %)

H2 25 - 30CO 30 - 60CO2 5 - 15H2O 2 - 30CH4 0 - 5

H2S 0.2 - 1COS 0 - 0.1N2 0.5 - 4Ar 0.2 - 1

NH3 + HCN 0 -0.3

Ash/Slag/PM


History of GasificationTown Gas

First practical use of town gas in modern times was for street lighting

The first public street lighting with gas took place in Pall Mall, London on January 28, 1807

Town gas, a gaseous product manufactured from coal, supplies lighting and heating for America and Europe.

Town gas is approximately 50% hydrogen, with the rest comprised of mostly methane and carbon dioxide, with 3% to 6% carbon monoxide.

Baltimore, Maryland began the first commercial gas lighting of residences, streets, and businesses in 1816


History of Gasification

Used during World War II to convert coal into transportation fuels (Fischer – Tropsch)

Used extensively in the last 50+ years to convert coal and heavy oil into hydrogen – for the production of ammonia/urea fertilizer

Chemical industry (1960’s) Refinery industry (1980’s) Global power industry (Today)


Major Gasification Milestone1842 Baltimore Electric Town Gas1887 Lurgi Gasification Patent1910 Coal Gasification Common in U.S. / Europe for Town Gas1940 Gasification of Nature Gas for Hydrogen in the Chemical Industry

(Ammonia)1950 Gasification of Coal for Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) Liquids (Sasol-

Sasolburg)1960 Coal Tested as Fuel for Gas Turbines (Direct Firing)1970’s IGCC Studies by U.S. DOE1970 Gasification of Oil for Hydrogen in the Refining Industry1983 Gasification of Coal to Chemicals Plant (Eastman Chemical)1984 First Coal IGCC Demonstration (Coolwater Plant)1990’s First Non-Recourse Project Financed Oil IGCC Projects (Italy)1993 First Natural Gas Gasification F-T Project (Shell Bintulu)1994 NUON/Demkolec’s 253 MWe Buggenum Plant Begins Operation1995 PSI Walbash, Indiana Coal IGCC Begins Operation (DOE CCT IV)1996 Tampa Electric Polk Coal IGCC Begins Operation (DOE CCT III)1997 First Oil Hydrogen/IGCC Plant Begin Operations (Shell Pernis)1998 ELCOGAS 298 MWe Puertollano Plant2002 IGCC is now an Accepted Refinery and Coal Plant Option


FEEDS GASIFICATION GAS CLEANUP END PRODUCTS

Alternatives:• Asphalt• Coal• Heavy Oil• Petroleum Coke• Orimulsion• Natural Gas• Wastes• Clean Fuels

Alternatives:• Hydrogen• Ammonia• Chemicals• MethanolMarketable

Byproducts:

Sulfur

Gas & SteamTurbinesSulfur

Removal

Syngas

ElectricitySteam

Combined CyclePower Block

Byproducts:

Solids (ash)

Gasifier

Oxygen

Source: ChevronTexaco

Characteristics of a Gasification Process


Gasifier Configurations

Steam,O xygenor Air

Rec ycle D riveG as

ProductG as,As h

C oal,Sorbent o r

Inert

G asifierTop

G asifie rBottom

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Tra nspo rtG a sifie r

C oa l, C har R ec ycle, Gas

Moving Bed Entrained Flow

TransportFluidized Bed


Gasifier TypesFlow Regime Moving (or "Fixed") Bed Fluidized Bed Entrained Flow

Combustion Analogy

grate fired combustors fluidized bed combustors pulverized coal combustors

Fuel Type solids only solids only solids or liquids

Fuel Size 5 - 50 mm 0.5 - 5 mm < 500 microns

Residence Time 15 - 30 minutes 5 - 50 seconds 1 - 10 seconds

Oxidant air- or oxygen-blown air- or oxygen-blown almost always oxygen-blown

Gas Outlet Temp. 400 - 500 ºC 700 – 900 ºC 900 – 1400 ºC

Ash Handling slagging and non-slagging non-slagging always slagging

Commercial Examples

Lurgi dry-ash (non-slagging), BGL (slagging)

GTI U-Gas, HT Winkler, KRW

GE Energy, Shell, Prenflo, ConocoPhillips, Noell

"moving" beds are mechanically stirred, fixed

beds are not

bed temperature below ash fusion point to prevent

agglomeration

not preferred for high-ash fuels due to energy penalty

of ash-melting

gas and solid flows are always countercurrent in

moving bed gasifiers

preferred for high-ash feedstocks and waste fuels

unsuitable for fuels that are hard to atomize or pulverize

Note: The "transport" gasifier flow regime is between fluidized and entrained and can be air- or oxygen-blown.

Comments


Gasifier Characteristic ComparisonMoving Bed Fluidized Bed Entrained

FlowTransport Flow

Ash Cond. Dry Slagging Dry Agglomerate

Slagging Dry

Coal Feed ~2in ~2in ~1/4 in ~1/4 in ~ 100 Mesh

~1/16in

Fines Limited Better than dry ash

Good Better Unlimited Better

Rank Low High Low Any Any Any

Gas Temp.

(°F)

800-1,200 800-1,200 1,700-1,900

1,700-1,900

>2,300 1,500-1,900

Oxidant Req. Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate

Steam Req. High Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate

Issues Fines and Hydrocarbon liquids

Carbon Conversion Raw gas cooling

Control carbon inventory and carryover


Gasifiers

Oxygen BlownOxygen Blown Entrained Flow

Texaco E-GAS Shell Prenflo Noell

Fluidized Bed HT Winkler Foster Wheeler

Moving Bed British Gas Lurgi Sasol Lurgi

Transport Reactor Kellogg

Air BlownAir Blown Fluidized Bed

HT Winkler IGT “Ugas” KRW Foster Wheeler

Spouting Bed British Coal Foster Wheeler

Entrained Flow Mitsubishi

Transport Reactor Kellogg

Hybrid Foster Wheeler British Coal ENERCON FERCO/Silva


Gasification-Based Energy Production System Concepts

Sulfur By-Product

Sulfur By-Product

Fly Ash By-Product

Fly Ash By-Product

Slag By-Product

Slag By-Product


Gasification-Based Industrial Concept


Moving Bed Gasifier – Lurgi, BGC

Counter current flow of reactants, products: gases and solids

Separate zones for coal processing

Products: top gases, hc’s, tars; bottom dry ash or slag

Issues: uniform flow of solids and gases

Design: bottom temperature determines H2O/O2

Effects of dry or slagging bottom

High cold gas efficiency, low O2


Mixed Bed Gasifier – Winkler, KRW, IGT Fluidized bed, mixed flow of

reactants, products Mixed zones of heating, drying,

devolatilization, gasification, combustion; dependent on feed location

Process conditions: temperature limited by ash fusion; high temperatures promote gasification, limit desulfurization; flow velocity determined by fluidization requirements

Products: top gases, no hc’s tars, potentially desulfurized, particulates (C, ash); bottom, ash perhaps agglomerated

Issues: reactant feed means, locations; ash removal means

Design: bed volume, by gasification requirements; cross section, velocity

Moderate cold gas efficiency; O2 H2O requirements; broad range of coals


Co Current Gasifier – Krupp Koppers, Texaco, Shell

Entrained flow of coal in O2 + H2O, reactants

Widely dispersed particles heated by radiation, gas mixing

Process conditions: high temperature for ash fusion, rapid gasification

Products: CO, H2 (no CH4, hc’s, oils tars); ash slag

Issues: uniform feed of pulverized coal, slurry, dry; separation of gases and ash; heat recovery from high temperature product fuel gases

Design: required volume is the time weighted average of reactant and product gas volumes/wt coal * the coal flow rate * the coal conversion time

Low cold gas efficiency, high O2 demand


Entrained Staged Gasifier – Kellogg Rust Coal flow into recirculating particulates,

devolatilization; char, particulates introduced to fluid bed, combustion, gasification

Process conditions: nearly uniform temperature limited by ash agglomeration

Products: CO, H2, devol products, ash fines

Issues: coal particle size, flow conditions for rapid devol; recycle for char combustion, gasification; recirculation particulates

Design: riser entrains particulates, coal; devolatilizes, cracks oils, tars; delivers char for gasification, combustion. Stand pipe, particulates from cyclones, delivers to fluid bed. Fluid bed combustion, gasification of char; product gases, particles enter riser

Moderate efficiency, O2 demand, control of devolatilization S team ,

O xygenor A ir

P roductG as ,Ash

R ecycle DriveG as

C oal,Sorbent o r

Inert

Independence does not come cheap for

the

small utility


Based on NETL StudiesRepowered Total Plant Cost vs. Original Size of Steam Plant

Cedar Lane Farms FGR-FBC

A Study

of

Small Project

Success & Cost


Cedar Lane Coal-Fired Flue Gas Recirculating Fluidized Bed Boiler

Unit achieved ~7 months of continuous computer control operation

96.9% availability over the 193 day heating season

$200,000+ Saved over Natural Gas this season (2 of 5 Acres)

20% reduction in coal usage compared to old under-grate stokers

2 types of computer controlled operation demonstrated; demand and slumping

Only 2 man-hours of labor required daily

Unit up to 40,000,000 Btu Input Available

Cedar Lane Cedar Lane

FarmsFarms

Wooster, OhioWooster, Ohio

9,000,000 Btu FGC- FBB Demonstration9,000,000 Btu FGC- FBB Demonstration


Economic Advantage – Estimated Annual Fuel Cost Savings with Coal-Fired AFBC at Cedar Lane Farms

Based upon a 10 million Btu high sulfur coal fired AFBC for hot water application. Heating season set AT 250 days per year at 100% capacity.

Economic Advantage – Estimated Annual Fuel Cost Savings with Coal-Fired AFBC at Cedar Lane Farms

Based upon a 10 million Btu high sulfur coal fired AFBC for hot water application. Heating season set AT 250 days per year at 100% capacity.

06-FBC015-21 Cedar Lane Farms FBC


FGR-FBC Features Energy Type Possible:

Hot Water Steam Generation Power Generation/ Co-Gen

Low Stack Emissions Low Limestone Consumption High Efficiency No In-Bed Heat Transfer Tubes Flue Gas Recirculation Automatic PLC Control


2005 Ex Works Budget Costs* for Hopper-to-Stack Equipment Similar to Cedar Lane Farms ABFB

Equipment 10 MM BTU/hr [Coal Input] $750,000.

20 MM Btu/hr [Coal Input] $1,300,000.

30 MM BTU/hr [Coal Input] $1,800,000.

NOT Included in Above: Financing & Permitting Foundations & Building(s) Freight to Site Installation; Mechanical & Electrical Compliance Stack Testing

*Generic cost not project estimate


Fuel and Ash Storage Considerations based upon Cedar Lane Farms Experience

Where To Start - Good Engineering and Creditable Vendors

Fuel, Limestone, and Ash Economics Economic Loads = 26 tons Coal or Limestone Therefore Storage Needs =

Coal at 55 tons Limestone at 36 tons Alternate Fuel at 55 tons (Tire Chips or Waste) Ash at 55 tons


Storage Types

Storage Horizontal or Vertical with Preparation Equipment

List below arranged from highest labor cost to lowest Agriculture Horizontal (BFG) = $100,000 Agriculture Vertical (ML) = $287,000 Industrial Vertical (F&P) = $689,000 Utility Vertical (R&S) = $910,000


Cedar Lane Farms Actual Computer Graphic Of FBC Operation


FGR-FBC Easily Met OEPA Requirements Testing March 25, 2004

Ohio require sulfur release below 1.3 lbs/MMBtu and under 20% opacity on this size unit if equipped with baghouse

Local coal was an Ohio #6 having 12,877 Btu/lbs, 6.57% moisture and 3.46% sulfur on an as received basis

Local sorbent was a Bucyrus #18 dolomite having 80% calcium

Control was completely automatic for three tests at an average 8.96 MM Btu/hr

Average sorbent feed was 0.12 lbs/lbs of coal, approximately a Ca/S ratio = 1

Average sulfur capture approximately 88% or a release of 0.65 lbs/MMBtu

Opacity = Zero Average oxygen % dry = 3.122

NETL’s Compact Industrial Hybrid Gasifier Concept

Based Upon Cedar Lane Experience and the Hybrid Gasification/Combustion

Studies


gas turbine exhaustused CFB combustion air

steam

steam turbine

generator

air

limestone

syngas

coal

stackstackair

air compressor

gas gas turbineturbine

gas turbine

exhaust

topping topping combustorcombustor

generator

syngas airfeed compressor

ID fan

baghouse

charfluid bed heat exchangeratmospheric

circulating fluid bed

combustorcoal

SN

CR

urea

Syngascooler

Metallic filters

Combustion/Gasification Fluidized Bed Combustion Combined Cycle (CGFBCC)

pressurizedcirculating

fluidized-bedpartial gasifier


NETL’s Compact Industrial Hybrid Gasifier Concept

Addresses Issues of Carbon Utilization Typical of Fluidized Bed Gasifiers


Typical Gasifier Syngas Compositions

Wabash River

Texaco Koppers-Totzek

Shell (Lurgi)

Winkler Possible NETL Compact Gasifier

Composition

Nitrogen 5.0% 5.8% 1.4% 5.1% 3.0%

Hydrogen 26.0% 27.0% 32.8% 29.7% 49.5% 32.5%

Carbon monoxide 45.0% 35.6% 58.7% 60.0% 25.0% 16.7%

Carbon dioxide 14.0% 12.6% 7.1% 2.3% 18.0% 11.1%

Water 6.7% 18.6% 2.1%

Methane 2.0% 0.1% 3.0% **37.4%

H2S 1.3% 0.8% 1.5% 2.0%

Ammonia 0.1%

Total 100.0% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7%

** Methane, Ethane, Ethylene

descriptor - include initials, /org#/date coal gasification as alternative fuel for glass industry...

Documents

gasification of coal

date coal gasification

coal gasification common

coal gasification synfuel

gasification of oil

gasification of nature

coal plant option slide

indiana coal igcc