gasification tech nologies - national energy … library/research/coal/energy systems... · july...

July 2002

Gasification Technologies

Gasification Markets and Technologies —

Present and Future

An Industry Perspective

A U.S. Department of Energy Report

Contacts:

Gary J. StiegelProduct ManagerNational Energy Technology Laboratory626 Cochrans Mill RoadP.O. Box 10940Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0940Ph. (412) [email protected]

John G. WimerMechanical EngineerNational Energy Technology Laboratory3610 Collins Ferry RoadP.O. Box 880Morgantown, WV 26507-0880Ph. (304) [email protected]

Stewart J. ClaytonIGCC Portfolio ManagerOffice of Fossil Energy (FE-22)19901 Germantown RoadGermantown, MD 20874-1290Ph. (301) [email protected]

Visit our web sites at: www.fe.doe.gov andwww.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/gasification

Printed in the United States on recycled paper

DOE/FE-0447

DO

E/FE

-0447G

asification Markets and Technologies —

Present and Future July 2002

DisclaimerThe U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the National Energy Technology Laboratory, nor any person acting onbehalf of either:

A. Makes any warranty or representation, expressed or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, orusefulness of the information contained in this report, or that the use of any information, apparatus,method, or process disclosed in this report may not infringe privately-owned rights; or

B. Assumes any liabilities with the report as to the use of, or damages resulting from the use of, any informa-tion, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report.

Reference herein as to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufac-turer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by theU.S. DOE. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of theU.S. DOE.

July 2002



Present and Future


Prepared by:Stewart J. Clayton, Gary J. Stiegel, and John G. Wimer

Gasification Technologies Product TeamCoal & Power Systems Program

Office of Fossil EnergyNational Energy Technology Laboratory

U.S. Department of Energy

Gasification Markets and Technologies — Present and Future

PrefaceThis report presents industry’s views of technologies, market opportunities, and both long-term and short-term research needs deemed critical to improving the economics and performance of gasification technolo-gies. The principal findings are the result of confidential interviews with “expert teams” from 22 prominentorganizations across a wide span of the U.S. gasification industry, all of which are identified as having a directinfluence on current and future technology trends. Internal deliberations by the U.S. Department ofEnergy’s Office of Fossil Energy and the National Energy Technology Laboratory Gasification TechnologiesProduct Team (GTPT) identified the need for the study. Subsequently, the GTPT decided upon the ap-proach based upon input from the Gasification Technologies Council and its membership.

This report is intended to:

• Provide federal officials and managers with a clearer understanding of technology trends and researchneeds identified by a cross section of industry leaders.

• Assist decision makers in establishing federal funding priorities for gasification and related technologiesresearch and development needs.

• Benefit industry decision makers through feedback of a broad spectrum of creative insights and forward-looking opinions from their colleagues’ input.


AcknowledgmentsThe U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy and its National Energy TechnologyLaboratory greatly appreciate the efforts and encouragement of Mr. James Childress, Executive Director ofthe Gasification Technologies Council. Mr. Childress was instrumental in obtaining the support of hismembership and in soliciting those interested in participating in the interview process. Throughout, Mr.Childress provided many helpful suggestions to improve the process and maintained a keen interest in thesuccess of the effort. Without his participation, the success of this effort would have been limited.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the participation of the following companies, each of which assembledhighly expert teams to participate in the interviews:

Air Liquide Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.

Allegheny Energy Supply Bechtel/Nexant, LLC

Citgo/Lyondell-Citgo Dakota Gasification Company

The Dow Chemical Company Eastman Chemical Company

Enron Fluor Daniel

Foster Wheeler Gas Technology Institute

General Electric Company Global Energy, Inc.

Praxair, Inc. Shell Global Solutions

Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation Southern Company

Tampa Electric Company Texaco Global Gas and Power

Tennessee Valley Authority UOP LLC

It was readily apparent during the meetings that these organizations spent much time in preparation for themeetings, as well as allotting the time for the face-to-face discussions. In every case, the interviewers foundthe industry participants to be focused, thoughtful, insightful, and willing to engage in addressing the issues.The information provided will be extremely valuable to the DOE’s Gasification Technology program plan-ning process.


Table of ContentsAcronyms and Abbreviations ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i

Executive Summary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- iii

Introduction ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

Addressing Market Needs ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

Environmental Considerations ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13

Technology Needs ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------21

Government Role ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------49

Summary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------53

Appendix A – Meeting Confirmation Letter ------------------------------------------------------------------ A-1

Appendix B – Agenda --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- B-1

Appendix C – DOE Presentation of Gasification Technologies Program --------------------------------- C-1

Appendix D – List of Interview Questions --------------------------------------------------------------------D-1


Acronyms and Abbreviations106 Btu million British thermal units

ASU air separation unit

ATS Advanced Turbine Systems

BACT Best Available Control Technology

Btu British thermal unit

CCT Clean Coal Technology

CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

COS carbonyl sulfide

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPC engineering, procurement, and construction

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute

F-T Fischer-Tropsch

GHG greenhouse gas

GTC Gasification Technology Council

GTPT Gasification Technologies Product Team

H2 hydrogen

H2S hydrogen sulfide

HAP hazardous air pollutants

H/C hydrogen-to-carbon

HCl hydrochloric acid

Hg mercury

HRSG heat recovery steam generator

IGCC integrated gasification combined-cycle

kW kilowatt

LAER Lowest Achievable Emission Rate

lb/106 Btu pounds per million British thermal units

lb/MWh pounds per megawatt-hour

i


LLC Limited Liability Corporation

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology

MSW municipal solid waste

MTBF mean time between failures

MTTR mean time to repair

MW megawatt

NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory

NGCC natural gas combined-cycle

NOx oxides of nitrogen

O&M operation and maintenance

OPIC Overseas Private Investment Corporation

PCB polychlorinated biphenyls

petcoke petroleum coke

pH acidity

psia pounds per square inch – absolute

psig pounds per square inch – gauge

ppm parts per million

R&D research and development

RAM reliability, availability, and maintainability

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

resid residual heavy oil

SCR selective catalytic reduction

SOx sulfur oxides

SO2 sulfur dioxide

TCLP Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure

tpd tons per day

ii


ExecutiveSummaryTask and PurposeThis report draws on the views of the gasificationindustry leaders and presents their perspective onmarkets and future market opportunities, environ-mental challenges, and opportunities and impor-tant technological research and development needskey to realizing the potential growth of gasificationtechnologies. All of the opinions and majorfindings in this report are derived from confidentialdiscussions with leading representatives from 22stakeholder organizations.

The findings of this report are to be used to de-velop a more comprehensive technology roadmapfor the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE)Gasification Technologies Program and to supportfuture budget requests. In addition, key findingsare to be incorporated into the overall DOEportfolio planning and budgeting process.

Addressing Market Needs

Market DriversEconomics. Product economics are identified asthe most important determinant in gasificationtechnology deployment potential. Gasificationtechnologies must compete economically, regardlessof intrinsic environmental benefits. The pricedifferential between natural gas and the feedstocksavailable to a gasification plant site play a majorrole in determining the economic competitivenessfor gasification technology. Capital costs and costsassociated with protracted gasification technologyengineering, procurement, and construction (EPC)schedules must be ameliorated.

Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability.Reliability, availability, and maintainability (RAM)must increase to reach acceptable industry thresh-olds and to eliminate redundancies contributing to

high capital and EPC costs. RAM, together withinvestment costs, most affect the attractiveness ofgasification because of its impact on the generationcost of electricity.

Environmental Considerations. The environmen-tal superiority of gasification technologies for solidfeedstocks has not as yet been leveraged intodeployment, but can be leveraged in a futurerewarding both environmental performance andfuel diversity. Navigating through the myriad ofgovernment regulations is a time-consuming andcostly process, and the more complex the projecttechnology, the longer and more costly the permit-ting process. The public perception of gasificationbeing “dirty” because the feedstocks are perceived as“dirty” is impeding deployment by lengthening thepermitting process. Even more significant is the riskassociated with the uncertainty of future regula-tions.

Efficiency. Efficiency is a driver for technologydeployment only if the efficiency gains relative tocompeting technologies lowers overall costs, or is atleast cost neutral. The issue of efficiency is charac-terized in much the same way as environmentalperformance in that efficiency has not been a driverfor deployment of the technology commercially,nor is it likely to be in the near term.

Feedstock/Product Flexibility. Feedstock andproduct flexibility alone cannot bring gasificationtechnology into mainstream markets, but togetherwith reduced capital and improved RAM, it is seenas the key to market entry. The most viablefeedstocks appear to be coal, petroleum coke(petcoke), and residual heavy oil (resid), includinghazardous oil-bearing secondary materials. Biom-ass is another option. In general, it is believed thatin the United States the increased use of biomassfeedstocks is driven more by environmental andregulatory factors than by free-market forces.

Energy Security. Gasification technology supportsnational energy security goals by producing power,clean fuels, and chemicals from our nation’s mostabundant energy resource, coal, as well as fromreadily available wastes.

iii


Outreach. Better industry access to reliable gasifi-cation technology cost and performance data andimprovement in communicating the technology’sbenefits are needed to accelerate deployment.

International. The range of feedstocks and prod-ucts afforded by gasification technology makes thetechnology attractive to both developed anddeveloping countries.

MarketsClean Power Generation. Clean power generationis the primary market for gasification technology,with use of refinery bottoms providing marketentry, coal-based generation following and domi-nating, and waste disposal and recycling applica-tions emerging as major markets as well. Refineryapplications offer economic advantages that makegasification competitive even at today’s natural gasprices. The relatively low, stable cost of coal and itsabundance domestically, and in key regions aroundthe world, make coal gasification the ultimatedominant market for gasification technology.Gasification is environmentally superior to incin-eration for disposal of municipal and industrialwastes, and with some development work canemerge an economic “winner.” Gasification offersan effective means to convert highly toxic sub-stances, like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), intosalable by-products. With improvements in RAMand capital costs, gasification will have significantmarket potential.

Clean Energy Conversion. Synthesis gas derivedfrom gasification represents a fuel for fuel cells anda basis for producing clean fuels, with the cleanfuels option believed to be the primary optionthrough 2015. A near-term opportunity forgasification technologies is provided by the pushfor ultra-clean transportation fuels. The combina-tion of gasification with Fischer-Tropsch (F-T)processes has potential in the U.S. liquid fuelsmarket to meet a need for low-sulfur, high-qualitydiesel fuels. Future regulations are likely to put ahigh premium on F-T products for use as blendingstock. Bottom-of-the-barrel resid and petcoke are

excellent conversion feedstocks as well as beingexcellent candidates to produce power.

Many developed nations have access to low-costrefinery wastes to use as a feedstock for integratedgasification combined-cycle (IGCC). DevelopingAsia is experiencing the greatest energy growth inthe world and is largely dependent upon its vast,relatively low-cost coal resources for electric powergeneration. Many of the coals, however, are highash and can be a problem in IGCC plants.

NeedsNeeds by industry in support of mainstreamgasification technology commercialization include:(1) improving overall gasifier performance, espe-cially RAM, (2) demonstrating the use of gasifica-tion as an economically and environmentallysuperior alternative to municipal and hazardouswaste disposal, (3) improving investor confidencethrough the replication of commercial demonstra-tions, (4) streamlining the regulatory process, and(5) conducting a grassroots national public rela-tions campaign on behalf of coal to eradicate coal’s“dirty” image.

EnvironmentalConsiderations

Environmental Benefits of GasificationCoal-Based Systems. IGCC is by far the cleanestcoal-based power system available today, yet it iscompared against natural gas combined-cycle(NGCC) in establishing permitted emission limitsbased on Best Available Control Technology(BACT) and Lowest Achievable Emission Rate(LAER). This comparison is deemed unfairbecause IGCC introduces benefits associated withfeedstock diversity and energy security and providesan effective means of capturing carbon dioxide(CO

2), whereas NGCC does not.

Waste-based systems. The U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) recently recognized thesuperiority of gasification in processing refinery

iv


wastes and the associated waste source reductionand the recycling of wastes into usable by-products.Similar action on non-refinery-based toxic com-pounds, such as PCBs, is hoped for in the nearfuture. It is considered that with some research anddevelopment (R&D) on municipal solid waste(MSW) processing and injection, MSW can alsobecome a gasification feedstock subject to wastereduction and recycling, rather than continuedtreatment and disposal.

Environmental Issues and NeedsMisperceptions of Gasification. The public andregulator perceptions that coal and petcoke aredirty feedstocks, along with their perception thatemissions from coal gasification plants are equiva-lent to those from other coal plants, unfairly limitsthe attractiveness of gasification. Needs includeeducating the public about the positive environ-mental and domestic energy implications ofgasification, conducting more demonstrations toprove gasification is “clean,” and forming gasifica-tion advocacy groups.

Permitting. Even in locations favorably inclined togasification projects, the process is long and expen-sive. Needs include having the government step inand develop a structure to streamline the regulatoryprocess, with a target of reducing the time topermit a gasification plant to six months.

Regulatory Uncertainty. The uncertainty over if,when, and how new environmental regulations andrules are to be implemented is a major impedimentto the business development of the gasificationindustry. Needs include having regulators take carein how tightened regulations are written for nitro-gen oxides (NOx), greenhouse gases, trace con-taminants (especially mercury), and solid wastes(ash and slag), so that gasification technology is notinadvertently halted before it has a chance to reachits operational and environmental performancepotential.

NOx Emissions. The uncertainty of regulatoryrequirements related to NOx is very troublesome tothe industry. Based on what appears to be afundamental unwillingness to recognize the differ-ences between IGCC and NGCC technologies,some regulators have been inclined to require NOx

emissions from IGCC plants to be controlled tothe same levels as those from NGCC plants. Needsinclude conducting a study to determine whetherselective catalytic reduction (SCR) for NOx controlis justified, and implementing R&D on alternativetechnologies that achieve ultra-low NOx emissions,such as catalytic synthesis gas combustion and dry,low-NOx conversion processes.

SOx Emissions. Coal gasification-based powergeneration technologies emit far less sulfur oxides(SOx) than other coal-based power systems, typi-cally removing over 99 percent of the sulfur in thecoal. However, nearly complete sulfur removal isrequired in support of reaching ever lower NOx

emissions levels and using synthesis gas for ultra-clean transportation fuels and fuel cells (sulfurcompounds adversely impact NOx processes anddownstream equipment). Industry identified needsinclude pursuing sulfur capture options that offernearly 100 percent sulfur removal at costs equal to,or lower than, today’s state-of-the-art technology;and developing new markets for sulfur.

Global Climate Change. One strong consensusabout the greenhouse gas (GHG) issue that didemerge from the interviews is that nearly all thecompanies are giving it serious consideration asthey make plans and position themselves for thefuture. Industry needs include: (1) placing priorityon increasing efficiency by providing economicincentives for high efficiency, (2) developingtechnologies for either sequestering CO2 or con-verting it into a marketable by-product, (3) con-ducting R&D on CO2 sequestration as a hedgeagainst future regulation, and (4) demonstratingthe removal of CO2 from synthesis gas as an earlystep in demonstrating carbon capture/sequestra-tion.

v


Mercury and Other Trace Contaminants. Newregulations are going to be enacted for trace metalemissions, notably mercury. Depending on thedetails, such regulations can become an obstacle togasification and other solid-fuel technologies.Needs include: (1) conducting R&D to addressdisposal of the small volumes of captured mercuryproduced, (2) developing mercury and other vaporphase contaminant cleanup technologies thatoperate at 300–700 °F, (3) testing a carbon guardbed approach at an existing IGCC plant, (4) con-ducting R&D on the regeneration and disposal ofguard bed material, (5) precisely characterizing howvarious trace contaminants partition in a gasifica-tion system, and (6) developing a better way tomeasure the mercury concentration in gasificationprocess streams.

Solid Waste Disposal. Another source of regula-tory uncertainty is the EPA’s proposed rule onwhether or not to classify as hazardous waste thesynthesis gas and by-products (slag) produced bygasifiers that utilize a hazardous waste feedstock.Needs include supporting the Gasification Technol-ogy Council’s action to have gasification recognizedas the preferred technology (over incineration) forwaste recycling of non-refinery wastes, developingnew ways to economically utilize ash and slag, andconducting R&D on the co-disposal of fly ash withgasifier ash.

Water Consumption and Discharge. As theimportance of water management issues continuesto increase, the consumption and discharge ofwater represents an environmental hurdle for anynew power plants, including gasification plants.New projects are likely to face zero water dischargerequirements. Needs include implementing R&Dfor zero water discharge, developing dry feedsystems, improving gas cleanup processes, anddeveloping technologies to replace cooling towersto improve water management.

Reflecting the Effects of Efficiency on theEmissions of Energy Plants. Most emissions fromenergy plants (refineries, power plants, and chemi-cal plants) are currently measured in terms of mass

per unit energy input, i.e., lb/106 Btu-input. Thisapproach does not reflect the environmentalbenefits of high efficiency or the environmentalcosts of low efficiency. Needs include measuringemissions from electric power production inpounds per megawatt-hour (lb/MWh), and mea-suring emissions from synthesis gas or liquid fuelproduction in pounds per unit heat content of thefuel produced, such as lb/106 Btu-output.

Technology NeedsFor gasification as a whole, process reliability isidentified by nearly all participants as the singlemost important technical limitation to be over-come in order to achieve widespread deployment ofthe technology. The following discusses the indi-vidual processes that need improvement in theprocess sequence.

FeedstocksFeedstock Preparation. Proper preparation of thefeedstock for use in a gasifier is a key process stepbecause of its potential for impacting processreliability and availability. It is believed that thepreparation of the feedstock may have importantramifications on the life of the feed injectors in thegasifier, and thus plant availability. Needs include:(1) elucidating the effects of feedstock preparationon the life of the gasifier feed injectors, (2) develop-ing new and/or improved approaches for dewater-ing and increasing the density of low-rank coalsand alternative feedstocks, (3) establishing afundamental understanding of the impact of newpreparation technologies on the critical propertiesrequired for proper feeding, (4) developing low-cost briquetting techniques, and (5) eliminatinglock-hoppers and associated storage equipment bydeveloping a pressurized mill for coal-based sys-tems.

Feed Systems. Operation and maintenance issuesremain regarding erosion and corrosion of valves,pipes, and pumps. The development of new orimproved feeding systems for high-pressure gasifiersremains fairly high on the list of priorities. Needs

vi


include: (1) developing co-feed systems for classesof feeds, (2) investigating co-feed systems havingthe flexibility to feed different solid feedstocksseparately and together, (3) identifying and address-ing mechanical and safety issues associated withpreparing and feeding CO2 slurries, (4) investigat-ing the impact of high concentrations of CO2 ongasifier performance, (5) developing low-costsurfactants to achieve a stable slurry with a 70percent coal concentration, and (6) conductingR&D on dry feed systems that use synthesis gas ornatural gas as the transport medium.

Instrumentation. Analytical instrumentation is anarea in which most participants felt improvementsor new developments are needed. Needs includedeveloping and demonstrating instrumentation tomeasure the flow rate and density of the feedstockin slurry-based systems, and developing an afford-able on-line analytical device that can provide theelemental composition of the gasifier feedstock.

GasificationThe gasification area of the plant received, by far,the most intense level of discussion. The gasifica-tion block constitutes about 15 percent of thecapital cost of an IGCC plant.

Feed Injectors. Many participants feel that injectorlife is the weakest link in the reliability of gasifica-tion systems. Based on actual experience, the life ofa typical injector nozzle is generally from two to sixmonths. A minimum life of twelve months isdesired in the near term, with an ultimate goal oftwo years. Needs include: (1) conducting a compre-hensive study to define the factors that contributeto the failure of gasifier feed injectors, (2) develop-ing new injector materials to further injector lifeand lower the manufacturing and refurbishingcosts, (3) developing reliable, cost effective variableorifice injectors and multiple-fuel injectors that canadjust to load and feedstock changes, and (4) ex-ploring the possibility of establishing an injectortest facility.

Refractory Liners. Refractory liners in high-temperature slagging gasifiers are known to un-dergo significant deterioration over a relativelyshort period of time, 6 –18 months. Needs include:(1) developing new materials that have an expecteduseful life of three years or more at about 50 per-cent of the cost of current materials, (2) investigat-ing new approaches to lining gasifiers, or eliminat-ing the need for refractories, (3) conductingadditional R&D on water-cooled refractories, and(4) establishing a small refractory material testfacility at a commercial gasification site.

Ash/Slag Removal. An improved understanding ofthe properties and characteristics of the molten slaginside the gasifier is deemed beneficial by someorganizations. Needs include: (1) establishing abetter knowledge of flux (compounds used to lowerash fusion temperatures) effectiveness for solidfeedstock units, (2) developing new fluxing agentsthat reduce the ash fusion temperature to 2,200 °For less, and (3) establishing a database that containscoal properties of interest to gasification.

Instrumentation. The ability to reliably measurevarious process parameters, and the compositionand properties of various process streams is consid-ered a high priority based on the numerous re-sponses received. Needs include: (1) developingmeans to measure temperatures inside the gasifieron a real-time basis; (2) developing on-line instru-mentation to measure or analyze wear on therefractory liner, composition of hot product gas,and isokinetic particulate sampling; and (3) devel-oping on-line instrumentation to measure ashfusion temperature, slag viscosity, and slag layerthickness.

New Gasification Concepts. Needs include:(1) investigating feedstock-flexible, higher effi-ciency gasifier concepts for applications that uselow-energy-density feedstocks, such as high-ashcoals and biomass; (2) performing a market surveyto help define the applications and needs forsmaller gasifiers; and (3) developing low-tempera-ture, non-slagging gasifiers to reduce plant capitaland operating costs.

vii


Gas CleaningSynthesis gas cleaning and, in particular, thecontrol of HAPs and trace metals, is an area ofconcern in light of future regulations of suchemissions. The capital cost of removing particulatematter and chemical contaminants from thesynthesis gas generally accounts for about 10–12percent of the total capital cost of an IGCC plant.

Cold Gas Cleaning. Needs include: (1) develop-ing cost-effective technologies that can removeheat-stable salts from existing processes, and newsolvent systems with enhanced performance;(2) placing a priority on systems that can removeboth carbonyl sulfide (COS) and hydrogen sulfide(H2S) simultaneously, as well as chlorides; and(3) pursuing development of both wet and drynovel ambient temperature approaches.

Warm Gas Cleaning. The need is to develop asynthesis gas cleanup system operating between300–700 °F to reduce sulfur to near-zero levels andto remove mercury, ammonia, and other tracecontaminants.

Hot Gas Cleaning. The need is to develop synthe-sis gas cleanup systems in the long term thatoperate above 800 °F for gas turbine and fuel cellapplications, addressing removal of tars, sulfur,alkalis, ash, hydrochloric acid (HCl), and mercury(Hg) to very low levels.

Particulate Filtration. Needs include: (1) devel-oping more durable, reliable, and cost effectiveceramic and metallic filter elements with a usefullife of at least three years, (2) developing reliablesafeguard devices to protect downstream processesin the event of filter failure, (3) involving manufac-turers in filter and safeguard development, and(4) conducting R&D to resolve chloride cracking(stress corrosion) of pipes and valves in the gas flowpath and the erosion of valves used for hot solidshandling.

Heat RecoverySynthesis Gas Cooling – Non-quench Opera-tion. Needs include: (1) developing technologies

that are capable of removing vapor phase tracemetals from the hot raw synthesis gas stream beforeit enters the heat exchanger, and (2) investigatingnew heat recovery processes that minimize deposi-tion and improved techniques for removing thedeposits from the heat transfer surfaces.

Synthesis Gas Cooling – Quench Operation.Needs include: (1) pursuing process developmentto improve quench process efficiency for high-ashfeedstocks in a commercial plant to address scale-up issues, and (2) investigating improved designsthat quench effectively with less conversion ofcarbon monoxide (CO) to CO2.

Heat Recovery Steam Generator. The need is toinvestigate replacing the heat recovery steamgenerator (HRSG) with a higher-temperaturemethod of heat recovery, such as a hot oil ormolten salt system to improve heat integration andefficiency.

Gas SeparationAir Separation. Membrane-based technologieshave recently been reported to reduce capital costsof an IGCC plant by about $75–100/kW, improveplant efficiency 1–3 percentage points, and increasenet power production by 7 percent. Needs include:(1) exploring air separation technologies thatoperate between -50 °F and 350 °F, (2) completingdevelopment of the current suite of membranesbefore pursuing the next generation of membranematerials, (3) developing an efficient and effectiveair extraction/return capability for the gas turbine,and (4) resolving the problem of accumulation ofsmall carbonaceous particles on surfaces in thepresence of high-purity oxygen.

Hydrogen/CO2 Separation. If required today,existing technologies, such as Rectisol and Selexol,can be applied to capture CO2; however, suchapplications are expensive and impose a severeenergy penalty on the system. Needs include:(1) placing a high priority on development anddemonstration of carbon sequestration and utiliza-tion technologies, (2) implementing fundamental

viii


research at universities and national laboratories on“outside-the-box” approaches to the separation ofhydrogen and CO2, (3) developing lower cost CO2

capture technologies, and (4) placing emphasis onpressurizing the product streams and targetingseparation technologies operating at 800 °F or less.

By-ProductsAsh/Slag. Needs include: (1) developing newleaching test methods for each ash/slag application;(2) determining whether the specifications forcertain markets can be relaxed to accommodate thehigh moisture and carbon content of the slag;(3) developing cost-effective means to reduce ash/slag carbon, moisture content, and product size;(4) developing means to reduce the cost of grindingand classifying the ash/slag; (5) exploring opportu-nities for recovery of components that eitherdetract from ash/slag value or are in themselvesvaluable; and (6) characterizing the solids producedfrom gasification of waste materials and coal/wasteblends to determine the marketability of thematerials.

Sulfur. There is a growing concern that as moreand more gasification facilities are constructed andoperated, the production of high-grade sulfur by-product will eventually exceed demand. Needsinclude: (1) determining the level of IGCC capac-ity at which the market becomes saturated, and(2) developing new markets and ways to utilizesulfur.

Synthesis Gas UtilizationGas Turbines. Needs include: (1) continuing theAdvanced Turbine Systems (ATS) program, orother DOE programs, focusing on synthesis gasapplications and encouraging gas turbine manufac-turers to design turbines that can burn synthesisgas; (2) expanding the range of the fuel handlingsystem and gas turbine nozzle performance toaccommodate the use of multiple compositions ofdiluted fuels having a broad range of hydrogencontent and time-varying heating values caused byswings in product output; (3) establishing a U.S.-based user test facility; (4) characterizing the

deposition, corrosion, and erosion that results fromfeeding synthesis gas to a gas turbine; and (5) devel-oping new low-NOx gas turbine combustionsystems, such as dry low-NOx burners for low-Btugas and catalytic synthesis gas combustion.

Fuel Cells. Needs include: (1) developing specifi-cations for maximum allowable contaminant levelsin the synthesis gas, (2) developing more poison-tolerant fuel cells, (3) investigating integration andoptimization of the fuel cell in the overall plantconfiguration, and (4) supporting synthesis gas-based fuel cell system pilot-scale testing and dem-onstration projects.

Synthesis Gas Conversion. Needs include:(1) pursuing new approaches to improve theeconomics of synthesis gas conversion, (2) explor-ing new routes for the conversion of synthesis gasto chemicals and C2 and C3 alcohols, (3) directingnear-term efforts at the development of synthesisgas conversion to F-T products, (4) developingprocess schemes for an integrated gasification/F-Tplant, and (5) establishing a user facility to demon-strate new technologies.

IntegrationDesign Standardization and Modularization.Many believe that modularization of process unitsand standardization of designs stand to greatlybenefit the commercialization of gasification.Needs include: (1) conducting a study addressingoptimized design of a modular, standardized IGCCplant for a niche power market into which manysuch plants can be sold; (2) analyzing the market todetermine the size of the standardized IGCC studyplant; (3) developing a market growth strategy torepower 20–25 percent of existing power plantcapacity with standardized plant designs; and(4) targeting a 20 percent reduction in footprint forthe standardized plant.

Air Separation Unit/Gas Turbine Integration.Full versus partial integration between the airseparation unit (ASU) and gas turbine is still anunresolved issue, and considering the higherpressure ratios of future gas turbines, integration is

ix


likely to continue to be problematic. Needs includeconducting R&D to address the issue of integra-tion of the gas turbine with the ASU.

Databases. Sources of information on gasificationsystem design and performance appear to be, at best,very minimal. Numerous requests are made for thedevelopment of databases, which industry can utilizein the development of projects. It appears that thereis considerable concern that designers are not aware ofpast mistakes and that important learning experiencebenefits are being lost.

CO2 and Hydrogen Integration. Needs include:(1) defining the optimum configuration of a gasifica-tion system to accommodate CO2 capture/sequestra-tion and quantify the economics of the process;(2) conducting pilot and commercial-scale demon-strations of CO2 capture and sequestration at agasification facility; and (3) demonstrating hydrogenproduction resulting from CO2 capture, with empha-sis on storage and transport.

Instrumentation and ControlsThere is clearly a need for the development of newand improved techniques for monitoring andcontrolling all processes and process streams withina gasification plant. Many believe that instrumen-tation and controls are key areas to further theadvancement of gasification. Specific instrumenta-tion needs are presented in the context of thecomponents or subsystems previously discussed.Other needs include: (1) developing advanced,model predictive controls to regulate the totalsystem, especially if load following is required;(2) demonstrating advanced logic supervisory/optimization systems; (3) developing simulatorsthat can be used to train operators on new plants ina consistent manner; (4) developing tunable diodelaser technology for gas measurements in high-temperature environments; (5) developing a reliablepH meter capable of operating under elevatedpressures and temperatures up to 300 °F forscrubbing system applications; and (6) developingdiagnostic procedures and tools to identify processimprovements affecting plant reliability andperformance.

ModelsThe need for more sophisticated advanced gasifierand other process models ranks very high. Needsinclude: (1) defining what models are clearlyneeded to benefit the entire industry before devel-oping them; (2) focusing model development ondynamic models that can be used not only topredict the steady-state performance of a gasifier,but also to simulate transient events; and (3) vali-dating the models with actual plant data ratherthan using theoretical diagnostics or dynamicmodeling as substitutes for actual operationalexperience.

Government RoleGovernment-Sponsored Testing Facilities. Needsinclude: (1) increasing use of existing IGCCfacilities, such as the Wabash River and TampaElectric IGCC plants, to test and validate newtechnology, (2) expanding R&D at thegovernment’s component testing facilities atWilsonville, Grand Forks, National Energy Tech-nology Laboratory, and LaPorte, and (3) establish-ing a government-sponsored full-scale demonstra-tion plant that includes slipstreams specificallydesigned for testing new technologies in a “plugand play” fashion.

Government Incentives for Gasification Projects.Needs include: (1) having the government provideinsurance on the schedule, cost, and performanceof initial commercial IGCC plants, (2) fundinganother wave of IGCC demonstrations that tiesgovernment cost-sharing to project performance,and replicating the most promising technologies toovercome technical risk, (3) providing tax credits orother financial incentives for initial commercialIGCC plants that are tied to performance targets,such as efficiency or CO2 emissions, to encouragecoal and biomass utilization.

x

1


IntroductionTask and PurposeFrom the late fall of 2000 through the early springof 2001, representatives of the Gasification Tech-nology Product Team (GTPT) from the U.S.Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of FossilEnergy and the National Energy TechnologyLaboratory (NETL) conducted a series of inter-views and information-gathering discussions withindustrial teams from organizations representing awide range of business lines in the U.S. gasificationindustry. The goals for this field research were to:(1) elicit the views of industry experts on their“vision” for the industry from the present to 2015and (2) obtain opinions from leaders in the indus-try on what are likely to be critical technologyresearch and development (R&D) needs in boththe near term and long term. The results of thiseffort are intended to assist industry and govern-ment managers in the decision making processrelated to ensuring that existing systems can attainthe best possible cost and performance in the nearterm and that future systems can achieve both thegovernment’s and industry’s long-term visions.

Additionally, the findings of this report will be usedto develop a more comprehensive technologyroadmap for DOE’s Gasification TechnologiesProgram and to justify future budget requests. Keyfindings will be incorporated into the overall DOEportfolio planning and budgeting process.

ProcessThe GTPT met with representatives from 22organizations across a broad spectrum of thegasification industry (refer to the Acknowledgmentssection for the list of participants). The GTPTarranged the interviews and discussions around aformal and consistent protocol and structure. Theorganizations and individuals acting as points-of-contact were selected based on their positions asindustry leaders and their willingness and ability todiscuss frankly and creatively the technology,market, and economic issues affecting the industry.

The GTPT developed the basic interview structurethrough an iterative process. The “tools” used informulating this structure, which are included inthe various appendices for reference purposes,included:

• A formal letter to the industry points-of-contact affirming the goals of the task and theinterview date;

• An agenda setting forth the pattern and timingfor the various presentations and discussions;

• A copy of a GTPT presentation providing eachindustry team with an overview of the DOE-sponsored R&D program with respect tocontent, management, and implementation;and

• A list of interview questions establishing thescope of the interview and addressing thespecific themes of the study.

In line with the aim of promoting frank and opendialogue, the GTPT once again informed allorganizations prior to the interview that the finalreport would not attribute any particular com-ments or views to specific individuals or compa-nies. This protocol of “confidentiality” was key toachieving the frank and open discussion. Thediscussions covered a broad range of topics, includ-ing technology trends; market drivers; “hands-on”experience with a particular process, technology, orinnovation; and detailed knowledge of technologyoperations. In each case, the individuals provedwilling to engage in discussions of sensitive issueswithin the confines of the allotted time.

ScopeIn an attempt to obtain the best possible sample,interview participants were drawn from the execu-tive, technology research, application, and opera-tional management ranks of the leading companiesin the gasification industry. But it is recognizedthat the industry is so complex and diverse that theslate of issues and opinions within the domain of“gasification” is too exhaustive for all to be in-cluded in this report.

2


What has been compiled is a summary of the keyfindings and a synthesis of perspectives based onthe sample of parties included in the study. Whileattempts were made to identify and representconvergent themes under the main topic headings,the report does not necessarily present a “consensusview.” While most of the points covered haveconvergence, some have conflicting views. More-over, despite a consistent interview structure for allinterviews, the flow of each interview was unique.In most interviews, the interviewees devoted thegreatest amount of time to issues that they viewedmost critical or valuable, while minimizing or evendisregarding certain issues or topics within theconstraints of the scheduled time. This is anotherreason why trying to reach consensus on all theissues would be a fruitless task.

Presentation of FindingsThe presentation of findings in this report is fromindustry’s perspective, as interpreted from theinterviews. Every effort has been made to presentthe material untainted by any views held by theinterviewers or by government policies applicableto the subject discussed.

3


AddressingMarket NeedsIntroductionThe process of estimating future markets forgasification technologies, both domestically andinternationally, is quite complicated. Even if anaccurate model of the myriad of factors affectingmarkets and their interdependencies could beprescribed, forecasting uncertainties inherent inthose factors adds another layer of complexity. Themacro factors affecting new technology diffusioninto any given market include: the future eco-nomic outlook, governing energy and environmen-tal policies, regulatory reforms and outlook,resource availability and utilization issues, R&Dfunding availability and prioritization, partneringrequirements, and the speed of innovation ofcompeting technologies.

It is recognized that the complexities inherent inthese macro factors and other issues significantlyimpact how markets ultimately evolve and mature.However, the interviews and subsequent discus-sions typically focused on more easily discerniblemicro-economic factors, as well as factors germaneto the technology itself. Examples include priceand availability of natural gas, feedstock type andavailability, risk identification, key performanceparameters, and issues affecting project develop-ment.

The market horizon chosen for discussion is fromthe present to 2015. The discussions address bothdomestic and international markets. The industryperspective on markets is presented in terms ofmarket drivers, markets, and perceived needs.

Many of the markets presented in this report arelikely to require some major technology advancesduring the next decade, as well as favorable eco-nomics, an environment that provides somecoordinated efforts between technology develop-ment and regulatory development, and greater

collaboration between technology suppliers, projectdevelopers and plant operators. Additionally, thecontinuation of the long-term government andindustry commitment to collaborative research onadvanced technology development is viewed as keyto future successes.

A significant increase in market activity, bothdomestically and internationally, is envisagedbeyond 2008. Industry needs for moving gasifica-tion technologies from niche opportunities tomainstream markets are provided at the end of thissection.

Market Drivers

EconomicsGasification technology must compete economi-cally, regardless of intrinsic environmentalbenefits.

Product economics are identified as the mostimportant determinant in gasification technologydeployment potential. In order to sell power inmarkets characterized as high demand, powerplants have to compete economically, regardless ofany tangible, or intangible, environmental or socio-economic benefits that may be intrinsic in aparticular technology or process. Incrementalimprovement in the cost of plant operations is seenas necessary to enable integrated gasificationcombined-cycle (IGCC) technologies to be attrac-tive to power producers.

FeedstockThe price differential between natural gas andthe feedstocks available to a gasification plantsite plays a major role in determining theeconomic competitiveness for gasificationtechnologies.

Gasification technologies such as IGCC mustcompete against natural gas combined-cycle(NGCC) in the electricity generation market.Consequently, the price and supply outlook fornatural gas is a major driver in technology decisionmaking, as is the price and supply outlook for

4


possible IGCC feedstocks, including coal andrefinery wastes (petroleum coke and residual heavyoil), and other feedstock options (biomass, andindustrial and municipal wastes).

Even at relatively low and stable natural gas prices($2.50/106 Btu), the prospects for new IGCCfacilities are considered favorable, in certain cases,as a hedge against future gas price volatility. Thesecases include situations: (1) having good access tocoal and other solid fuel supplies; (2) offering asound infrastructure (transmission, water, permits,product need, etc.); and (3) providing economicparity with the benchmark gas price through theuse of low-cost feedstock, such as petroleum coke(petcoke) and residual heavy oil (resid). The use ofbiomass as a base-load feedstock is not consideredviable in the short term, except in niche situations,such as pulp and paper industry applications. Theimpediments to biomass are technical in nature (tarproduction, feed preparation, and injection prob-lems) and relate to feedstock availability andtransportation logistics and cost. Also, the gasifica-tion of high ash coals, while technically feasible, isnot considered to be economically attractive.

Investment Costs

Capital costs and costs associated withprotracted gasification technologyengineering, procurement, and constructionschedules must be ameliorated.

Process complexity and the associated protractedengineering, procurement, and construction (EPC)schedules, and high capital costs have to be ad-dressed.

As with most new technologies, gasificationprojects require a higher hurdle rate, or higher costof capital, than projects using existing technology.That is, investors require a higher rate of return ontheir investment in a relatively new or untestedtechnology to offset the risk in not knowing howthe technology may perform in the marketplace.Unfortunately, gasification technology advantageswith regard to reducing criteria pollutants, solid

waste, and atmospheric mercury (compared tocompeting coal-based technologies) are non-monetized and do not provide any type of financialoffset to the cost of gasification projects. This factunderscores the need for achieving DOE’s mid-projection fully loaded EPC cost target of$1,000/kW by 2008. Cost targets are to be metthrough improvements derived from learning,economies of scale, plant standardization, reduc-tion in major sub-system costs (such as turbines,gas cleaning, and oxygen plant), risk reduction, andother improvements germane to more maturetechnologies and plants.

Process complexity contributes to high capital costand protracted EPC schedules. The complexitylargely is the result of redundancies built into thenot-yet-mature technology and lack of standardiza-tion and modularization of components andsubsystems. And currently, the number of projectsis too few and their capacities too large to encour-age competition for development of standard,modular designs to reduce costs. The few largeprojects to date have used custom designs for thespecific project.

Because of the high capital costs, most owners arelooking for non-recourse financing with maximumleverage. This situation shifts the burden forperformance onto EPC contractors, who often areunable to have performance warranties underwrit-ten. This then shifts the risk of non-payment ofdebt onto financial institutions, who raise the riskpremium and the cost of doing business.

Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability

Reliability, availability, and maintainabilitymust increase to reach acceptable industrythresholds and to eliminate redundanciescontributing to high capital and EPC costs.

Reliability, availability, and maintainability (RAM),together with investment costs, most affect theattractiveness of gasification because of the impacton the cost of electricity and other products.Gasification currently has a relatively poor RAM

5


track record. The RAM must be improved to theextent that the use of multiple gasifier trains,presently necessary for RAM considerations, can bephased out in favor of single trains to improveplant economics. The goal of greater than 90percent availability for a single train unit is viewedas a requirement for power generation. In applica-tions such as refineries and chemical plants, wherethe units are fully integrated into upstream anddownstream processes, there is a need for 100percent availability — a particular challenge givencurrent gasifier system complexity. However, the100 percent availability goal is valid. Interruptionsin product supply from the gasifier cannot betolerated. For example, a brief 10-minute steaminterruption can cause an uncontrolled shutdownof an entire refinery and a resultant 1- to 2-weekoutage.

Environmental Considerations

The environmental superiority of gasificationtechnologies for solid feedstocks has not as yetbeen leveraged into deployment, but can beleveraged in a future rewarding both environ-mental performance and feedstock diversity.

Environmental considerations are discussed indetail in the following section because of the depthof information emerging from the interviews andthe importance of the topic from a public interestperspective. An overview is provided here to placeenvironmental considerations in the context ofother factors identified by industry as drivinggasification technology deployment.

There is a widely held opinion in the industry,much of which is supported by current demonstra-tion projects, that the environmental performanceof gasification is superior to other options whenusing solid carbonaceous feedstocks. However,these advantages have not significantly driven thedeployment of gasification and are unlikely to doso in the near term. In the long term, gasification’ssuperiority to combustion as a waste recycling anddisposal technology is likely to be leveraged into asignificant market.

While regulations on the greenhouse gas (GHG)carbon dioxide (CO2) would be an immediatehurdle to deployment of coal plants, gasificationplants are in the best position compared to othercoal-based alternatives to capture CO2. Given theuncertainty of CO2

regulation, there is industryreluctance to make large investments in projectswith high CO2 emissions, since a cost-effectivesolution for reducing such emissions is not yetavailable. Nevertheless, the GHG issue can be anenhancing factor for gasification in the long runbecause the CO2 occurs in concentrated form,making it more amenable to capture.

The industry is unanimous in the opinion thatanything that can improve the plant permittingprocess is helpful. Navigating through the myriadof government regulations is a time-consuming andcostly process; and the more complex the projecttechnology, the longer and more costly the processusually is. Even more significant is the risk associ-ated with the uncertainty of future regulations.Further, there is still a public perception thatbecause coal and petcoke are “dirty” feedstocks, anyprocess that uses them must also be “dirty.” Thisperception further lengthens the permitting pro-cess. Obtaining a plant site is a long and difficultprocess, especially with regard to transmission lineaccess or the siting of new lines. Therefore, featuresthat are attractive relative to siting are important.IGCC has the advantage of offering far higherefficiency, lower pollutant emissions, and lowerwater consumption than other coal-fueled tech-nologies.

Efficiency

Efficiency gain is only a driver for technologydeployment if the gain relative to competingtechnologies improves plant economics (or is atleast cost-neutral).

The issue of efficiency is characterized in much thesame way as environmental performance in that ithas not been a driver for deployment of the tech-nology commercially, nor is it likely to be in thenear term. Also, in the long term, efficiency is

6


likely to be much less important than improve-ments in cost and RAM. Efficiency is only a driverto the extent that any gain also improves costperformance, or is at least cost-neutral. Otherwise,some form of government incentive is deemednecessary to obtain dramatic improvements inefficiency. It was forecast by some of the respon-dents that natural gas has to approach $12/106 Btuto justify capital projects that focus on significantincreases in efficiency and improve the bottom line.Higher efficiency is viewed as “nice to have,”primarily from an emissions reduction standpoint,which includes CO2.

The industry view is that thecurrent efficiencies available (41–45 percent)appear adequate.

Feedstock/Product Flexibility

Feedstock and product flexibility alone cannotbring gasification technology into mainstreammarkets, but together with reduced capital andimproved RAM, it is seen as the key to marketentry.

Although both feedstock and product flexibilityadd to the attractiveness of gasification technolo-gies, these features alone do not justify the selectionof the technology at today’s relatively high capitalcost coupled with the perceptions of higher risk.However, a constant theme from the industryexperts is that gasification will continue to beattractive in the long term because of its capabilityto process multiple feedstocks and to producemultiple products.

The most viable feedstocks appear to be coal,petcoke, and resid, including hazardous secondaryoil-bearing materials. The primary driver for feed-stock selection is cost. “The cheaper the better,” ishow one respondent characterized feedstockselection criteria. Other feedstocks consideredinclude gob, pond fines, biomass, animal wastes,and municipal and industrial wastes.

With respect to biomass, there are widely conflict-ing views about its overall potential for use as afeedstock. One school of opinion places biomass

applications in the niche category at best, suggest-ing that the pulp and paper industry represents thebest opportunity. Of those harboring the view thatbiomass is not going to transition to becoming asignificant feedstock, many cite the high costsassociated with harvesting and dewatering thebiomass as a major factor, limiting application tothose regions that have an indigenous uniformsupply of suitable biomass feedstock, such as thepulp and paper industry.

Beyond the issue of biomass availability, includingthe seasonal factors associated with many of thebiomass feedstocks, another major concern is thatmore energy is expended in the collection andpreparation stages than is generated throughprocessing the biomass. Also, as discussed in theTechnology Needs section, technical hurdles tobiomass use remain. In general, it is believed in theUnited States that increased use of biomass feed-stocks is driven more by environmental and regula-tory factors, if anything, than by free-market forces.Without tax credits or similar incentives, biomass isunlikely to be used as a baseload feedstock andmarket entry is likely to be as a feedstock blend.

Energy Security

Gasification technology supports nationalenergy security goals by producing power, cleanfuels, and chemicals from our nation’s mostabundant energy resource — coal — as well asfrom readily available wastes.

For the United States, there is a likelihood ofmarket pull from a national security perspective,using the country’s abundant coal resources andreadily available wastes. Long-term opportunitiesexist for conversion of coal, petcoke, and resid toelectricity, fuels, and chemicals.

OutreachBetter industry access to reliable gasificationtechnology cost and performance data andimprovement in communicating thetechnology’s benefits are needed to acceleratedeployment.

7


Many of the industry representatives cite the lack ofreliable information about costs, performancebenefits, and other outcomes of technology invest-ment as one of the reasons for the slow pace ofgasification technology diffusion into the marketplace. It is generally believed that better access toreliable data and improvements in communicatingtechnology benefits would better support R&Dinvestment decisions and provide an importantimpetus for commercialization efforts.

International

The range of feedstocks and products affordedby gasification technology makes the technologyattractive to both developed and developingcountries.

Many developed nations have access to low-costrefinery wastes to use as a feedstock for IGCC.Developing Asia is experiencing the greatest energygrowth in the world and is largely dependent uponits vast, relatively low-cost coal resources for electricpower generation. Many of the coals, however, arehigh ash coals and can be a problem in IGCCplants.

MarketsThe evolution of markets is very much about thehistory of competitors coming out with newbenefits and new products to offer to buyers.Market evolution in the gasification industry hasbeen driven primarily by the forces of innovationand competition stimulated by problem recogni-tion and problem solving. The private sector hasconducted crosscutting research and developmentto underwrite the very significant technical andeconomic risks involved in deploying these tech-nologies. Market segmentation and productenhancement through 2015 is projected to be verydependant upon a similar interplay of these dy-namic forces continuing in the future.

By and large, the industry panels believe that twoprimary domestic markets — clean power genera-tion and clean energy conversion — will grow

considerably by 2015. Of these two, the cleanpower generation market is projected to be pre-dominant.

Clean Power Generation

Clean power generation is the primary market forgasification technology, with use of refinerybottoms providing market entry, coal-basedgeneration following and dominating, and wastedisposal and recycling applications emerging asmajor markets as well.

The clean power generation market from refinerybottoms is viewed to have great potential forgrowth, in particular where projects may takeadvantage of the synergies associated withpolygeneration (steam, hydrogen, and powerproduction) and in cases where projects are sizedlarge enough to attract companies with both fuelsand chemicals interests into risk-sharing partner-ships. But, coal gasification is projected to becomethe dominant application in the power generationmarket during the next 12–15 years in the UnitedStates and in overseas markets. Petcoke-to-electric-ity opportunities are viewed as limited ultimatelyby the eventual dwindling of petcoke resources.

Refinery Applications. Refinery applications offereconomic advantages that make them competitiveeven at today’s natural gas prices, but some viewthis market as limited on a worldwide basis. In theUnited States, the best fit for gasification is inrefinery applications, using the readily available,low-cost refinery bottoms, primarily petcoke. InEurope, the opportunities in this application arefairly similar, the difference being that Europeanrefineries, which rarely have cokers, gasify residrather than petcoke. However, there is someskepticism in the industry about whether theavailability and reliability of gasification is suffi-cient for refinery applications in the near term.

Even at today’s natural gas prices, there are manydomestic petcoke-based and resid-based gasificationprojects that are economically viable. Although, atlow natural gas prices (less than $2.50/106 Btu), the

8


co-production benefit of producing hydrogen islost to a refiner through the selection of moreeconomic methods, such as combustion of petcokewith steam methane reforming for hydrogenproduction. The future supply and cost of petcokeis viewed as more uncertain than for coal. It isestimated by one of the industry representativesthat because of resource availability constraints, theultimate potential for petcoke-based power genera-tion projects is about 50,000 megawatts (MW) ona worldwide basis and, therefore, the future forpower generation is dependent on coal gasification.

While the price and supply outlook for refinerybottoms is deemed less certain, the market for fueloil both in Europe and the United States is shrink-ing and petcoke in most U.S. locations brings arelatively low net back price. Many refiners con-sider petcoke as an “opportunity fuel” — a fuelgiven to a party willing to incur the costs of trans-portation. Although the price of petcoke is likelyto increase as demand picks up, it is forecast toremain relatively cheap on a $/106 Btu basisbecause of its high sulfur content, which lowers theprice below that of even high-sulfur coals. Further-more, the increased size of the sulfur “sink” maydepress petcoke prices in the future even as thedemand for petcoke increases. The tightening ofsulfur specifications for fuel oil and diesel fuel, andthe added cost penalty of upgrading throughhydrotreating, is likely to result in a steady marketdecline in demand for these fuels in the future,making them excellent candidates for gasificationfeedstocks within the infrastructure of refineries.

Coal Gasification. The relatively low, stable costof coal and its abundance domestically, and in keyregions around the world, make coal gasificationthe ultimate dominant market for gasificationtechnology. Many of the industry representativesview gasification as the most viable technology toeventually displace the existing coal-fired powergeneration fleet through the improvement ofefficiency, reduction of emissions (close to zero),and the enhancement of power generation atexisting sites. Existing plants that have the neces-

sary infrastructure (transmission, water, fuel supply,operating permits) are obvious candidates for bothrepowering and replacement.

Coal-based projects become feasible at a coal costof about $1/106 Btu. While current coal prices areaveraging about $1.40/106 Btu domestically,gasification’s ability to easily remove and handlesulfur can make use of low-cost, low-grade, high-sulfur coals viable. The amount of ash in the coalbecomes a concern at high levels from a coststandpoint, rather than a technical concern. Mostof the major technology developers consider thatthe gasifiers can handle feedstocks with over 20percent ash content, but that such feedstocks arenot economic because so much oxygen is neededjust to melt the minerals. Moreover, there is theadded thermodynamic penalty in that the heat inthe ash, which exits the reactor at about 2,000 °F,cannot be recovered.

Proposed new sites, where NGCC is the presenteconomic choice, but which also have access to coaland other solid feedstock supplies, provide theopportunity during pre-planning for a phasedgasification development as a hedge against volatileprices of natural gas.

Waste Disposal. Gasification is environmentallysuperior to incineration for disposal of municipaland industrial wastes, and with some developmentwork can emerge an economic “winner.” Theindustry considers gasification preferable to com-bustion for the destruction of municipal andindustrial wastes, mainly because gasification doesnot emit dioxins or furans like incineration pro-cesses do. In terms of feedstock/device matching,the feeding of raw municipal solid waste (MSW) isbetter suited for atmospheric pressure gasifiers dueto the heterogeneity of the feed. Pre-treatment ofthe MSW renders the feed usable for pressurizedunits, but pre-treatment adversely affects projecteconomics. Feedstock diversity — the ability toobtain and process low-cost feeds on a spot basis —is an inherently significant benefit to a project.But, such flexible feed gasifiers still require a lot of

9


development work that will likely not proceedwithout public sector support or some strongmarket incentives. Ultimately, the market forgasifying bio-wastes may be more lucrative inEurope and Japan, where the fees for landfillingcontinue to rise and the regulations governingwaste landfills become more restrictive.

Waste Recycling. Gasification offers an effectivemeans to convert highly toxic substances, likepolychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), into salable by-products; and, with RAM and capital cost improve-ments, has significant market potential in thisrecycle arena. Gasification as a waste recyclingoption (compared to energy conversion only) torecover valuable, usable products is currently in themarket niche category, but has the potential togrow into a solid commercial performer over thelong term. For example, the use of chlorinatedhydrocarbon liquids and other organic wastestreams provides an opportunity for gasification tobe a cost-effective environmental cleanup technol-ogy by effectively converting the chlorine, carbon,and hydrogen constituents into valuable products.This approach offers a solution to the PCB prob-lem and an alternative to thermally treating chlori-nated organic by-products. Not only does gasifica-tion move the waste conversion in the desireddirection in the waste hierarchy by recycling ratherthan simply processing, but it increases the energyefficiency of the operation. Because the fit for thissort of deployment is in integrated applications,such as chemical plants, the significant hurdles oflow RAM and high investment costs still have to beovercome to realize the full market potential by2015.

Gasification applied to the pulp and paper industryfits the scenario of providing a recycle function andhaving an indigenous uniform supply of suitablebiomass feedstock. But, the window of opportu-nity to replace existing black liquor boilers withgasifiers, which would afford major increases inboth thermal and resource efficiencies, is likely toclose unless action is taken before 2015. So far,there has been much talk, but little action, to

deploy gasification technologies in pulp and paperapplications. The overall reluctance may be mainlydriven by cultural preference — the preference forsomething tried and tested over an option thatpotentially shows significant cost and performancebenefits, but has perceived high risk. The risk isassociated with deploying technologies in first-of-a-kind applications without some monetized risksharing mechanism to offset potential cost oroperation shortfalls. Also, retraining the workforceto operate entirely “new” processes is considered tobe a major impediment to the deployment ofgasification not only in the pulp and paper indus-tries, but in many of the other non petro-chemicalmarket segments identified.

Clean Energy Conversion

Synthesis gas derived from gasification repre-sents a fuel for fuel cells and a basis for produc-ing clean fuels, with the clean fuels optionbelieved to be the primary option through 2015.

The clean energy conversion market requireslooking at things from a product differentiationperspective. Many non-power related synthesis gasmarkets require that the gas is delivered at high-pressure, making high-pressure gasification theoptimum economic option for potential customers.Pressurizing synthesis gas is costly. If and when fuelcells become commercially available, they may offera more lucrative use of the synthesis gas thanconversion to fuels. However, within the timeframe considered here, fuels are considered theprimary conversion commodities.

A near-term opportunity for gasification technolo-gies is provided by the push for ultra-clean trans-portation fuels. But, this market driver may beeliminated if the sulfur levels for finished productsare pushed so low in the near term that refinersfind it necessary to install desulfurization technol-ogy or other advanced approaches to meet thestringent specifications. Installation of desulfuriza-tion precludes the gasification route to sulfurremoval and reduces the availability of low-costrefinery feedstock for IGCC.

10


The combination of gasification with Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) processes has potential in the U.S.liquid fuels market to meet a need for low-sulfur,high-quality diesel fuels. Future regulations arelikely to put a high premium on F-T products foruse as blending stock. Bottom-of-the-barrel residand petcoke are excellent conversion feedstocks aswell as being excellent candidates to producepower. Although premium prices are likely for F-Tfuels, the market for such fuels needs to be betterdefined and developed to take full advantage of thewindow of opportunity.

The synergies between chemical plants and gasifica-tion plants also provide market opportunities.There are, at present, market opportunities forgasification in the chemical industry through theuse of synthesis gas as a chemical feedstock. Addi-tionally, chemical plants can utilize the low-pressure steam (50–100 pounds per square inch –absolute (psia)) generated from gasification plantwaste heat.

International Markets

There is a limited market for gasification-derived power, ammonia, and other chemicalsfor China and India.

In terms of the prospects for new internationalmarkets for gasification, there may be a limitedmarket for coal gasification to produce power,ammonia, and other chemicals in China and India.However, many of China’s and India’s coals havehigh ash contents. And, the gasification of high-ash coals, while technically doable, is not economi-cally attractive. Also, while gasification has positiveenvironmental benefits, these benefits do nottranslate to economic benefits, because there is nomonetized incentive for improved environmentalperformance in these countries.

SummaryNeeds defined by industry to support mainstreamgasification technology commercialization are asfollows:

Needs• Improve overall gasifier performance,

especially RAM.

• Demonstrate the use of gasification as aneconomically and environmentally superioralternative to municipal and hazardouswaste disposal, including development anddemonstration of a robust and tolerant gaspurification block for handling variations infeedstocks.

• Improve investor confidence through thereplication of commercial demonstrations,showing significant improvements overprecursor facilities, such as improved assetdevelopment and management, reducedcosts and schedules, better plant operatortraining, and enhanced plant performance,particularly on-time availability.

• Streamline the regulatory process to enticeother partners into the development ofgasification projects. (The recent rulemakingchange to exempt synthesis gas producedfrom hazardous refinery wastes from beingclassified as hazardous under the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) iscited as the type of improvement bothneeded and possible through a sustainedcoordination effort between government andindustry).

• Address risk and financing problems eitherthrough stronger project teaming arrange-ments and loan guarantees, or demonstrat-ing a proven hedge against certain risksthrough the feedstock flexibility and co-production capabilities afforded by gasifica-tion technology.

11


• Conduct a grassroots national public rela-tions campaign on behalf of coal to eradicatecoal’s “dirty” image and replace it with oneshowing that technology such as gasificationis an environmental cleanup technology.

• As a prerequisite to attempting to resolveproblems associated with commercializationof biomass-based gasification, examine theentire carbon cycle for the whole suite ofcandidate feedstocks and conduct a morethorough assessment of the technical andenvironmental pros and cons.

12


13


EnvironmentalConsiderationsEnvironmental Benefits of Gasification

Coal-Based Systems

IGCC is by far the cleanest coal-based powersystem available today, yet it is compared againstNGCC in establishing permitted emission limitsbased on Best Available Control Technology(BACT) and Lowest Achievable Emission Rate(LAER) requirements. A comparison on thisbasis is deemed incomplete because IGCCcombines benefits associated with fuel diversity,energy security, and CO2 capture that are notassociated with NGCC.

Ultra-Clean Energy from Coal. Gasification isthe most environmentally attractive alternative forproducing power, fuels, and chemicals from solidfeedstocks. Compared to other coal-based genera-tion technologies, IGCC has an advantage withregard to atmospheric emissions of mercury, sulfuroxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particu-late matter, as well as solid waste. IGCC achievesover 99 percent sulfur removal, NOx emissions arein the single digits on a parts per million (ppm)basis, and airborne particulate emissions arenegligible. Gasification also has a notable advan-tage in overcoming another significant environ-mental hurdle to utilizing solid carbonaceous fuels— controlling CO

2 emissions. If CO2 sequestra-

tion becomes viable, gasification becomes moreattractive because it provides an effective means ofcapturing CO2 by shifting carbon to a concentratedCO2 stream prior to combustion. In addition,IGCC’s high efficiency results in less CO2 beingemitted per unit of electric power produced.

Not only does the environmental superiority ofgasification systems go unrewarded economically aspreviously discussed, IGCC plants are penalizedbecause IGCC is held to a higher environmental

standard than other coal-based power plants.Holding IGCC to NGCC performance standardsis deemed “unfair” by many in industry because itignores the fuel diversity and energy securitybenefits derived from indigenous solid feedstockuse. Gasification is seen as a solution to some ofthe Maximum Achievable Control Technology(MACT) regulations that will take effect in 2005 inthe pulp and paper industry for recovery boilersand at sometime in the future for the powergeneration industry.

Waste-Based Systems

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) recently recognized the superiority ofgasification in processing refinery wastes and theassociated waste source reduction and recyclingof the wastes into usable by-products. Similaraction on non-refinery-based toxic compoundsis hoped for in the near future. And, manybelieve that with some R&D on MSW process-ing and injection, MSW too can become agasification feedstock subject to waste reductionand recycling, rather than continued treatmentand disposal.

Reducing and Recycling Wastes. Gasification isproving to be the most effective and efficient meansfor dealing with various carbonaceous wastes, suchas refinery bottoms and hazardous organic wastes.Gasification can convert these wastes into commer-cially valuable products, such as electricity, fuels,synthesis gas, and hydrochloric acid. By doing so,gasification serves as a means of source reductionand of recycling, both of which are preferred toeither waste treatment or disposal. With someR&D in enhancing the methods of processing andinjecting organic sludge, MSW can become acandidate for gasification-based source reductionand recycle in lieu of landfill disposal.

The EPA has issued a proposed rule exemptingwastes generated at petroleum processing facilitiesfrom federal hazardous waste rules under theRCRA if the wastes are converted into a synthesisgas via gasification. It is hoped that gasification’s

14


superiority to incineration in dealing with non-refinery-based toxic compounds will lead to similaraction. Currently, difficult institutional barriersmust be overcome in permitting gasifiers forprocessing non-refinery-based toxic compounds,such as the manner in which PCB provisions arewritten in the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Environmental Issues andRecommendations

Misperceptions of GasificationThe perception that gasification plants are “dirty”because the feedstocks are seen as “dirty” is imped-ing deployment by lengthening the permittingprocess. Public visions of dust, smoke, uncleanwater discharges, and solid waste disposal makesiting a gasification plant very difficult. Further-more, IGCC plants are having to undergo ahazardous operations design review that addressesemergency releases, which has a negative influenceon public perception.

Misperceptions are also held by environmentalregulators, both EPA, and state and local officials.In waste processing applications, regulators areviewing gasification not as an environmentallyfriendly process, but rather as an incinerator. Inpower generation, IGCC environmental perfor-mance is held to NGCC standards.

Needs• Conduct a grass-roots national public

relations campaign to change coal’s image aspreviously mentioned, educating the publicabout the positive environmental anddomestic energy implications of gasification.

• Fund more gasification demonstrationprojects.

• Conduct closed-loop measurements of IGCCemissions to provide data and verify thatIGCC is cleaner than any other coal-basedpower plant option.

• Through government and industry partner-ships, facilitate formation of advocacygroups that certify that the products fromcertain gasification technology feedstocksare “green.”

• Convince EPA to actively support gasifica-tion, which is key to DOE’s Vision 21program.

PermittingEven in locations favorably inclined to gasificationprojects, the process is multi-year and expensive.

Needs• Have the government step in and develop a

structure to streamline the regulatory pro-cess, with a target of reducing the time topermit a gasification plant to six months.

Regulatory UncertaintyThe uncertainty over if, when, and how newenvironmental regulations and rules are to beimplemented is a major impediment to the busi-ness development of the gasification industry. Boththe issuance of completely new regulations, such aspotential CO2 controls, and the tightening ofexisting regulations, such as lower and lower BACTand LAER requirements, are seen as hamperingefforts to develop gasification over the next decade,perhaps before the technology can prove itselfcommercially. (BACT is required on major new ormodified sources in clean areas, i.e., attainmentareas. LAER is required on major new or modifiedsources in non-attainment areas.)

Needs• Establish a process to effectively harness

industry input before more stringent regula-tions are written for NOx, greenhouse gases,trace contaminants (especially mercury) andsolid wastes (ash and slag). Otherwise,

15


gasification technology may be inadvertentlyhalted before it has a chance to reach itsoperational and environmental performancepotential.

NOx EmissionsThe uncertainty of regulatory requirements relatedto NOx is very troublesome to the industry. Basedon what appears to be a fundamental unwillingnessto recognize the differences between IGCC andNGCC technologies, some regulators have beeninclined to require NOx emissions from IGCCplants to be controlled to the same levels as thosefrom NGCC plants. Gasification systems canalready meet a 9 ppm NOx emission standard byusing state-of-the-art gas turbines. Applying theNGCC standard requires NOx emissions to bereduced to 3 ppm, potentially causing majorprocess problems.

To achieve the 3 ppm level today, expensive selec-tive catalytic reduction (SCR) NOx control unitshave to be added to IGCC systems. Furthermore,the sulfur levels in the synthesis gas have to besignificantly reduced first, to less than 5 ppm. Thisemission level is probably achievable only withRectisol or an equivalent physical absorptionprocess, a very expensive process. In the opinion ofmost experts, no more than a few ppm of sulfurdioxide (SO2) in the gas turbine exhaust is allowedif the SCR is to function without fouling thedownstream heat recovery steam generator (HRSG)tubes with ammonium salts. The use of an SCRraises the flue gas exit temperature and increases thepressure drop, thereby reducing the power outputof the steam turbine. The addition of SCR andRectisol units significantly increases the capital costof IGCC plants and adversely impacts their RAM.Forcing IGCC plants to adopt SCR by imposingnear-term NOx requirements may eliminate theincentive for private industry to continue develop-ing other NOx control technologies, such asimproved synthesis gas combustors. Adding con-trols simply increases cost, adversely affects RAM,and hinders deployment opportunities.

Needs• Conduct a study to determine whether SCR

for NOx control can be justified, carefullyweighing cost and performance penaltiesagainst potential benefits.

• With DOE funding support, implementR&D on alternative technologies thatachieve ultra-low-NOx emissions, such ascatalytic synthesis gas combustion and dry,low-NOx conversion processes.

SOx EmissionsAlthough coal gasification-based power generationtechnologies emit far less SOx than other coal-basedpower systems, typically removing over 99 percentof the sulfur in the coal, even greater sulfur controlis needed. Nearly complete sulfur removal isrequired in support of synthesis gas as a “buildingblock” for ultra-clean transportation fuels and as afuel for fuel cells. More extreme sulfur removalmethods exist, but are economically prohibitive.

In the long term, captured sulfur can adverselyaffect gasification plant economics. A 300 mega-watt (MW) IGCC plant produces approximately25,000 tons of sulfur annually. As the number ofgasification plants increases, the supply of by-product sulfur may exceed demand, becoming adisposal cost rather than a revenue source.

Needs• Pursue sulfur removal options that offer

nearly 100 percent sulfur removal at costsequal to, or lower than, today’s state-of-the-art technology.

• Develop new markets for sulfur, followingthe examples of U.S. Department of Trans-portation development of roadbed materialscontaining sulfur and use of sulfur in con-crete for highly corrosive environments.

16


Global Climate ChangeThe great uncertainty associated with globalclimate change issues led more than one of theinterviewed companies to describe the potential forU.S. GHG regulations as a “wild card.” Notsurprisingly, there is no strong consensus regardingif, when, or how such regulations may be imple-mented.

Some of the interviewed companies think it islikely that GHG emissions will be regulated by theUnited States within the next five to ten years.These companies believe that the significant globalpolitical momentum and strong public emotionsbehind the drive to address global climate changeare going to force the United States to act in thenear term. Other companies interpret the currentpolitical climate differently, thinking that it pre-cludes any near-term action. These companiesbelieve that the Kyoto Treaty is flawed becausedeveloping countries are not included and thatU.S. taxpayers are not willing to accept the hugecosts associated with GHG controls. Instead ofrequiring industry to capture and sequester CO2,these companies believe that the climate changeissue will be addressed in the near term with morepractical measures, such as increasing the thermalefficiencies of power plants and enhancing thenatural sequestration of atmospheric CO2; forexample, by planting trees. However, some of thecompanies that doubt near-term action will occuralso believe that GHG emissions will eventually beregulated by the United States in the long term,sometime after 2015.

One common thread about the GHG issue that didemerge from the interviews is that nearly all thecompanies are giving it serious consideration asthey make plans and position themselves for thefuture. The market has already reacted to thepossibility of GHG regulations by moving awayfrom high-carbon fuels toward natural gas. Duringnegotiations for new projects, customers arestarting to request the rights to any associatedGHG emissions reduction credits. Some compa-nies are somewhat hesitant to make large invest-

ments in projects with significant CO2 emissionsand are screening proposed projects based on theirpotential liability for GHG emissions. At the sametime, industry is also highly reluctant to expendsignificant capital to mitigate GHG emissions thatmay or may not prove to be a future liability;although, many companies think that spendingsome capital on efficiency improvements to existinginfrastructure may be prudent.

If GHG regulations are promulgated in the UnitedStates, the extremely high cost of CO2 removal andsequestration strongly favors hydrocarbon feed-stocks that have higher hydrogen-to-carbon (H/C)ratios than petcoke or coal. Consequently, if thetiming and structure of GHG regulations is poorlyconceived, many companies believe that industrywould aggressively switch their feedstocks tonatural gas, thus devastating the coal industry.

While it is clear that the economics of CO2 recov-ery are poor in all cases, some companies believethat they are less so for gasification than for otheralternatives. Since gasification systems can convert(shift) carbon to CO2 and remove it prior tocombustion, it is less expensive to capture CO2

from IGCC plants than from any other coal-basedplant or NGCC plant. Furthermore, gasification isthe most efficient of the coal-based technologies.Gasification plants also offer the option to offsetCO2 emissions by gasifying biomass.

Needs• Place priority on increasing efficiency by

providing economic incentives for highefficiency because increasing efficiency is themost practical way to reduce GHG emissionsin the near term.

• Develop new technologies for either seques-tering CO2 or converting it into a market-able by-product.

• Conduct R&D on CO2 sequestration as ahedge against possible future regulation.

17


• Demonstrate the removal of CO2 from

synthesis gas as an early step in demonstrat-ing carbon capture/sequestration.

Mercury and Other Trace ContaminantsNew regulations are going to be enacted for tracemetal emissions, notably mercury. Depending onthe details, such regulations can become an obstacleto gasification and other solid-fuel technologies.Although technologies may be available to complywith trace metal regulations, compliance increasesplant costs.

Most of the companies interviewed expect mercuryregulations to be issued in the near term. Whenmercury regulations are introduced, gasificationplants have to capture mercury upstream of thecombined-cycle plant. Although relatively small involume, the sorbent used to capture the mercurymay be classified as a hazardous waste.

The need to control mercury and other trace metalsaffects which gas cleanup system is ultimatelyutilized in gasification plants. It has been reportedin some cases that elemental mercury (Hg) passesthrough the entire gasification plant, including thecold gas cleanup system, to the atmosphere.

Gasification’s advantage in limiting trace contami-nants is under-appreciated. This specific advantageneeds to be demonstrated and an assessment madeas to the need for trace contaminant emissionregulation. Installing a carbon guard bed prior tothe stack is a recognized approach to controllingmercury, as well as arsenic and carbonyl emissions.Carbonyl emissions are highly toxic and are be-lieved to represent a potential major environmentalhurdle to gasification. While carbon guard bedsrepresent a potential cost-effective approach forcontrol of mercury and carbonyl emissions exists,plants may be reluctant to participate in a projectto install a carbon guard bed for fear that it wouldreveal some problems or lead to more stringentregulations.

It is noteworthy that most of the EPA-sanctionedmercury measurement techniques are for oxidizingenvironments. For reducing environments, whichis the environment for gasification, there are noreliable mercury measurement techniques.

Needs• Conduct R&D to address disposal of the

small volumes of captured mercury.

• Develop warm-temperature gas stream clean-up technologies for capturing mercury,alkali, other trace metals, and other vaporphase contaminants, focusing on 300–700°F.

• Investigate and validate a carbon guard bedapproach to mercury capture by installingone on an existing IGCC plant.

• Conduct R&D on the regeneration anddisposal of the guard bed material used toremove mercury and carbonyls.

• Carry out a demonstration to preciselycharacterize the various trace contaminantsin a gasification system, such as the parti-tioning of mercury.

• Develop acceptable methods and instrumen-tation hardware to measure the mercuryconcentration in gasification processstreams.

Solid Waste DisposalAnother source of regulatory uncertainty is theEPA’s proposed rule on whether or not to classify ashazardous waste the synthesis gas and by-products(slag) produced by gasifiers that use a hazardouswaste feedstock. The proposed rule provides thatcarbon-containing hazardous wastes from petro-leum refining operations be exempt from theRCRA jurisdiction. But, in the long term, notbeing able to secure permits to gasify wastes otherthan refinery wastes can potentially become an

18


obstacle to gasification. The Gasification Technol-ogy Council (GTC) is currently working to havegasification recognized as the preferred technologyfor recycling of other wastes in lieu of incineration.

The RCRA has been a major environmental hurdledue to the requirement that synthesis gas producedfrom secondary oil-bearing wastes from refineriesare classified as waste-derived fuels regulated underRCRA. This has greatly inhibited some companiesfrom being involved with gasification because theysimply do not want to deal with hazardous materialeither as a feedstock or waste stream.

Although water/solids separation is required forIGCC’s bottom ash and quench waste streams,disposal of the bottom ash in a landfill is currentlypermitted. But, landfill disposal may become aneconomic and logistics issue in the long term.

Needs• Continue government support of the GTC’s

action to have gasification recognized as thepreferred technology for waste recycling ofother wastes.

• When gasifying waste materials, improvecharacterization of the composition of theslag (which may require special treatment).

• Develop new ways to economically utilizeash and slag because landfill disposal andcost is expected to become an issue in thelong term.

• Conduct R&D on the co-disposal of fly ashand gasifier ash.

Water Consumption and DischargeAs the importance of water management issuescontinue to increase, the consumption and dis-charge of water represents an environmental hurdlefor any new power plant, including gasificationplants. New projects are likely to face zero waterdischarge requirements in certain regions. Somecompanies have had difficulty getting water permits

for gasification projects because the allowable levelsof trace metals are established arbitrarily and aremany times below detectable limits. Since IGCCpower plants consume less water than conventionalpulverized coal-fired power plants, the industryneeds to place more emphasis on this significantadvantage of gasification when promoting thetechnology.

Needs• Implement R&D to reduce the volume of

water that is consumed, treated, and dis-charged by gasification systems, with zerodischarge being the ultimate goal.

• Develop dry feed systems, improved gascleanup processes, and a technology toreplace cooling towers, all to improve watermanagement.

Reflecting the Effects of Efficiency on theEmissions of Energy PlantsMost emissions from energy plants (refineries,power plants, and chemical plants) are currentlymeasured in terms of mass per unit energy input,such as lb/106 Btu-input. This approach does notreflect the environmental benefits of high efficiencynor the environmental costs of low efficiency. Alarge majority of the companies that commentedon this issue agreed that emissions need to bemeasured on a basis that includes the effect ofefficiency.

While this is straightforward for those plants thatproduce only a single product, such as power,establishing such a basis is much more complex forplants that produce multiple products, such asthose that co-produce synthesis gas and steam, orcombined heat and power. No recommendationsare given on how efficiency is fairly dealt with inthis situation. In fact, one company suggested thatthe only practical and equitable approach forpolygeneration energy plants is to calculate emis-sions the conventional way — based on feedstockenergy input.

19


Needs• In order to account for the effect of effi-

ciency (and to be consistent with the realpurpose of producing usable energy, notconsuming it in the conversion process),measure emissions in terms of mass per unitof energy produced. For example, measureemissions from electric power production inpounds per megawatt-hour (lb/MWh); andmeasure emissions from synthesis gas orliquid fuel production in pounds per unitheat content of the fuel produced, such aslb/106 Btu-output.

• Implement a government policy initiative todevelop the best solution for establishing abaseline and measuring emissions data; andusing the results of the initiative, have thegovernment mandate the basis that bestserves the public interest.

20


21


Technology NeedsIntroductionOne of the main objectives of the meetings was todiscuss gasification technology issues and toidentify R&D needs in the near term, mid term,and long term. The topics of discussion included:(1) Feedstocks, (2) Gasification, (3) Gas Cleaning,(4) Heat Recovery, (5) Gas Separation, (6) By-Products, (7) Synthesis Gas Utilization, (8) Integra-tion, (9) System Analysis, (10) Instrumentation andControls, and (11) Models.

For gasification as a whole, process reliability isidentified by nearly all participants as the singlemost important technical limitation to beovercome in order to achieve widespread deploy-ment of the technology.

The failure of plants to meet performance mile-stones on which project economics are based hashad significant impact on how projects are beingdeveloped and financed. EPC companies are oftenrequired to shoulder all risk for liquidated damagesfor not achieving performance guarantees, andsome are now unwilling to assume the risks associ-ated with guaranteeing the performance of manyintegrated process units. Gasification plants mustbe constructed according to the planned scheduleand reach design performance within a short periodof time. The long time taken by DOE’s Clean CoalTechnology (CCT) IGCC demonstration projectsto achieve design performance cannot be toleratedby privately financed commercial projects.

Although single gasifier system reliabilities for theCCT IGCC projects have now achieved theirdesign performance, concerns still exist regardingthe performance of future plants. Because financialinstitutions are generally risk averse, they typicallyrequire major gasification projects to have multiplegasifiers (trains) or sparing to ensure reliabilitytargets are achieved. But the cost is significant.The use of multiple trains must be phased out toimprove the economic competitiveness of gasifica-

tion. The general belief is that the reliability forsingle-train plants must be at least 90 percent forutility applications. For refinery applications,availabilities must be close to 100 percent. Toimprove the performance of gasification-basedplants, many believe that R&D needs to focus onstandardizing and modularizing the overall processrather than designing new systems for each project.Such an approach not only allows for lower EPCcosts and shorter schedules, but should also provevaluable in improving reliability.

Although first-generation IGCC plants had highcapital costs, the EPC cost of similar plants today isbelieved to be around $1,200/kW. At this cost,IGCC plants are competitive in niche applicationswhere feedstock costs are low. A total installed costof $900–1,000/kW for coal- or refinery waste-based IGCC is competitive with NGCC at anatural gas price of $2.00/106 Btu. For biomassapplications, the cost of natural gas would have tobe about $6.00/106 Btu for IGCC to compete withNGCC. The lowest cost believed achievablethrough step changes in the technology is about$800/kW. Fulfilling the technology needs identi-fied in the following discussions offers promise forachieving this target cost.

Priority Ranking of Needs

Most Frequently Identified R&D Needs byGasification Industry StakeholdersA total of 95 different R&D needs were identifiedby the twenty-two gasification industry stakehold-ers that were interviewed. (Similar R&D needsidentified by different companies were combined.)Of these, 40 R&D needs were identified by morethan one company. When the R&D needs wereranked by the frequency of identification, thefollowing “top twenty” results were obtained. Itshould not be inferred that government-sponsoredR&D would be suitable or effective for addressingall of these needs.

22


Top Twenty R&D Needs, Ranked by Frequency of Identification

1. Development/improvement of refractory systems

2. Development of technologies to measure and control hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) andtrace metals (mercury, selenium, arsenic)

3. Improvement of gasifier instrumentation for measurement and control

4. Development/improvement of systems for feeding multiple solid feedstocks, including coaland biomass feedstocks (in slurry or dry form), to high-pressure and other gasifiers

5. Development of feed injectors that extend life, reduce cost, provide fuel flexibility, and offereffective load following

6. Development of technologies for the continuous on-line analysis of flow rate, compositionand/or other characteristics of various gasifier feedstocks

7. Development of warm-gas (300–700 °F) cleanup technologies for control of sulfur, ammo-nia, chlorides, etc.

8. Development of gasifier models

9. Development/improvement of preparation systems for solid feedstocks, includingbriquetting

10. Characterization and beneficiation of ash and slag

11. Improvement of air separation systems in terms of cost, efficiency, and better integrationwith gas turbines

12. Development of advanced, high-temperature, low-NOx combustion turbines for synthesisgas applications

13. Development of an industry-wide knowledge management system to improve the operationof gasification systems

14. Assessment/development of novel gasifiers, such as hybrid, high-efficiency, small-scale orlow-temperature gasifiers

15. Development of improved particulate control technologies

16. Research, development, and demonstration of CO2 capture/sequestration technologies

17. Development of various hydrogen separation technologies

18. Development of modularized and/or standardized systems to reduce costs for greenfield andrepowering applications

19. Assessment and development of markets for sulfur, CO2, and ammonia by-products

20. Development of a database for gasification properties versus temperature and pressure forvarious coal and coal blends (such as ash fusion temperatures, gasification reactivity, and slagviscosity)

23


FeedstocksFor the next fifteen years, coal and petroleum-basedmaterials, such as petcoke, resid, and high-sulfurfuel oil, are generally accepted as the feedstocks ofchoice for gasification projects. Emphasis in thenear term needs to be directed at improving thecost and reliability of feed systems for these feed-stocks, especially the solid coal and petcoke feed-stocks. For other feedstocks to be considered in thenear term, their use should not depend on site-specific parameters, but rather be broadly appli-cable and have significant market potential.

Feedstock PreparationFeedstock preparation and handling systems forcoal and petcoke are considered to be fairly reliable.However, proper preparation of the feedstock foruse in a gasifier is a key process step because of itspotential for impacting process reliability andavailability. It is believed that the preparation ofthe feedstock may have important ramifications onthe life of the feed injectors in the gasifier, and thusplant availability. Work is needed to elucidate sucheffects.

Feedstock preparation issues in gasification focusmainly on the use of low-rank coals and alternativefeedstocks such as MSW, sewage sludge, andbiomass. Such feedstocks suffer from low energydensity and high moisture content, making themuneconomical for transport over large distances. Inaddition, physically handling and preparing manyof these materials for use in gasifiers are impedi-ments to their use. Even after dewatering somematerials, problems with feeding have been experi-enced, especially for fibrous materials such asbiomass.

For processing alternative feedstocks, the use ofbriquettes produced from these feedstocks may bean option; however, the number of gasifier tech-nologies that can process briquettes is limited. Foruse in a gasifier, the briquettes must possess suffi-cient mechanical integrity to withstand feeding andinjection into the gasifier. There is concern thatwithout such inherent strength in the briquettes,

the briquettes may “explode” upon contact withthe hot gaseous product in the gasifier, therebyexacerbating the problem with carryover of particu-late matter into downstream process units. Al-though the use of binders for improving thestrength of the briquettes is not a desirable option,it is highly likely that such additives may be re-quired. Whether the briquettes are manufacturedat the gasification plant or off-site is an issue thatmust be addressed. A study to address the feasibil-ity of off-site briquetting plants, incorporating anassessment of the infrastructure and cost to trans-port the briquettes to the gasification site, may bewarranted.

Work is needed on coal-based systems as well.Lock-hopper (pressure-cycled chambers used topressurize dry feedstock) operations have been thecause of considerable downtime and require coalstorage equipment between the mill and the gasifierbecause of the batch-type operation of lock-hoppers.

Needs• Elucidate the effects of feedstock prepara-

tion on the life of the gasifier feed injectors,and thus plant availability.

• Develop new and/or improved approachesfor dewatering and increasing the energydensity of low-rank coals and alternativefeedstocks, such as MSW, sewage sludge, andbiomass.

• In parallel with improving dewatering andenergy density, establish a fundamentalunderstanding of the impact of new prepara-tion technologies on the critical propertiesrequired for proper feeding in both dry andwet feed systems.

• Develop low-cost briquetting techniques,including use of low-cost binders.

24


• Address the issue of on-site versus off-sitebriquette manufacturing, incorporating anassessment of the infrastructure and cost totransport the briquettes to the gasificationsite.

• Eliminate lock-hoppers and associatedstorage equipment by developing a pressur-ized mill for coal-based systems that iscapable of feeding coal directly into a high-pressure gasifier and combining the pulveriz-ing and drying steps into one operation.

Feed SystemsAs mentioned above, current feed systems, both dryand slurry-based systems, used for coal and petcokeare reported to perform satisfactorily, providingreasonably good system reliability. But operationand maintenance (O&M) issues remain regardingerosion and corrosion of valves, pipes, and pumps.The development of new or improved feedingsystems for high-pressure gasifiers remains fairlyhigh on the list of priorities. For plants processingopportunity feedstocks, the feed system is typicallythe cause of reliability problems and developmentsare needed to improve performance with suchfeedstocks in high-pressure gasifiers. In addition,the long-term effects of system contamination fromsuch feedstocks are of concern. Systems that areversatile, simple, and inexpensive are desired.

A capability to co-feed waste feedstock with coal inboth large and small gasifiers is needed. Designsneed to recognize that while small gasifiers may co-feed up to 40 percent waste to satisfy a nichemarket need, larger gasifiers are likely to onlyrequire up to 10 percent co-feed capability. Also,recognizing that feedstocks fall into different classesfrom a processing characteristics standpoint, co-feed systems need to be designed for classes of feedsrather than being flexible for all feedstocks.

Slurry-Based Feed Systems. Systems that trans-port the feedstock into the gasifier via a liquidmedium have a thermodynamic penalty because ofthe energy required to vaporize the liquid. This isespecially true when water is the slurry medium.Liquid carbon dioxide has been suggested manytimes as a potential candidate for the slurry me-dium; however, little has been done to advance thisidea.

For slurry-based systems using water, the concen-tration of coal in the slurry is typically 61–62percent. Increasing this concentration to70 percent or more is desirable while maintainingthe viscosity of the slurry sufficiently low forpumping. Operating with such high coal concen-trations in the feed may result in less expensive feedsystems than dry feed systems that incur high costsfor removing moisture from the feedstock.

There is an expressed need for improved industryoutreach to address generic O&M problems thatare common to the gasification industry. Oneexample is the need for a “slurry handling designmanual” that could be used by the entire gasifica-tion industry to help prevent future plant designersfrom repeating past mistakes. Any material thathas to be pumped is potentially problematic.There is a need to more fully understand: (1) theeffect of coal slurry composition on erosion andcorrosion of pipes and valves and (2) the optimalacidity (pH) of a slurry to minimize or preventpipe erosion and corrosion. In general, morereliable technologies for slurry transport are re-quired, as well as R&D on seals for rotatingequipment, especially for high-pressure operations.

Dry Feed Systems. Because of the thermodynamicpenalty inherent in slurry-based systems, manyprefer reliable, cost-effective dry feed systems.Currently, only lock-hopper technology is em-ployed to pressurize dry feedstocks. Some believethat work is needed to improve these systems,including the feeding of very fine coal, less than150 microns, as well as developing new approaches.

25


The solids-to-gas ratio in such systems must bekept as high as possible.

Needs• Develop co-feed systems for classes of feeds.

• Investigate co-feed systems having theflexibility to feed different solid feedstocksseparately and together.

• Identify and address mechanical and safetyissues associated with preparing and feedingCO2 slurries.

• Investigate the impact of high concentra-tions of CO2 on the performance of gasifiersand on the gasification reactions themselves.

• Develop low-cost surfactants to achieve astable slurry with 70 percent coal concentra-tions and more durable slurry valves.

• Develop a “slurry handling design manual”to help prevent future plant designers fromrepeating past mistakes.

• Determine the effect of coal slurry composi-tion on erosion and corrosion of pipes andvalves, and the optimal pH of a slurry tominimize or prevent pipe erosion andcorrosion.

• Develop more reliable technologies forslurry transport and high-pressure seals forrotating equipment.

• Examine prior work conducted by the U.S.Bureau of Mines on alternative feed systems.

• Conduct R&D on dry feed systems that usesynthesis gas or natural gas as the transportmedium.

InstrumentationAnalytical instrumentation is an area that most feltimprovements or new developments are needed.Such instrumentation is required to better control

and meter the feedstock into the gasifier, especiallyfor some opportunity feedstocks, such as biomass.Those operating slurry-fed gasifiers prefer analysesof slurry feedstock elemental composition (carbon,hydrogen, sulfur, and inorganics), but defer toresults obtained prior to forming the slurry. Feed-stock composition information impacts on howprocesses in the plant are operated, such as thegasifier.

Needs• Develop and demonstrate instrumentation

to measure the flow rate and density of thefeedstock in slurry-based systems.

• Develop an affordable on-line analyticaldevice that can provide the elemental com-position of the gasifier feedstock for thosesituations where the composition is con-stantly varying, as with the heterogeneousMSW feedstock, or co-feed applications.

GasificationThe gasification block of the plant probablyreceived the most intense level of discussion. Thegasification block constitutes about 15 percent ofthe capital cost of an IGCC plant. There is generalagreement that the priority for gasification is toreduce the capital cost and increase the reliability ofgasifiers. Numerous technology needs are identi-fied to accomplish this. Nearly all of the partici-pants identify the feed injectors and refractoryliners used in gasifiers as the weakest links in theprocess for achieving high on-stream availabilityfactors. The need for new process monitoring andcontrol instrumentation for these weak links is ofparamount importance.

Feed InjectorsThe feed injectors in a gasifier must feed steam,oxygen, and the feedstock into a very harsh, high-temperature, reducing environment. Many feel thatfeed injector life is the weakest link in the reliability

26


of gasification systems. Based on actual experience,the life of a typical injector nozzle is generallybetween two and six months. A minimum life oftwelve months is desired in the near term, with along-term goal of two years. Some gasificationoperators expend considerable effort to improvefeed injector life.

In order to extend the life of the feed injector, amore thorough understanding of all of the param-eters affecting injector life and the fluid dynamicsin the vicinity of the nozzle is needed. This infor-mation may help to design feed injectors that arescalable. This information can be used by thevarious manufacturers to improve proprietarydesigns. The application of Computational FluidDynamics (CFD) modeling around the injectormay be helpful in elucidating some of the param-eters affecting life. CFD modeling may be useful inunderstanding issues such as changes in heat flux,injector heat load, and fluid recirculation patternsthat are affected during scale-up of the gasifier tolarger and larger sizes.

Materials used in the manufacture of the injectorsare cited most often as an important parameter.New materials or coatings for existing materials areneeded to provide protection from sulfidation andcorrosion at high reactor temperatures. Also, bettergaskets are needed for equipment feeding hotoxygen into the injector.

Injector life is also believed to be highly dependenton whether a dry or wet feed system is used. Asmentioned previously in the report, feedstockpreparation is also believed to play an importantrole in feed injector life. Although the dry feedsystem may be more difficult to operate at higherpressures, injector life may be longer due to theabsence of large amounts of evaporating water.Again, CFD modeling can play a role in under-standing the physics and chemistry occurring at theinjector tip.

Variable orifice injectors are needed to allow theplant operators to more rapidly respond to loadand feedstock changes without adversely affecting

the operation. An injector that is designed tooperate with more than one feedstock also isadvantageous, because the plant does not have toshut down to switch feed injectors whenever theconditions require a change in feedstocks. Amultiple-feed injector has to be capable of handlingthe transition from one feedstock to anotherwithout any operational problems. In the past,some injectors have experienced vibration problemsduring the transition period.

There is an expressed need for a facility to test newinjector designs because injector manufacturers donot have such facilities. However, feed injectortechnology is closely guarded by the industry andthis is a detriment to the establishment of anindustry-shared facility. Also, pilot plant testing offeed injectors is not scalable, which means thattesting is still required in commercial facilities.

Needs• Conduct a comprehensive study to define

the factors that contribute to the failure offeed injectors, including application of CFDmodeling around the injector to elucidatesome of the parameters affecting life.

• Develop new injector materials to furtherinjector life and lower the manufacturingand refurbishing costs.

• Develop reliable, cost-effective, variable-orifice injectors and multiple-fuel injectorsthat can adjust to load and feedstockchanges without adversely affecting opera-tion.

• Explore the possibility of establishing anindustry-shared injector test facility.

Refractory LinersRefractory liners in high-temperature slagginggasifiers are known to undergo significant deterio-ration over a relatively short period of time andrequire considerable maintenance, resulting in a

27


significant amount of downtime. Depending uponthe operating temperature of the gasifier and thefeedstock, refractory liners are reported to last onthe order of 6–18 months. The upper end of this isusually achieved by operating the gasifier at lowerthan desired temperatures. Unfortunately, doing solimits carbon conversion to about 95 percent,reduces overall process efficiency, and simulta-neously increases the carbon level of the slag,rendering it unmarketable without further process-ing. The feedstock being processed also has animpact on refractory life. Increased wear has beenobserved at higher temperatures using petcoke. Inaddition, feedstocks such as black liquor from pulpmills are notoriously corrosive because of the highsodium content.

The costs associated with rebricking a gasifierinclude about $1 million for materials and threeweeks of downtime. This downtime, if it occursmore than once per year, establishes an upperbound on plant availability.

Plant operator prefer-

ence is to replace the lining during their regularscheduled outage.

Although refractory materials containing chro-mium can pose an environmental and healthproblem, the use of such materials did not appearto be of major concern, either during gasifieroperation or upon disposal of the spent refractory.In the long run, it is still best to develop ap-proaches or materials that do not utilize potentiallyhazardous materials.

At present, new materials are screened by attempt-ing to simulate the environment inside the gasifier;however, such simulations may not be truly repre-sentative of the actual environment. It is alsoviewed as risky to replace existing material in acommercial gasifier with test samples for fear ofunnecessary downtime. Operators doing this musthave considerable assurance, or confidence basedon simulated testing, that the material performs atleast as well as that currently used in the gasifier.

Needs• Enhance refractory performance by develop-

ing new materials that are less prone todegradation and have an expected useful lifeof three years or more, preferably at about50 percent of the cost of currently usedmaterials.

• Investigate new approaches to line gasifiers,including concepts that completely eliminatethe use of refractories, especially for applica-tions using highly corrosive feedstocks.

• Conduct additional R&D on water-cooledrefractory.

• Establish a small test facility, such as a smallgasifier located at the site of a commercialgasification facility, to screen new refractorymaterial.

Ash/Slag RemovalDepressurization and removal of the slag fromhigh-temperature gasifiers is an area that generatedmixed responses from the participants. The diver-gent views may be attributed to different technolo-gies being employed by the various gasifier licen-sors. Slag removal, in general, is not considered tobe a high priority area.

There is expressed interest in developing an im-proved understanding of the properties of slag flowand the effectiveness of slag modifiers. The silicaand alumina content of certain coals result in highash fusion temperatures, whereas iron oxide andcalcium tend to lower ash fusion temperatures. Forexample, when mixing different types of coals, theresulting slag viscosity can be very unpredictable.Databases such as those maintained by the U.S.Geological Survey contain compositional analysesof coals but need to be expanded to include addi-tional properties.

As discussed previously, on-line feed analyzers areneeded to allow better control and optimizedoperation of the gasifier as the properties of the

28


feedstock changes. Currently, most analyses arebased on periodic sampling and therefore cannot beused to help control the operation of the gasifier.Turnaround for such analyses can be as much astwo days. Ash fusion temperature and slag viscositymeasurements are of particular interest. To guardagainst unforeseen changes in slag viscosity due tovariations in the feed properties, some plantoperators run the gasifier at lower than optimumtemperatures to protect component life. Otheroperators assume the risks associated with operatingat higher than optimum temperatures to ensurestable operation, thereby decreasing componentlife. Feedstock analyses help to guard againstunforeseen changes in the viscosity of the slag,thereby helping to prevent bridging at the dischargeof the gasifier. Also, feedstock analyses allowoperation at the optimum gasification temperatureto maximize carbon conversion. In addition,development of on-line instrumentation capable ofmeasuring the thickness of the slag layer on therefractory is warranted to improve slag removalbecause slag viscosity can be related to the thicknessof the slag layer on the refractory.

The only equipment-related issues identified dealwith the performance of valves used to handle sootand slag. Currently, ball valves are used in mostapplications. These valves need to have improvedlifetimes and to be made less costly. Better yet,novel methods for removing soot and slag from thegasifier ought to be developed that eliminate theneed for such valves.

Needs• Establish a better knowledge of flux (com-

pounds used to lower ash fusion tempera-tures) effectiveness for solid feedstock units.

• Develop new fluxing agents that reduce theash fusion temperature to 2,200 °F or less.

• Establish a database that contains coalproperties of interest to gasification, such asash fusion temperature under reducingconditions and gasification reactivity versus

temperature, for various coals and varioussolid feedstock blends.

• Develop on-line instrumentation to measureash fusion temperature, slag viscosity, andslag layer thickness.

• Develop improved ball valves or new meth-ods for handling soot and slag.

InstrumentationThe capability to reliably measure various processparameters and the composition and properties ofvarious process streams is considered a high prioritybased on the numerous responses received. Accu-rate and reliable measurements of the temperatureinside the gasifier for extended periods is a majorarea of concern. Thermocouples used to measurethe temperature inside the gasification zone arereported to last about 30–45 days. The highfrequency of failures of the thermocouples ismainly due to corrosion resulting from slag pen-etration into the refractory and stresses caused bytemperature cycles. These devices are also reportedto drift. No life target is proposed, but somethingapproaching that of the refractory lining is deemedto be worthwhile from a maintenance perspective.Real-time analysis of a number of other key operat-ing parameters and the condition of critical compo-nents is needed as well to optimize performanceand extend component life.

Needs• Develop means to measure temperatures

inside the gasifier on a real-time basis.

• Develop other on-line instrumentation to:(1) measure wear on the refractory liner toplan outages for replacement; (2) analyzecomposition of hot product gas from thegasifier, including trace components such ashydrogen sulfide (H2S) and hydrogenchloride (HCl); (3) obtain isokinetic sam-pling of particulate for process design anddesign verification (either inside the gasifier,

29


which is preferable, or in the cool, rawsynthesis gas); and (4) achieve realtimeanalysis of feedstocks and products withcomputer controls and models for on-lineheat and material balance calculations andimproved gasifier control.

Feedstock FlexibilityFeedstock flexibility, the capability of the gasifier toprocess different feedstocks, is considered to be adesirable attribute by many, especially the ability toprocess all ranks of coal. It is believed that toachieve such flexibility, a multiple-injector gasifieris necessary rather than co-feeding though onenozzle. Some of the industry panels believe that itwould not be practical to design one gasifier tohandle all feedstocks. Others appear to be satisfiedwith the existing fleet of gasifiers and what they canprocess, especially the dry feed gasifiers.

Needs• Investigate new, feedstock flexible, higher

efficiency gasifier concepts for applicationsthat use low-energy-density feedstocks, suchas high-ash coals and biomass.

• Investigate use of multiple feed injectors toexpand fuel flexibility of existing gasifiers.

New Gasification ConceptsThere are mixed opinions on whether or not thereis a need to develop new gasification concepts. Anumber of organizations believe that the currentsuite of gasifier technologies is adequate to meetmost needs. This group believes that the cost todevelop a new concept is prohibitive especially inthe current economic climate. This group prefersto improve the RAM and performance of existingtechnologies via R&D and to optimize and stan-dardize existing gasifier concepts. Historically, thecost of an effort to develop a “new” gasifier is in theneighborhood of $750 million to take the technol-ogy to the demonstration phase.

However, a number of organizations express a needfor new gasifier concepts. While many still believethat larger gasifier units are the only way to go,because of the need for economies of scale, there is,nevertheless, surprising interest in the developmentof small-scale gasifiers (less than 100 MW capac-ity). Some believe that the smallest practical sizegasifier is about 60 MW, based on the smallestavailable gas turbine. Although some of theexisting technologies can be easily scaled down tosmaller sizes, there is an economic penalty thatmust be paid. In addition, there also is an efficiencypenalty with the smaller gas turbines due to theirlower firing temperatures. Some of the interest insmall gasifiers centers around the use of alternativefeedstocks such as MSW and use by refineries thatdo not generate large quantities of petcoke, e.g.,500 tpd, but still want to take advantage of theopportunities for heat integration. Many believethat smaller, standardized systems that can be easilyreplicated will help stimulate the market forgasification.

Some believe that gasifiers will ultimately beemployed in distributed generation applications.However, conventional gasifier technologies are notviewed as compatible with such applications, whichmight integrate a gasifier with a fuel cell. Suchgasifiers have to be fairly small in size. Gasifiersthat are geared to hydrogen production and are firstto market are projected to have the advantage inthe distributed generation market. However, thehydrogen distribution infrastructure is viewed asnot progressing well, and the limited application ofhybrid vehicles projected over the next several yearsis expected to delay the market penetration of fuelcells. Integration of gasifiers with fuel cells incommercial offerings is not expected to occur foranother fifteen years or more.

There is expressed interest in the development oflow-temperature, non-slagging gasifiers to reduceplant capital and operating cost. Although it iswidely accepted that slagging gasifiers are muchmore advanced from a technology maturity stand-point, lower temperature operations are thermody-

30


namically favored and are believed to be morereliable. Operation below the ash fusion tempera-ture requires much less oxygen, resulting in areduction in parasitic power and a concomitantincrease in thermal efficiency. There is also aneconomic penalty paid for the energy contained inthe ash which cannot be recovered because of itslow temperature, about 200 °F. In addition, theexisting fleet of high-temperature gasifiers is notvery amenable for processing lower rank coals suchas sub-bituminous coals and lignites or high-ash-containing feedstocks. Such coals represent asubstantial portion of the resource base in theUnited States and worldwide. One technology thatappears to be of interest to some is the transportgasifier; however, the low heating value of the gasbeing produced today by the transport gasifier as aresult of air-blown operations is considered to be amajor drawback.

Needs• Conduct a comprehensive market analysis to

help define the applications and needs forsmaller gasifiers, including the appropriategasifier size or sizes, and the potentialmarket size.

• Develop low-temperature, non-slagginggasifiers to reduce plant capital and operat-ing costs.

Fundamental StudiesFundamental research is needed to better under-stand the reaction kinetics and fluid dynamicsinside the gasifier in order to operate gasifierswithin their thermodynamic limits. A morethorough understanding of the molecular chemis-try of coal and how it impacts gasification isneeded. Also, ways are needed to increase the rateof the gasification reactions and improve carbonconversion, especially for low-temperature opera-tions.

Needs• Model the kinetics of gasification reactions,

including the reaction sequence and kineticsfor small particles, particles less than 150microns, because no such data is known toexist.

• Investigate the use of catalysts to increasegasification reactions, and the means toseparate the catalyst from the ash/slag.

Gas CleaningSynthesis gas cleaning, and in particular the re-moval of HAPs and trace metals is another priorityitem for the industry. For synthesis gas cleanup,improvements in performance and reliability areneeded. For a conventional IGCC plant, thecapital cost of removing particulate and chemicalcontaminants from the synthesis gas generallyaccounts for about 10–12 percent of the totalcapital cost. In most plants, amine-based systemscoupled with a Claus plant are sufficient forremoving contaminants such as sulfur to the levelsrequired by current environmental regulations.However, lower cost approaches are viewed asadvantageous, such as single-step processes toconvert H2S to elemental sulfur and for the simul-taneous removal of carbonyl sulfide (COS) andH2S. Many opportunities are believed to exist inthe gas cleaning area to improve cost, performance,and reliability, including entirely new concepts for“novel gas purification.”

The need for innovative deep cleaning technologiesthat can meet future environmental regulations iswell recognized. The industry’s goal is to have gascleaning technologies that can perform comparableto Rectisol (an existing cleanup technology) inremoving contaminants, but at an equal or lowercost than conventional amine-based systems (i.e.,less than 50 percent of the cost of Rectisol). Theoperating temperature of these new technologies isnot of significant concern, as long as all contami-nants can be effectively removed; however, there is

31


an expressed desire on the part of many to operatethe new processes at temperatures that are close todownstream process requirements. At present, gasturbine inlet temperatures are limited to about600 °F and synthesis gas conversion processestypically range from 450 °F to 600 °F. Operatingat such moderate temperatures obviates the need tocool the synthesis gas and condense the moisture inthe gas stream prior to cleaning — a process whichreduces overall thermal efficiency and produces acontaminated water stream that must be processed.In addition, it becomes much more difficult to flaresynthesis gas at higher temperatures in the event ofan upset in the plant. The industry prefers to have asuite of technologies operating over a range ofprocess temperatures to meet specific downstreamapplications.

A significant issue of concern to the gasificationindustry relates to the requirements for synthesisgas quality. In particular, the components thatmust be removed from the synthesis gas need to beclearly defined and the target levels must be estab-lished. In addition, it is recommended that aneffort be made to quantify the emissions of HAPs,including trace metals, from existing gasificationplants and to close material balances for HAPs.

As mentioned previously, mercury is expected tobecome a major issue in the not too distant future.The removal of mercury from coal-derived synthe-sis gas has been successfully accomplished using anactivated-carbon guard bed at ambient tempera-tures. Based on experience with activated carbonfor mercury removal in other industries, theperformance of such materials declines as thetemperature of the process increases. For highertemperature gas cleanup technologies, new materi-als or approaches to mercury capture must bedeveloped. If technologies cannot be developed forcapturing mercury at higher temperatures, thencleanup technologies operating at these tempera-tures have limited applicability, i.e., for feedstockscontaining no mercury. In addition to mercury,other volatile trace contaminants such as arsenicand selenium and carbonyls must also be removed

to low levels. If non-regenerable processes are used,then proper disposal of such materials must beinvestigated because of the toxicity of many of thetrace components.

Regardless of the approach to contaminant re-moval, technology developers must focus onreducing the number of process steps to achieve thedesired synthesis gas quality. Although a challenge,a single multi-contaminant control device forremoval of chemical contaminants is desired.Process cost and complexity must be reduced toimprove overall plant economics and reliability.

Cold Gas CleaningThe opinions on the need for further improve-ments in, or development of new, low-temperature(ambient temperature) gas cleaning technologiesare mixed. While conventional technologies arebelieved to be fairly adequate and not overlyexpensive, opportunities for improving the cost andperformance of conventional solvent processes,both physical-based and chemical-based, arebelieved to still exist. It is recognized that somedevelopments may yield only incremental improve-ments. The current state-of-the-art amine-basedcleanup systems are unable to meet the near-zeroemission levels envisioned for the future and arecurrently unsuitable for preparing the synthesis gasfor use in fuel cells or synthesis gas conversiontechnologies. The high carbon monoxide (CO)environment in the amine-based systems alsopromotes the formation of heat-stable salts that notonly enhance corrosion but also limit the ability torecycle the amine. Because of amine degradationexperienced in current systems, there has been someshift to physical-based solvents instead. Regardless,industry has not invested much effort to improvethese technologies for many years.

To achieve required sulfur emission levels, it isnecessary not only to remove H2S, but also theCOS contained in the gas. Conventional gascleaning technologies require the COS to beconverted to H2S prior to the cleanup unit.

32


Needs• Develop cost-effective technologies that can

remove heat-stable salts from existing pro-cesses, and new solvent systems with en-hanced performance.

• Place a development priority on systems thatcan remove both COS and H2S simulta-neously, as well as chlorides.

• Conduct additional work to improve theperformance of both physical solvents andamine-based systems.

• Pursue development of both wet and drynovel ambient temperature approaches.

Warm Gas CleaningConsiderable interest is expressed in the develop-ment of warm gas cleaning technologies. Althoughthe temperature range of interest varies fromcompany to company, technologies that operatebetween 300–700 °F are preferred. This tempera-ture range is more consistent with the needs ofmost downstream process applications as discussedabove. Such technologies must be able to not onlyreduce sulfur to near-zero levels but also removemercury, ammonia, and other trace contaminants.There is concern that if mercury cannot be re-moved to potential regulatory levels, then suchtechnologies have limited utility — they wouldonly be applicable to feedstocks containing verylittle or no mercury. As stated previously, mercuryremoval using activated carbon becomes moredifficult as the operating temperature of the gascleanup process is increased and is ineffective in the300–700 °F temperature range.

Needs• Develop a synthesis gas cleanup system

operating in the range of 300–700 °F toreduce sulfur to near-zero levels and toremove mercury, ammonia, and other tracecontaminants.

Hot Gas CleaningHigh-temperature gas cleaning technologies, thosethat typically operate above 900 °F, are not consid-ered to be a high priority. Removal of contami-nants is expected to be much more difficult as thetemperature increases, especially for mercury,chlorides, alkali, and other trace metals. In addi-tion, deep cleaning of the gas to meet ultra-cleangas requirements is also expected to be a formidabletask at high temperatures.

Currently, there is not much incentive for opera-tions above 700 °F. Most credible engineeringanalyses have persuaded the industry that theefficiency improvements from operating at tem-peratures above 800 °F are offset by the additionalcapital costs due to increased material costs andincreased equipment size needed for larger volu-metric flows. Adapting high-temperature, dry,sorbent-based, regenerable technologies to lowertemperatures is a concern because effectiveness maybe compromised, as is efficiency of regeneration atlower temperatures. In the future, higher gasturbine inlet temperatures may justify cleanup at1,000 °F, on a cost/benefits basis.

The few organizations that expressed interest viewthe development of such approaches as a long-termgoal and applicable primarily to the production ofelectricity using fuel cells. The higher temperaturesare advantageous when employing fuel cell tech-nologies, however, the technology must be able toremove sulfur, alkalis, ash, HCl, and Hg to verylow levels, which is not currently feasible with high-temperature systems.

If a suitable hot gas technology can be developed, itmay have application to non-quenching typegasifiers and low-temperature gasifiers. In low-temperature gasifiers, tar formation in the gasifier isa major problem in downstream gas cleaningtechnologies. For such gasifier applications, gascleaning technologies that operate above 800 °F,i.e., the condensation temperature of the tars, orpossess tar cracking capabilities, are desirable.

33


Needs• Evaluate and explore developing synthesis

gas cleanup systems that operate above800 °F in the long term for gas turbine andfuel cell applications, addressing removal ofsulfur, alkalis, ash, HCl, and Hg to very lowlevels.

• Develop synthesis gas cleanup systems thatoperate above 800 °F for cleanup of tarsproduced from non-quenching and low-temperature gasifiers.

Particulate FiltrationRemoval of particulate matter from the raw synthe-sis gas stream is of particular interest for thosegasifiers that do not employ quench systems forcooling the raw synthesis gas and for protection ofthe gas turbine. Technology that removes particu-late at high temperatures up to 1,000 °F is the onlyhot gas cleaning technology that is viewed to have aneed for the near-term and mid-term horizons.Operating at temperatures below 1,000 °F allowsalkalis to condense and deposit on the ash in thesynthesis gas stream.

Improvements to existing barrier filter technologiesthat are inexpensive and simple are of interest.Filter element cost and longevity are viewed ascritical to the successful deployment of suchtechnologies, although cost reduction may beslightly preferred over life extension since currentfilter life can fit into scheduled outages. Ceramicfilters are of interest, especially for the temperaturesof 1,000 °F and above, but thus far, these elementshave yet to achieve satisfactory performance.However, satisfactory performance has beenachieved with metallic filters at temperatures above700 °F. No large market for these filters hasevolved so far, and potential vendors are disappear-ing.

In addition to further development of the currentcandle type filters, the development of new filtra-tion approaches is recommended. Granular bed

filters and hybrid wet/dry systems are two examplesthat are cited, although there is some concern thatgranular bed filters may not be suitable for IGCCapplications.

Needs• Develop more durable, reliable, and cost-

effective ceramic and metallic filter elementswith a useful life of at least three years.

• In addition to filter elements, developreliable safeguard devices to protect down-stream processes from particulate matter incase of premature breakage of an element.

• Involve manufacturers in programs todevelop filters and safeguard devices toassure that a market for such productsmaterializes.

• Develop techniques to sample and analyzethe particulate matter and trace metals inthe gas to complement filter development.

• Conduct R&D to resolve chloride cracking(stress corrosion) of pipes and valves in thegas flow path and the erosion of valves usedfor hot solids handling.

• Develop new particulate control concepts.

Heat RecoveryThe topic of heat recovery in gasification-basedplants is a matter of interest raised by about25 percent of the participating organizations. Ingeneral, heat recovery systems are not considered tobe a major contributor to downtime of the process.Improvements to heat recovery systems for coolingthe raw synthesis gas and gas turbine exhaust aswell as improved heat management relating to theair separation unit have the potential to lowercapital costs and improve efficiency of the process.

As with several other technology areas, there is anexpressed need for project operators to share thelessons they have learned regarding heat recovery

34


operations with the rest of the industry. In particu-lar, information on advances in metallurgy andcorrosion prevention and the impact such work hason heat recovery needs to be discussed openly. Theestablishment of a database containing such infor-mation that would be available to all is suggested.However, the sharing of such information andexperience may be problematic for many because ofconcerns related to intellectual property rights.

Synthesis Gas Cooling – Non-quenchOperationOver the years, boiler designers have made signifi-cant progress in heat recovery applications. How-ever, opportunities are believed to exist to betterand more fully utilize waste heat with new orimproved equipment and through process integra-tion. New synthesis gas coolers need to be lessexpensive, more reliable, and be capable of coolingthe gas to below 1,000 °F. Reliable and economicwaste heat boilers improve the thermodynamics ofthe gasification process compared to using quenchsystems.

The major issue with existing waste heat boilers isthe condensation of trace metals (e.g., selenium,arsenic, and germanium) in the synthesis gas thatdeposit on the inside of the heat exchanger tubes,especially when processing high-ash feedstocks.This deposition is a major run-limiting parameterbecause it leads to plugging. In addition, removalof the metallic deposition is also problematic.

Needs• Develop technologies for longer term mar-

kets that are capable of removing vaporphase trace metals from the hot raw synthe-sis gas stream before it enters the heatexchanger, with removal at temperatures of1,800–2,000 °F.

• Investigate new heat recovery processes thatminimize deposition and improve tech-niques for removing the deposits from theheat transfer surfaces.

• Develop dynamic modeling and controlsystems to aid in understanding and prevent-ing upsets in the heat recovery systems.

Synthesis Gas Cooling – Quench OperationQuench-based gasification systems are by far thedominant technology employed today. Althoughthere is a thermodynamic penalty when employingquench-type gasifiers (the efficiencies are lowerthan non-quench systems), they offer better reli-ability and lower capital costs than non-quenchsystems. In the past, industry was willing tosacrifice efficiency for reduced capital costs. How-ever, with the possibility of regulations for green-house gas emissions on the horizon, many compa-nies are beginning to look more closely at effi-ciency, especially if there is some incentive toenhance efficiency.

The quench process takes place in a harsh, high-temperature (over 2,600 °F), corrosive environmentthat produces aqueous hydrochloric acid at 212 °F.Efficiency improvements for low-ash feedstocks inthis harsh environment have been identified.Emphasis needs to be placed on high-ash feedstocksbecause of problems associated with downstreamheat recovery operations. Pursuing improvementsis complicated by the fact that the quench processis not fully scalable.

Another process weakness is that conventionaldesigns — although effective at quenching — shifta lot of the CO in the process.

Needs• Pursue process development to improve

quench process efficiency for high-ashfeedstocks in a commercial plant to addressscale-up issues.

• Investigate improved designs that quencheffectively with less conversion of CO toCO2.

35


Heat Recovery Steam GeneratorAdvances in technology have opened up thepossibility for improving heat recovery. Thisopportunity extends to bottom cycle componentssuch as the HRSG.

Needs• Investigate replacing the HRSG with a

higher-temperature method of heat recovery,such as a hot oil or molten salt system toimprove heat integration and efficiency.

Gas SeparationThe topic of gas separation is focused on theseparation of major components in gas streams, i.e.,oxygen from air and hydrogen from synthesis gas.

Air SeparationFor years, many believed that air-blown gasificationprocesses provided the more economical route forIGCC compared to cryogenic oxygen-based plants.At that time, the cost of cryogenic air separationunits was significantly higher than the added costsdue to larger-size equipment required to accommo-date the additional gas volume using air (aircontains 78 percent nitrogen). The economics ofthe air-blown processes depended upon the success-ful development of hot gas cleanup technologies inorder not to suffer inefficiencies inherent in coolingthe large gas volume for subsequent removal ofcontaminants using conventional sulfur removaltechnologies. However, improvements in cryogenicair separation technologies continued to be made tothe point where many organizations now believethat the cost of oxygen-blown gasification systemsare equal to or less than air-blown units. Addition-ally, older generation gas turbines were much moreamenable to extracting air for the gasifier. How-ever, new advanced turbines cannot extract suffi-ciently large quantities of air for air-blown opera-tions. This factor makes oxygen-blown gasificationthe preferred approach for large centralized produc-tion facilities.

The market potential for air-blown gasificationsystems is limited primarily to utility applicationsfor the production of power. Such air-blownsystems have little application in the co-productionof other products such as hydrogen, fuels, andchemicals. It is also extremely difficult to captureany of the CO2 generated in the process for seques-tration. Retrofitting such as an air-blown processfor oxygen-blown gasification results in a non-optimal operation. Considering the potential forgreenhouse gas regulations and the competitive costof today’s oxygen-blown gasification systems, a verycompelling reason is needed to justify buildinglarge air-blown IGCC systems today. Severalorganizations believe that the poor performance ofthe Piñon Pine IGCC process has severely ham-pered the future development and deployment ofair-blown systems. Air-blown systems may findniche applications when coupled with smallgasifiers. Even in such niche applications, however,new technologies for air separation as discussedbelow, may put air-blown units at a disadvantage.

The capital cost of a cryogenic air separation unitin a conventional IGCC plant typically runsbetween 12 and 15 percent of the total capital costof the facility and consumes upwards of 10 percentof the gross power output of the plant, dependingupon the oxygen purity required. Most often,oxygen purities range from 95–98 percent. Al-though the cost of cryogenic air separation unitshas continually been reduced over the years (cur-rent costs are typically $15/ton), most believe thatthere are very limited opportunities for further costreductions. Over one-third of the organizationsbelieve that the cost of oxygen must be furtherreduced to less than $15/ton to improve theeconomic viability of gasification-based processes.It is also suggested that part of the solution shouldencompass a reduction in the specific oxygendemand, for example, through dry feeding andlower temperature gasification.

The development of advanced air separationmembranes is viewed as a worthwhile goal by mostbecause of its potential to not only reduce the

36


capital cost of the air separation unit, but also toincrease the efficiency of the plant through reducedpower consumption. These membrane-basedtechnologies have recently been reported to reducecapital costs of an IGCC plant by about$75–100/kW, improve plant efficiency 1–3 percent-age points, and increase net power production by7 percent.

Integration of the gas turbine with the membrane(or any air separation unit) may be problematicdepending upon the amount of air that must beextracted from the compressor of the gas turbine.Older gas turbines are capable of providing largeramounts of air, up to 37 percent (and 50 percentwith some nitrogen return) and 20 percent fornewer turbines. Advanced turbines emerging nowprovide much less extraction air. Air extraction/return is identified as a priority area for membrane-based technologies.

Although most felt that the membrane approachescan greatly benefit gasification, there is someconcern that such systems only make sense in small-scale applications and that other continuous separa-tion processes are much more economical at largescales. It is believed that membrane-based systemscan be very bulky and expensive at large scalesbecause the required membrane surface area scaleslinearly with the quantity of gas being processed.Others point out that while the scaling factor iscorrect, other parameters have a much greaterimpact on the cost and performance of such sys-tems.

In general, conventional gas separation technologies,particularly for air separation, but also for othergases, operate at very low temperatures (-300 °F)while the membrane-based technologies currentlyunder development operate at very high tempera-tures (1,650 °F). Some believe that future gasseparation technologies need to operate closer toambient temperatures, i.e., -50 °F to 350 °F.

The development of technologies using enriched air(typically 20 percent more oxygen) is mentioned ina few cases; however, this is viewed as a lower

priority than producing high purity oxygen. In thepast, all engineering analyses generally show that theeconomics favor either air-blown or oxygen-blowngasification processes. Enriched air systems do notappear to be competitive because the pressure dropacross the membrane used to enrich the air must bereduced, and the longevity of such membranes mustbe improved by eliminating fouling and plugging.

One safety-related issue surrounding the productionof high-purity oxygen is addressed. This issuerelates to the problem of the concentration of smallcarbonaceous particles in the ambient air. Suchconditions tend to prevail in areas where there isconsiderable smoke from fires. The accumulation ofthese particles in the air separation unit, particularlyon filters and heat exchange surfaces can lead toexplosions in the unit.

Needs• Complete development of the current suite of

membranes before pursuing the next genera-tion of membrane materials, and allow timefor the anticipated substantial cost reductionsfollowing initial commercialization associ-ated with technology improvement andmaturation.

• Develop an efficient and effective air extrac-tion/return capability.

• Preferably through the Clean Coal PowerInitiative, implement a viable DOE demon-stration program to ensure future commercialfinancing of advanced gas separation tech-nologies.

• Conduct R&D in materials development fornew sorbent and membranes compatible withthe -50 °F to 350 °F temperature range, withinitial exploration of new materials andconcepts at universities.

• Conduct R&D to determine the fate of tracemetals and other potential contaminants inthe separation process to prevent contamina-tion of the final product, which inhibits itsmarketability.

37


• Through efforts on the part of air separationunit vendors, resolve the problem of accu-mulation of small carbonaceous particles onsurfaces in the presence of high-purityoxygen.

H2/CO2 SeparationHydrogen (H2) and CO2 can be separated directlyfrom the raw synthesis gas or from a synthesis gascontaining mostly H

2 and CO2. Three options

exist. First, the CO2 contained in the synthesis gasstream can be collected without any converting(shifting) of the CO. This option reduces theamount of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere, butdoes not allow for near-complete capture of all ofthe carbon in the gas, nor the production ofhydrogen. This option may be acceptable depend-ing on the extent of any greenhouse gas controlregulations. The second approach is to separate thehydrogen from the CO2 in a shifted synthesis gas.The hydrogen can then be combusted in a gasturbine or used elsewhere, such as in refiningoperations or fuel cells. In this approach nearly allof the CO2 is available for sequestration. Hydro-gen-fired turbines can be offered commerciallytoday if required. Finally, hydrogen can be sepa-rated from the unshifted synthesis gas stream forrefining or other applications. Such an approachpermits the hydrogen to be used more efficiently.This option does not allow for the capture of CO2

unless oxygen, rather than air, is fed to the combus-tion turbine.

If required today, existing technologies, such asRectisol and Selexol, can be applied to captureCO2; however, such applications are expensive andimpart a severe energy penalty on the system. It isthe opinion of most in the industry that for IGCCplants, the CO2 needs to be removed prior to thecombustion turbine.

The first priority identified is the development anddemonstration of sequestration and utilizationtechnologies. Technologies for CO2 sequestrationneed to be proven before CO2 removal is man-

dated. Nearly half of the participants view this as atop priority area in which the government plays akey role. Although some industrial organizationsare already investing in such research, many otherorganizations cannot justify the cost in suchexpensive R&D projects.

For the production of CO2 and hydrogen asidentified in the above options, it is desirable tohave all product streams from the separationprocesses at high pressures. Having hydrogen athigh pressures improves the economics of theprocess and affords more opportunities for down-stream applications in other industries besidespower production. Regardless, many expressinterest in membrane-based technologies, butrecognize that membranes always produce onestream at low pressure. High-pressure CO2 isdesired because it must be further compressed to atleast 2,000 pounds per square inch-gauge (psig) forsequestration applications. In addition to the highpressure requirements, lower cost, more efficientH2/CO2/CO separation technologies that operateat temperatures below 800 °F, and preferably atambient temperatures, are desired.

Besides membrane-based technologies, other novelapproaches to the separation of H2 and CO2 alsoneed to be investigated that have potential forachieving the desired requirements. In addition toseparation of hydrogen from shifted synthesis gas,the separation of hydrogen from synthesis gaswithout prior shifting also warrants pursuit.

Needs• Place a high priority on development and

demonstration of carbon management,including capture, sequestration, and utiliza-tion technologies, with the governmenttaking a lead role.

• Implement fundamental research at universi-ties and national laboratories on “outside-the-box” approaches to the separation ofhydrogen and CO2.

38


• Develop lower cost CO2 capture technolo-gies, with emphasis on systems that removethe CO2 prior to the combustion turbine.

• In developing separation technologies, placeemphasis on pressurizing the productstreams for economic considerations andtarget separation technologies operating attemperatures below 800 °F and preferably atambient temperature.

By-Products

GeneralUtilization of by-products from gasification plantsis of considerable interest from a market perspec-tive. By-products include ash/slag, sulfur, ammo-nia, and CO2.

Needs• Perform a market assessment of future (5–10

years) off-take options for all by-products,with a range of characteristics, producedfrom gasification-based plants.

Ash/SlagAs the number of gasification plants continues toincrease in the United States, the disposition of theash and slag becomes increasingly important. Newmarkets and ways of utilizing the ash/slag fromgasifiers need to be developed because disposing ofthis material in a landfill is expected to become asignificant issue in years to come. Currently, it isdifficult to find a market for the ash and slag whereits value exceeds transportation costs. It is desirablefor the ash/slag to be a revenue-generating streamand help drive the technology to full utilization ofall waste materials.

Currently, some of the gasification plants havefound it difficult to market the slag because of itshigh carbon content due to poor carbon conver-sion. The carbon content must be reduced toless than five percent by weight for it to be market-

able. Such material can be used in road construc-tion, while slag containing two percent by weightcarbon can be used for sandblasting grit. The slagcurrently passes the Toxicity Characteristic Leach-ing Procedure (TCLP), but the method does notensure that the release of toxic substances will notoccur under different erosion and leaching environ-ments.

Opportunities may also exist for extracting certaincomponents from the slag. For petcoke-derivedslag, the recovery of nickel and vanadium is alreadybeing considered. Recovery of components fromthe slag that detract from its value, such as lead,may also be an attractive alternative. Moreover, thesolid by-products generated during the gasificationof waste materials, either alone or in combinationwith coal, may have different properties that canpotentially impact its marketability.

Needs• Develop new leaching test methods for each

ash/slag application to ensure that long-termrelease is not occurring.

• Implement R&D to reduce ash/slag carbonand moisture content, and to reduce the sizeof the product.

• Develop means to reduce the cost of grind-ing and classifying the ash/slag to a levelsignificantly lower than the market value ofthe resulting product.

• As a further cost consideration, exploreopportunities for recovery of componentsthat either detract from ash/slag value or arein themselves valuable.

• Characterize the solids produced fromgasification of waste materials and coal/waste blends to determine whether the solidproperties are sufficiently different to affectthe marketability of the material.

39


SulfurApproximately 25,000 tons per year of sulfur areproduced from “an average” 300 MW IGCC plant.There is a growing concern that as more and moregasification facilities are constructed and operated,especially those processing petcoke and high-sulfurcoals, the production of high-grade sulfur willeventually exceed demand.

There is some mention of potential improvementsto sulfur recovery units. One improvement in-volves the potential for eliminating the Claus plantthrough integration with the acid gas removal unitto convert H2S and CO2 to synthesis gas andelemental sulfur. A patent on such an approachexists.

In exploring new markets, it is noted that Canadais addressing this issue by using sulfur to makeconcrete for highly corrosive environments. Also,the U.S. Department of Transportation has devel-oped roadbed material containing sulfur.

Needs• Determine the level of IGCC capacity at

which the sulfur market becomes saturatedand sulfur no longer generates a revenuestream.

• Develop new markets and ways to utilizesulfur.

• Follow-up investigations on the potentialelimination of the Claus plant.

CO2 UtilizationAs mentioned previously, the most important issueis the development and demonstration of technolo-gies for the sequestration and/or utilization of CO2.Utilization of CO2 is a formidable task because ofthe thermodynamic stability of the molecule.However, some investigations are ongoing in thisarea.

Needs• As discussed under Gas Separation, imple-

ment long-term, high-risk R&D to realizeefficient, cost-effective capture and recycle orsequestration of CO2.

Synthesis Gas Utilization

Gas TurbinesThe most compelling issue in the gas turbines areais the need to qualify and optimize the gas turbineson synthesis gas, particularly for advanced gasturbines. Currently, there is no long-term strategicpath for accomplishing synthesis gas testing andsystems integration for these machines. The DOE’sAdvanced Turbine Systems (ATS) program, whichis coming to closure, focused primarily on naturalgas. Currently, there is no specific follow-ondevelopment path for ATS operation on synthesisgas. Since the gas turbine market is being driven bynatural gas, there is justifiable concern about thefuture availability of gas turbines for gasificationapplications and about keeping gas turbine devel-opment responsive to the needs of the gasificationindustry.

Considerable effort must be devoted to determin-ing the tolerance of gas turbines to various tracecontaminants. Although there are a number ofmachines currently operating on synthesis gas,deposition, erosion, and corrosion problems havebeen encountered that may be due to the quality ofthe synthesis gas feedstock. Currently it is believedthat the synthesis gas for a gas turbine ought tocontain less than 10 ppm of particulate matter andless than 10 ppm of alkali. However, the currentalkali specification is based on experience of turbinemanufacturers with alkali in fuel oil, and there isconcern that alkali in the synthesis gas may affectthe performance of the gas turbine differently thanfuel oil. In addition, different gas turbine modelsmay perform differently on the same fuel, requiringseparate specifications for each machine.

40


Another issue of concern is NOx emission levelsfrom the gas turbine. Over the past year, there hasbeen a move among some state regulators to drivedown the level of NOx emissions on existing, aswell as planned gasification plants, to levels thatwould require the use of SCR units. This wouldadd capital and operating costs to the gasificationplant and add potential operational problems inthe HRSG unit due to the possible formation ofammonium bisulfate. On new gasification plantsusing diffusion flame combustors, NOx

emissionscan now be reduced to about 9 ppm through theuse of a combination of diluents (steam, nitrogen,carbon dioxide); however, this appears to be aboutthe limit for this technology. Also, the stability ofdiffusion flame combustors is poor with high levelsof diluent.

There is a desire on the part of the industry tofurther reduce NOx emissions in anticipation offuture tightening of emissions. To achieve NOx

emission levels of 3–5 ppm, which is equivalent toNGCC systems, new gas turbine combustiontechnologies must be developed. New low-NOx

combustor designs can change the design of theentire gasification system, including the gasifier andair separation unit, since the plant is designedaround the gas turbine.

Needs• Continue the ATS program, or other DOE

programs, focusing on synthesis gas applica-tions and encouraging gas turbine manufac-turers to design turbines that can burnsynthesis gas.

• Expand the range of the fuel handlingsystem and gas turbine nozzle performanceto accommodate the use of multiple compo-sitions of diluted fuels having a broad rangeof hydrogen content and time-varyingheating values caused by swings in productoutput.

• Conduct combustion testing on existing aswell as future machines to cover a widerrange of fuel heating values.

• Establish a cost-effective U.S.-based user testfacility to perform full-flow combustion testsat pressure, determine performance duringturn-down situations, evaluate changes tothe fuel compositions, and determine fuelspecifications.

• Characterize the deposition, corrosion, anderosion that results from feeding synthesisgas to a gas turbine to address delamination,spalling, embrittlement, and deterioration ofthermal barrier coatings.

• Develop new low-NOx gas turbine combus-tion systems, such as dry low-NOx

burnersfor low-Btu gas and catalytic synthesis gascombustion.

• Develop improved diagnostic instrumenta-tion for gas turbines, including fuel gas flowand flame stability monitors, imbeddedtemperature sensors for turbine blades,foreign object and vibration detectors,combustion temperature sensors, and instru-mentation to measure turbine performanceand monitor corrosion and erosion.

Fuel CellsIntegrating fuel cells with gasification offers thepotential to achieve very high thermal efficiencies.The major hurdle to deployment of the technologyis the cost of the fuel cell, which must be drasticallyreduced from today’s costs. Some believe thatintegration of gasification and fuel cells can occurwithin the next 10 to 15 years. Another keyprocess issue surrounding the use of fuel cells is thesynthesis gas quality requirement.

41


Needs• Develop specifications on maximum con-

taminant levels in the synthesis gas, as wellas other process requirements, for thevarious fuel cell technologies to guide thoseorganizations developing advanced gascleaning technologies.

• In addition to gas cleaning, direct effortstoward developing more poison-tolerant fuelcells.

• Thoroughly investigate integration andoptimization of the fuel cell in the overallplant configuration.

• Support development of synthesis gas-basedfuel cell systems through pilot-scale testingand demonstration projects.

Synthesis Gas ConversionProduct flexibility in a gasification plant is a desiredfeature to address market issues such as swings inelectrical power demand over the course of a day.The ability to produce a second or third product inaddition to electricity has been shown to have somenotable synergies and permits continuous operationof the gasifier at full load while adjusting to varyingpower demand. However, the technology used toproduce the co-product must be sufficiently robustto withstand swings in its operation. A properlysized process can also act as a buffer between astandard size gasifier and the primary synthesis gasapplication, such as use in a gas turbine. Theproduction of value-added products compared toelectricity helps to improve the overall economicsof gasification-based plants. Studies have shownthe potential of fuel co-production approaches toachieve over 70 percent thermal efficiency and tobe cost competitive with petroleum at $25/barrel.However, current technologies for the conversion ofsynthesis gas to fuels and chemicals are believed tobe inefficient.

In F-T plants, the H2/CO ratio is a critical mea-surement for the stream entering the F-T synthesisreactor. This ratio has significant impact on theyield of desired F-T products, and a system to varyfeed inputs to alter the H2/CO ratio helps tomaximize product yield.

Needs

• Pursue new approaches for synthesis gasconversion that are less costly and moreefficient to improve the economics.

• Explore new routes for the conversion ofsynthesis gas to chemicals and C2 and C2

alcohols.

• Direct near-term efforts at the developmentof synthesis gas conversion to F-T products.

• Develop process schemes for an integratedgasification/F-T plant, focusing on optimiz-ing plant integrations and follow with theoperation of an integrated demonstrationplant.

• In the long term, develop an F-T fuelsmarket.

• Establish a user facility where companies canscale-up and demonstrate new technologiesfor synthesis gas conversion.

Other Identified NeedsThere are a number of other opportunities relativeto synthesis gas utilization that warrant attention toimprove cost and performance.

Needs• Increase efficiency by developing technolo-

gies that can utilize synthesis gas from high-pressure gasifiers, rather than expanding thesynthesis gas prior to the gas turbine, whichwastes energy.

• Develop and test sour gas expander materi-als for use with high-pressure gasifiers(1,000 psig).

42


• Reduce the cost of the power block throughenhanced performance and cost reductionsin the gas turbine.

• Develop alternative bottoming cycles.

• Develop materials compatible with rawsynthesis gas at temperatures up to 1,400 °F.

IntegrationProper integration of process units has potential forreducing capital costs and improving plant effi-ciency. The need for commercialization of thetechnology and system flexibility in addition torecent problems experienced with highly integratedsystems has driven the industry towards less inte-gration. The problems encountered in highlyintegrated systems in the pursuit of high efficiencyhave led to reduced availability of the plant in mostcases and have created problems for the generalacceptance of IGCC. The market is also movingaway from long-term fuel contracts and towardmore diverse fuel mixes, which complicates thedesign and integration of gasification plants.Consequently, some organizations are averse tointegration, while others believe that integrationwill eventually occur as more operating experienceis gained. Integration may be possible with newergasification technologies; however, these technolo-gies must be sufficiently demonstrated prior tocommercialization.

Integration of technology blocks for more efficientprocess schemes requires alliances between technol-ogy suppliers. Intellectual property rights issuesmust be facilitated and resolved to make suchalliances attractive.

Design Standardization and ModularizationMany believe that modularization of process unitsand standardization of designs stands to greatlybenefit the commercialization of gasification.Currently, each new gasification plant is a specialdesign based on the requirements of the customerin terms of feedstock, products, siting, and environ-

mental issues. As a result, engineering costs arehigh for these facilities. Standardizing the designbased on typical gas turbine size and systemscurrently being deployed and anticipated in thefuture can significantly lower engineering costs.Modularizing the process units also reduces con-struction costs. However, because the number ofprojects is too few and the market is dominated byonly a few technology suppliers, there is littleincentive for industry itself to invest in any ap-proach to provide standard, “product line” designsthat can significantly improve the technology.

It is deemed appropriate that the DOE sponsor astudy from a “clean sheet of paper” that addressesoptimized modular standardized IGCC plantdesigns for the power market, without imposingany equipment constraints. Market assessmentswould be incorporated into the study to addresssize and to develop a market growth strategy. Inaddressing size, the suggested guidelines are thatplants must be reasonably deployed at many utilitysites, but sufficiently small so as not to be overlyburdensome to the customer. Suggested guidelinesfor the market growth strategy guidelines are toaddress repowering 20 to 25 percent of existingplant capacity with standardized plants. Onceexperience is gained with a standardized unit at autility, parallel trains can be easily deployed toincrease capacity.

Dynamic modeling is particularly important forthe standardization of IGCC plants. A governmentrole is suggested because it is difficult for industryto pass the cost of such modeling along to laterplants. It is generally thought that the DOE canbest address integration issues of such plants bycontinuing its modeling efforts. Equipment suppli-ers would need to provide dynamic modelingmodules of their specific technologies for integra-tion into the simulation of the IGCC plant.However, there is a concern that technologydevelopers and equipment suppliers may be unwill-ing to share such models for fear of disclosingproprietary information and helping their competi-tors.

43


It is felt that a standardized plant approach allowsfor value engineering concepts to be employed thatultimately reduce the capital cost and improve theperformance of the system for the customer. Thisapproach has the potential to reduce the footprintof the plant by as much as 20 percent; and, alsoincreases customer confidence that constructionand startup will proceed according to the proposedschedule and without any undue surprises.

Needs• Conduct a study that addresses design of a

modular, standardized IGCC plant that isoptimized for a niche power market intowhich many such standardized, modularplants can be sold.

• Continue DOE dynamic modeling efforts insupport of standardization, incorporatingequipment costs for integration into thesimulation of an IGCC plant; and, verify themodel with data from existing plants.

Air Separation Unit/Gas Turbine IntegrationThe integration of the gas turbine with the airseparation unit (ASU) is an area that has createdmuch debate. Full versus partial integration be-tween the ASU and gas turbine is still an unre-solved issue. Considering the higher pressure ratiosof future gas turbines, integration is likely tocontinue to be problematic. Some organizationsare very wary of the integration of these twoprocess units because of operability issues that havearisen in prior projects. There is also concern as towhether or not nitrogen re-injection to the gasturbine should be practiced.

Other organizations recommend that partialintegration of the units be pursued. With partialintegration, there are still significant issues thatmust be resolved, especially with the gas turbine.Start-up and shutdown of the plant are the mostcritical operational issues that must be addressedregarding integration of the two units. This

becomes an even more important issue as advancedturbines with their higher pressure ratios aredeployed. Although the industry is still wary of fullintegration, some believe that in time full integra-tion eventually will be practiced.

Needs• Conduct R&D to address the issue of

integration of the gas turbine with the airseparation unit.

DatabasesSources of information on gasification systemdesign and performance appear to be, at best, veryminimal. Numerous requests are made for thedevelopment of databases, which industry canutilize in the development of projects. It appearsthat there is considerable concern that designers arenot aware of past mistakes and that importantlearning experience benefits are being lost.

A critical hurdle to the commercialization ofgasification projects is their inability to meetscheduled deadlines for key performance milestonesupon which economics are based. Typical start upis a year late and target availability is two yearsbehind schedule. The primary reason for this isthat development teams are continually repeatingthe same mistakes because information is notopenly shared. It is also uncertain as to whethermany of the technical issues that are encountered insuch projects are adequately addressed to preventrepetition. An industry-wide “knowledge manage-ment system” is a possible mechanism for enablingcompanies to avoid common problems by sharingnon-proprietary information. Such a system caninclude a database of reliability statistics for existinggasification plants to help in the design of futureplants as well as in improving current operations.The mean time between failures (MTBF), causes ofthe failures, approaches for mitigating futureproblems, and the mean time to repair (MTTR)need to be addressed. Many of the existing facili-ties experience high restart time. Historical costs

44


and availability of subcomponents in a gasificationplant helps to provide a better understanding ofcomponent availability and reliability. Becausegasification systems are highly complex, compre-hensive research may be required to delineate theroot causes of downtime. The proposed informa-tion system has to be a “living” interactive knowl-edge exchange system in which users have to inputinformation in exchange for extracting informa-tion. Since reluctance of companies to share suchinformation would make the collection of informa-tion difficult and its usefulness limited, informa-tion in such a database has to be sanitized toprevent linking information to a particular plant.It is suggested that the DOE, the GTC, and theElectric Power Research Institute (EPRI) serve asbrokers for such a system and that the beginningsshould initially concentrate on the DOE-fundedprojects to prove the value of such an undertaking.

To speed the design process, more data are neededon feedstock quality versus gasification systemcharacteristics. A database on feedstock propertiesimportant to gasification is needed that is similar tothe U.S. Coal Quality Database maintained by theU.S. Geological Survey. Information is required fora range of individual feedstocks and feedstockblends, such as chemical and physical properties,reactivity versus temperature, and ash fusiontemperature and ash viscosity versus temperatureunder reducing conditions. Even for coal feedstocksalone, the U.S. Coal Quality Database needs to beexpanded to include some of these gasificationspecific properties and to address coal blends. Dataon blends is important because blends displaycharacteristics different from the individual con-stituents. For example, when mixing different typesof coal, the resulting slag viscosity can be veryunpredictable. A database addressing gasificationspecific properties can be employed in conjunctionwith on-line feedstock analysis to instantaneouslycontrol the operation of the gasifier.

Also, there is an expressed need for the industry toaddress generic operation and maintenance prob-lems that are common to the gasification industry.

One example is the need for information on theeffects of coal slurry characteristics on pipes andvalves as discussed in the “Feedstocks” section. Gasis easy to deal with, but any material that has to bepumped is potentially problematic. Other examplesof databases that would assist the gasificationindustry include: (1) a “Water Chemistry” lessonslearned database, addressing the design and opera-tion of water systems within a gasification plant;(2) an “Emissions” database, providing a compila-tion of stack emissions from gasification plantsemploying different feedstocks to aid those permit-ting new facilities; and (3) a “COS Hydrolysis”database, providing a compilation of lessonslearned on COS hydrolysis to support catalystdesign and performance improvement efforts.

Needs• Establish an industry-wide “knowledge

management system” to include: (1) adatabase of reliability statistics for existinggasification plants, addressing both theMTBF, causes of the failures, approaches formitigating future problems, and the MTTRneed to be addressed; (2) historical costs andavailability of subcomponents in gasificationplants; (3) a “living” interactive knowledgeexchange system in which users have toinput information in exchange for extractinginformation; and (4) sanitized informationto prevent linking information to a particu-lar plant.

• Establish a database on feedstock perfor-mance to include: (1) chemical and physicalproperties, reactivity, and gasificationcharacteristics of various gasification feed-stocks; and (2) coal ash fusion temperaturesunder reducing conditions and gasificationreactivity versus temperature for variouscoals and various solid feedstock blends.

45


CO2 and Hydrogen IntegrationThe potential future liability of CO2 is an issue thatorganizations are beginning to consider in planningfuture projects. The integration of technologies andinfrastructure to store and transport hydrogen areimportant for gasification-based plants, particularlyduring a transition to a hydrogen-based economy.

Needs• Conduct pilot and commercial-scale demon-

strations of CO2 capture and sequestrationfrom a gasification facility.

• Demonstrate hydrogen production resultingfrom CO2 capture, with emphasis on storageand transport.

Other Integration IdeasMost of the technologies used today in gasificationplants are mature technologies. However, innova-tive integration of two or more technologies toproduce a single technology warrants considerationas a way to improve process economics. Combiningprocess streams across non-traditional boundariesneeds to be considered. The ultimate plant canconsist of a single block rather than the pipingtogether of several individual pieces.

Needs• Pursue integration opportunities in the

following interfaces: (1) refinery bottomswith the gasifier, (2) gasifier with the gaspurification block (recycling metals back tothe gasifier for disposal in the slag to preventplating out on the turbines), (3) gas purifi-cation block with gas turbines, (4) synthesisgas with petrochemicals production, (5) F-Ttechnology with F-T product upgrading,(6) gas purification block with the airseparation unit, and (7) air separation unitwith a refinery.

Systems Analysis

GeneralStudies are needed to improve the understanding ofthe cost and performance implications of technol-ogy applications. For many of these studies, it isimperative that teams of industrial organizationsplay a role to ensure that meaningful designs andresults are obtained, with funding directed atcooperative/interrelated programs to ensure teamcooperation.

Needs• Define the optimum configuration of a

gasification system to accommodate CO2

capture and sequestration and quantify theeconomics of the process.

• Assess the economic and process perfor-mance implications of employing SCR withdeep sulfur capture for NOx control.

• Analyze future gasifier size, pressure require-ments, and heating values to meet gasturbine developments.

• Analyze system performance and economicsof utilizing compressed air energy storageduring off-peak times (IGCC power iscompetitive only during peak loads, butplants must operate under a constant load tomaximize availability. Co-producing otherproducts is another option but at a cost).

• Conduct value engineering assessments ofgasification plants to optimize cost andperformance and develop low-cost designtemplates.

• Evaluate options for co-producing value-added products.

• Examine optimization of gasification plantsproducing hydrogen for power-only applica-tions.

46


• Explore integration of pressure swing ab-sorption units for both hydrogen andoxygen separation with the gas turbine.

• Explore repowering of existing power plantswith partial gasification technologies (thehybrid gasification/combustion concept).

Instrumentation and ControlsThere is clearly a need for the development of newand improved techniques for monitoring andcontrolling all processes and process streams withina gasification plant. Many believe that improvedinstrumentation and controls are key areas tofurther the advancement of gasification and toother highly integrated processes in general. Laborreduction issues have not been a high designpriority. How instrumentation is employed inother industries should be reviewed for ideas. Manyof the needs coming out of the specific discussionson instruments and control mirror the needsidentified elsewhere in this report. Other instru-mentation needs not mentioned previously aredetailed below.

Needs• Develop advanced, predictive controls to

regulate the total system, especially if loadfollowing is required.

• Develop advanced logic supervisory/optimi-zation systems.

• Develop simulators that can be used to trainoperators on new plants in a consistentmanner.

• Develop tunable diode laser technology forgas measurements in high-particulate envi-ronments.

• Develop a reliable pH meter capable ofoperating under elevated pressures andtemperatures up to 300 °F for scrubbingsystem applications.

• Integrate instrumentation technology toprovide diagnostics on key elements withinexisting systems to help identify potentialimprovements that can be implemented toimprove process reliability and performance.

• Develop diagnostic procedures and tools toidentify process issues affecting plantreliability.

ModelsAlthough the need for more advanced gasifier andother process models ranks quite high, commentsare mixed. Most companies have already developedgasifier and associated process models and manyexpressed the need to develop even more sophisti-cated gasifier models than presently exist. Themajor concern with the development of suchmodels is safeguarding the company’s intellectualproperty rights and proprietary informationassociated with their technology, whether it is agasifier, an air separation unit, or a gas turbine.

The general perception is that DOE has spent aconsiderable sum of money to develop models thatalready exist in industry. Before embarking onfurther efforts, the government should fully under-stand what models are currently available to avoidredundancy and duplication of effort.

There is a poor understanding of the fluid dynam-ics in the gasifier and subsequent synthesis gascooling approaches. Dynamic modeling has provento be very useful for control system design. Suchmodels may also provide an understanding ofphysics occurring during start-up and shut-downthat sometimes leads to operation problems such asexcessive carbon deposition in the gasifier and gasturbine/ASU integration issues.

While some believe that DOE needs to fund IGCCequipment suppliers to develop dynamic modelingmodules that can be used to integrate their equip-ment into an IGCC plant, there is concern ex-pressed that equipment suppliers most likely are

47


reluctant to cooperate because of concerns aboutproprietary information. As a result, thegovernment’s role is difficult to define. The roleundertaken by the government needs to be agreedto with industry. One possibility is to assist in thevalidation of the models rather than their develop-ment.

Needs• Define and develop the models that are

clearly needed to benefit the entire industry,such as new dynamic models of gasificationplants.

• Focus model development on dynamicmodels that can be used not only to predictthe steady-state performance of a gasifier,but also to simulate transient events, such asload changes and trips in various units,gasifier ramping, and pulsations in filtrationdevices.

• Validate the models with actual plant datarather than using theoretical diagnostics ordynamic modeling as substitutes for actualoperational experience.

48


49


Government RoleGovernment-Sponsored Testing FacilitiesThe evaluation of gasification technologies andfeedstocks needs to be done in test facilities that areas close as possible to commercial-scale. Ideally,such facilities should be accessible by more thanone company. However, some companies may bereluctant to participate in such tests because theymay reveal a problem or produce data leading tomore stringent regulations.

Since testing at full-scale demonstration facilities isnot always feasible, the availability and use ofcommercial-scale component testing facilities iscritically important for the commercialization ofgasification technologies.

Needs• Through government support, improve the

utilization of existing, full-scale demonstra-tion facilities, such as the Wabash River andTampa Electric IGCC plants for testing.

• Use existing IGCC facilities: (1) to show theefficacy of controlling mercury emissions byinstalling a carbon guard bed prior to thestack; (2) to scale up and demonstrate F-Tprocesses; and (3) to evaluate gas cleanuptechnologies.

• Expand R&D at government componenttesting facilities at Wilsonville, Grand Forks,NETL, and LaPorte; for example, installinga slipstream unit at the Power SystemsDevelopment Facility at Wilsonville todevelop filters made from new materials.

• Establish a government-sponsored full-scaledemonstration plant that includes slipstreams specifically designed for testing newtechnologies in a “plug and play” fashion.

• Establish a government-sponsored pressur-ized biomass gasification facility for testingfeeder systems, gas cleanup, and otheradvanced components.

• Establish a government-sponsored high-temperature/high-pressure gasificationfacility for testing fuel cells on real, high-pressure synthesis gas (testing which isbeyond the atmospheric capabilities that arecurrently being demonstrated).

• Establish a government-sponsored commonlaboratory using a consistent method tovalidate sorbent testing for contaminantremoval.

• Establish a government-sponsored full-flow,full-pressure synthesis gas test facility in theUnited States for F- and G-class gas turbines,as well as ATS and next generation ma-chines.

Government Incentives for GasificationProjectsGovernment incentives, both direct and indirect(such as environmental regulations), have played asignificant role in developing the gasificationprojects that are currently in operation, underconstruction, or under consideration. However,the commercial application of gasification contin-ues to be limited by the investment risks arisingfrom changing environmental regulations and thetechnical hurdles associated with the newness of thetechnologies.

For example, to mitigate the risks of incurringliquidated damages on first- or second-of-a-kindgasification projects, contractors must significantlyincrease capital costs. If the government cansomehow reduce the project-specific uncertaintiesassociated with developing and constructinggasification plants (notably construction time andcapital cost), it would greatly enhance their com-mercial attractiveness.

50


It is suggested that an existing federal programcalled the Overseas Private Investment Corporation(OPIC) be used as a template to develop a conceptto help the private sector manage investment risk.The essence of the OPIC concept is to stimulateinvestment in third-world countries by providinginsurance for those investments, where the privatesector perceives the risk to be too high, but thegovernment believes that the actual risk is muchless. It is believed that if a government programguaranteed a 48-month development period, at$1,250/kW capital cost and 42 percent efficiency,some companies might decide to invest in anIGCC project today.

Another way the government can help industryexpand the application of gasification and progressto the “nth plant” is by funding another wave ofdemonstration projects, albeit with one significantchange. Government cost-sharing needs to bestructured as a “carrot and stick” approach with theamount of cost share tied to project performance,such as capacity factor. The closer the participantcomes to achieving the performance goal, the morefunding the government needs to provide. Thisencourages proposals from companies who are inthe business of operating gasification plants, insteadof the typical proposals from companies that arejust interested in building the plant. In addition,because a single demonstration is often insufficientto overcome the technical risks and economic/market hurdles for commercial offerings, thegovernment needs to sponsor multiple commercialdemonstrations of a given gasification technology.Tax credits, insurance or other financial incentivesfor first-, second- and third-of-a-kind plants, bothgreenfield and repowered, are also considered to bebeneficial, even as capital costs decline.

Federal incentives are also needed to encourage theuse of certain gasification feedstocks. Coal canbecome a viable gasification feedstock during thenext 10 years if legislation is passed that providestax incentives for plants that surpass a certainthermal efficiency, such as 80 percent. It is sug-gested that this would also be an excellent way for

the government to start addressing the globalwarming issue. Certain opportunity fuels alsorequire tax incentives to achieve long-term eco-nomic viability. For example, if the current taxcredit for biomass fuels expires in 2007 (as cur-rently scheduled), it is unlikely that biomass will bean economically feasible fuel for gasification due toits handling, safety, and contamination issues.

Needs• Have the government provide insurance on

the schedule, cost, and performance ofinitial commercial IGCC plants, collectingpremiums from private sector stakeholdersfor the insurance.

• Fund another wave of IGCC demonstrationsthat ties government cost-sharing to projectperformance, increasing funding as theparticipant approaches established perfor-mance goals; and replicate the most promis-ing technologies to overcome technical risk.

• Provide tax credits or other financial incen-tives for initial commercial IGCC plants thatare tied to performance targets, such asefficiency or CO2 emissions, to encouragecoal and biomass utilization.

Government Action on EnvironmentalRegulationsThe uncertainty over if, when, and how futureenvironmental regulations are to be implementedadversely impacts the business development ofgasification projects and especially discourages thedeployment of coal-based gasification plants.Unfavorable changes in environmental regulations— similar to those imposed on the refining indus-try — can stall the development of gasificationbefore the technology has a chance to prove itself.Many of the recommendations below will requireDOE and EPA to work together to achieve com-mon goals.

51


Needs• Bring additional streamlining to the New

Source Review process.

• Educate regulatory officials about gasifica-tion, demonstrating to them that gasifica-tion is an environmentally friendly processas opposed to an incinerator.

• Promulgate regulations that encourage theenvironmentally friendly conversion and useof wastes for gasification.

• Streamline the regulatory process such thatthe time required to permit a gasificationplant is reduced to about six months.

• Change environmental regulations such thatthey both recognize and provide incentivesfor efficiency-related emission reductions(which can make coal a viable gasificationfeedstock within the next 10 years).

• Conduct more studies on trace metals toassess the need for emission regulations.

• Support DOE’s Vision 21 program.

Need for Government-Sponsored R&DThe federal role in technology research, develop-ment, and demonstration is predicated on servingsome tangible public good that would not other-wise be served without federal involvement. Thegovernment role is needed in particular to supportlong lead time, higher risk R&D that the industryitself has identified as a requirement, but is unableto solely undertake with any comprehensive effortbecause of high risks (technical, market, regulatory,cost) and lack of sufficient resources to go it alone.As has been identified in this report, there are manycases in which there is no immediate market driveror monetary incentive to spur the development ofan environmentally superior technology, eitherdomestically or internationally. It is almost certain,however, that future regulations governing coal use

will follow the historical perspective of requiringeven more stringent emission limits.

Government investment in gasification technolo-gies is needed to sustain economic growth byensuring the availability of a technology with thecapability of producing affordable electricity andother valuable products while, at the same time,responding to even more challenging regional andglobal environmental concerns. Governmentinvestment is needed to cost-effectively meetenvironmental regulations and address energysecurity and issues related to developing an electricpower and industrial portfolio that provides forfeedstock and product diversity.

Needs• Continue government investment in gasifica-

tion technologies to ensure clean, affordable,reliable, and secure energy for our nation’sfuture, which is requisite to economicgrowth and societal well being.

52


53


SummaryThe findings of this report are to be used to de-velop a more comprehensive technology roadmapfor the DOE’s Gasification Technologies Programand to support future budget requests. In addition,key findings are to be incorporated into the overallDOE portfolio planning and budgeting process.

Two new efforts have already been initiated inresponse to the gasification industry interviews.First, because many ideas expressed by participantsinvolve fundamental research applicable to thegasification industry as a whole, the DOE isexploring the possibility of establishing a universityconsortium for gasification technology R&D.Similar to the university consortium that supportsthe Advanced Turbine Systems program, theGasification Technologies Research Consortiumfeatures an industry management council thatdefines R&D areas for universities to investigateand makes recommendations on project selectionand continuation. As technologies are developedand become of interest for specific applications, theDOE entertains specific industry-led projects via aseparate competitive procurement mechanism tofurther develop and demonstrate the technology fora particular application of interest.

Second, because gasifier reliability is identified asthe key factor limiting commercialization, theDOE has issued a solicitation to focus on ap-proaches and technologies that will enhance theperformance and reliability of gasifiers to meet theindustry’s needs.

54


Appendix A

Meeting Confirmation Letter

A-1

Appendix B

Interview Meeting Agenda

B-1

Appendix C

Gasification TechnologiesProgram Presentation

C-1

1

Program Overview

Gary J. Stiegel

Product Manager

National Energy Technology Laboratory

Meeting with “Company Name”

“Date”

Gasification Technologies Program

Gasification

Purpose of Meeting

• Expected Product of This Meeting− A DOE/”Company Name” joint contribution to be

incorporated with similar contributions from other companies and agencies

− Improved insight into the planning and direction of the Gasification Technologies Product program to provide stakeholder based guidance

• What is Expected from “Company Name”?− Your vision of opportunities for gasification− Your view of the current and anticipated research needs in

the technology areas− Your assessment of constraints and limitations− Your evaluation of our program direction

2

Gasification

Gasification Technologies ProgramMission and Vision

• Mission− Foster the commercialization of gasification-based

processes that convert low-cost carbonaceous feedstocks to some combination of electricity, steam, fuels, chemicals, and hydrogen

• Vision− Compared to competing technologies, gasification-based

systems are technology-of-choice• More economical• Higher thermal efficiency• Superior environmental performance • Fuel and product flexible

Gasification

Drivers For Gasification

• Environmental−near-zero sulfur/nitrogen oxides, particulate matter−Eliminate hazardous waste

• Ease of CO2 separation

• Product slate and feed flexibility−syngas route to electricity, clean transportation

fuels, chemicals, hydrogen, substitute natural gas−coal, biomass, petcoke, etc. as feedstock

• Efficiency−high power generation efficiency using combined

cycles or fuel cells

3

Gasification

Technology Performance Goals

• Cost and Efficiency Targets

Year Capital Costs Efficiency($/kW) (%HHV )

2000 1250 42

2008 1000 522015 850 >60

• Environmental Performance Targets− Near-zero pollutants− For combustion applications --- ppm levels− For fuel cells and fuel or chemical conversion

technologies --- ppb levels

• Feedstock and Product Flexibility Capabilities

Gasification

Gasification Technologies ProgramClean, Affordable Energy Systems

FeedstocksFlexibility

AirSeparation

Products/ByproductsUtilization

GasSeparation

Fuels/Chemicals

Fuel Cell

Co Production

High Efficiency Turbine

Electricity

LiquidsConversion

ProcessHeat/Steam

Gasification

GasStreamCleanup Power

FuelsCoal, biomass,

pet. coke

Gas Cleaning

OxygenMembrane

4

Gasification

Gasification Technologies R&D Issues

Overall

System:• Instrumentation/

control

• Capital/operating/product costs

• Process integration/optimization

Gasification

Gasification Technologies ProgramGasification Systems

• Southern Company− Electric Power Research

Institute− Foster Wheeler Corporation

− Kellogg, Brown & Root− Siemens Westinghouse Power− Corporation

− Combustion Power Company− Peabody Group

Development and demonstration of modular industrial scale gasification-based processes and components at Power Systems Development Facility (PSDF)

5

Gasification


GE Energy & Environmental Research Corporation

• Southern Illinois University

• California Energy Commission

• Others

Development of advanced gasification process for CO2separation and H2production

University of North Dakota Energy and Environmental Research Center

• KelloggDevelopment of transport gasification technology

Foster Wheeler Development Corporation

• Nexant• REI• ADA Technology

Development of advanced partial gasification module for use in fuel-flexible high-efficiency

plants

• Praxair • Corning

Gasification


- Texaco- Integrated Environmental Technologies

- Virginia Tech− Global Energy

- FluoreScienceDesign, assemble, and test high temperature measurement systems

Temperature Measurements

Modeling

- Fluent- CMU- NETL in-house

CFD modeling of advanced gasifiers

Albany Research Center

Development of new refractory materials

Materials Development

6

Gasification

EnerTech Environmental

E-fuel from EnerTech's Slurry CarbTM process for future co-utilization with coal

Gasification Technologies ProgramFeedstocks Flexibility

GE Energy & Environmental Research Corporation

• Southern Illinois University• California Energy

Commission• Others

Development of advanced gasification process for CO2separation and H2 production

Foster Wheeler• Tekes

Develop and test alternative feedstock feeders into pressurized gasifiers

UNDEERC

• Gasification Engineering Corporation

Develop alternative fuel feedsystems for future coal gasification-based power plants

Gasification

Gasification Technologies ProgramGas Separation - O2

Air Products

- Cerametec - Texaco - McDermott- Eltron Research- Penn State University- University of Pennsylvania- Northern Research & EngineeringCorporation

Develop cost effective ion transport membrane for oxygen separation (ITM)

Praxair

Develop cost effective oxygenseparation membranes (OTM)

7

Gasification

Gasification Technologies ProgramGas Separation - H2

NETL In-house

Eltron Research- Chevron Chemical - Coors Ceramics - Sud Chemie - ANL - ORNL- McDermott International/B&W

ITN Energy Systems- INEL - Nexant- ANL - Praxair, Inc.

ANLHigh-temperature ceramic membrane to separate hydrogen from gas streams

Bechtel

- Simteche - LANL - GRS Associates - IPSI

Low-temperature approach to H2

and CO2 separation

Gasification

Gasification Technologies ProgramGas Cleaning

NETL In-house

Develop sulfur sorbents suitable for transport/fluid bed applications

Develop gas cleaning technology at Gas Process Development Unit (GPDU)

Development and demonstration of gasification-related cleanup technologies at the Fuels Processing Research Facility (FPRF)

Develop models for transport desulfurizers to minimize cost and risk in technology

H2S Direct Oxidation -- single step process for conversion of H2S to elemental sulfur

Global Energy

Test hot gas filter elements at the Wabash River IGCC Plant

ORNL

Analyze and assessmetallic hot gas filters

8

Gasification

Gasification Technologies ProgramUltra Gas Cleaning

Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation

• Gas Technology Institute

Develop a two-stage process to reduce H2S, HCl, and particulates to ppb levels

Research Triangle Institute• SRI International• Membrane Dupont Air Liquide

• Prototech Company• North Carolina State

University

Develop processes to reduce H2S and CO2(using membranes),NH3 (sorbents), and HCl (sodium bicarbonate) to ppb levels

Gasification

Gasification Technologies ProgramProducts and By-Products Utilization

Research Triangle Institute

Develop bench-scale demonstration of direct sulfur reduction processDevelop advanced sulfur control concepts for hot gas desulfurization technology (one step process for elemental sulfur)

Praxis Engineering, Inc.- Fuller Company - Silbrico, Inc.- Harvey Concrete Products - EPRI

Develop methodology to produce lightweight aggregate from coal gasification slag

9

Gasification

Gasification Technologies ProgramCo-Production

Waste Management and Processors, Inc.

• Bechtel National • Sasol Technology Ltd.

• Texaco Global Gas & Power

Premium transportation fuelsand electricity from coal residue

Texaco Natural Gas, Inc.

• Brown & Root Services • GE Power Systems

• Praxair, Inc. • Texaco Development Corp.

Power (Texaco gasification) and fuels (Fischer-Tropsch technology)from coal and petroleum coke

Global Energy

• Air Products & Chemicals • Dow Chemical

• Dow Corning • Methanex• Siemens Westinghouse

Power and chemicals (liquid phase methanol) at Wabash site in Indiana

Gasification

Gasification Technologies ProgramSystems Analysis/Technology Integration

Nexant, Inc.

Gasification technologies financial model

Optimization of advanced gasification systems

Process systems analysis

Mitretek Systems

Market potential for gasification applications SFA Pacific

Database of worldwide gasification projects

Critical needs assessment for future gas cleaning technologies

10

Gasification

Argonne National Laboratory

Modeling and life cycle analysis of multiproduct gasification-based power generation systems with CO2 recovery

NETL In-House

Develop computational fluid dynamics models for gasificationand cleanup

Gasification Technologies ProgramSystems Analysis/Technology Integration

Site Support

• E2S (SAIC and EG&G)• CTC (Parsons)

Systems modeling and life cycle analysis of advanced gasification systems

Gasification

Conclusions

• Gasification-based processes expected to be technology-of-choice for future energy plants −Cost competitive −Superior environmental performance−Market adaptability

• The government plays an important role − Implement strategic, time-phased R&D to achieve

technology goals−Partner with government labs, academia, nonprofit

institutions, and private industry to perform R&D−Provide information to public and private sectors for

future decision making that will foster commercialization of gasification technologies

Appendix D

List of General Interview Questions

D-1

July 2002



Present and Future


A U.S. Department of Energy Report

Contacts:

Gary J. StiegelProduct ManagerNational Energy Technology Laboratory626 Cochrans Mill RoadP.O. Box 10940Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0940Ph. (412) [email protected]

John G. WimerMechanical EngineerNational Energy Technology Laboratory3610 Collins Ferry RoadP.O. Box 880Morgantown, WV 26507-0880Ph. (304) [email protected]

Stewart J. ClaytonIGCC Portfolio ManagerOffice of Fossil Energy (FE-22)19901 Germantown RoadGermantown, MD 20874-1290Ph. (301) [email protected]

Visit our web sites at: www.fe.doe.gov andwww.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/gasification

Printed in the United States on recycled paper

DOE/FE-0447

DO

E/FE

-0447G

asification Markets and Technologies —

Present and Future July 2002

gasification tech nologies - national energy … library/research/coal/energy systems... · july...

Documents