Gasification - Versatile Solutions

Gasification - Versatile Solutions

Overview

of

Gasification

Technologies

Global Climate and

Energy Project

Advanced Coal Workshop

March 15, 2005

Gary J. Stiegel, Technology Manager - Gasification

What is Gasification?

Coal

Water

Oxygen

_{Extreme Conditions:}

ƒ

1,000 psig or more

ƒ

2,600 Deg F

ƒ

Corrosive slag and H

2

S gas

Products (syngas)

CO (Carbon Monoxide)

H

2

(Hydrogen)

[CO/H2

ratio can be adjusted

]

By-products

H

2

S (Hydrogen Sulfide)

CO

2

(Carbon Dioxide)

Slag (Minerals from Coal)

Gas

Clean-Up

Before

Product

So what can you do with CO and H

2

?

Syngas

Transportation Fuels

(Hydrogen)

Building Blocks for

Chemical Industry

Clean

Electricity

Comparison of Environmental Factors

Pulverized Coal-Fired, NGCC, and IGCC Plants

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

SO2

(lb/MWh)

NOx

(lb/MWh)

PM10

(lb/MWh)

CO2

(lb/1000 MWh)

Total Solids

(lb/100 MWh)

Water Usage

(gal/1000 MWh)

= PC-Fired Plant with FGD & SCR

= NGCC Plant

•

Drivers: Support DOE’s overarching policy issues

and Presidential Initiatives

−

Clear Skies, Clean Coal Power, Climate Change,

FutureGen, and Hydrogen Initiatives

•

Objective: Develop advanced gasification-based

technologies for affordable, efficient, zero emission

power generation

•

Performance Goals:

Mission

Capital Costs

Efficiency

Environment

Year

($/kWe)

(%HHV)

Today

1200 - 1300

40 - 42

NSPS

2010

900 - 1000

45 - 50

<1/10 NSPS

2020

850

50 - 60

Near-zero

Capital Costs

Efficiency

Environment

Year

($/kWe)

(%HHV)

Today

1200 - 1300

40 - 42

NSPS

2010

900 - 1000

45 - 50

<1/10 NSPS

Oxygen Membrane

Gasification

Fuel Gas

Gas Cleaning

Durability of the Membrane

Integration with Overall Process

Oxygen

Coal

CO

₂

Hydrogen

Cost-Effective

Multi-Contaminant Control to

Ultra-Clean Specifications

Moderate Temperature

Hg Removal at Elevated

Temperatures

Integrated Specifications

with Downstream Process

Requirements

Integration with NOx

Reduction Processes

Injector Reliability

Single Train Availability

Durability of Refractory Material

Durability and Accuracy of

Monitoring Devices

Alternative Feedstocks

Feed System Reliability

Heat Removal

Temperature Measurement & Control

Water-Gas Shift

H

₂

– CO

₂

Gas Separation

Durability of the Membrane

Low Flux

Contaminant Sensitivity

Heat Removal

Low-rank Coal

Gasification Systems

Southern Company

•

EPRI

•

Kellogg, Brown & Root

•

Siemens Westinghouse Power

•

Southern Research (SRI)

•

Rolls Royce – Allison Engine

•

Lignite Energy Council

•

Peabody Coal

•

BNSF Railrway

Development and demonstration of

modular industrial scale

gasification-based processes and components at

Power Systems Development Facility

(PSDF)

Gasification Systems

-

GE Energy

-

Integrated Environmental

Technologies

- Virginia Tech

−

Global Energy

- FluoreScience

- Entertechnix (previously

Combustion Specialists)

Design, assemble, and test high

temperature measurement systems

Instrumentation Development

Temperature Measurements

Modeling

- Fluent

- NETL in-house

CFD modeling of

advanced gasifiers

Albany Research Center

-

Development of new

refractory materials

SRI

-

Diffusion coatings

Materials Development

Injector Flame Measurements

- GTI

Gasification Systems

Rocketdyne

Develop and test

technology for a novel plug

flow gasifier with:

-Rapid mix injectors

-Actively cooled wall liner

-Dry feed system

PSDF &

UND EERC TRDU

Development and testing of

transport gasification reactor

-Air-blown and O

₂

-blown

-Bituminous and low-rank

coals

Alstom

Develop hybrid

combustion-gasification using high temp

chemical and thermal looping

- Solids transfer media

- Multiple reactors for oxidation,

reduction , carbonation, and

calcination of calcium

compounds

Alstom

Develop hybrid

combustion-gasification using high temp

chemical and thermal looping

- Solids transfer media

- Multiple reactors for oxidation,

reduction , carbonation, and

calcination of calcium

compounds

GE Global Research.

•

California Energy

Commission

Development of advanced

gasification process for

CO

₂

separation and H

₂

production

Some Visions for Gasifier Options

Ready for

FutureGen FY10

All Applications

Not economically

Attractive

Low Carbon Burnout

Commercial

Power/Chem/H

₂

Low Efficiency

Bituminous

Coal/Petcoke

Ready for

FutureGen FY10

All Applications

Economically

Attractive

Under Development

for Power (air-blown)

Not Economically

Attractive (poor eff.,

high CAPEX)

Low-Rank

Coal/Lignite

Compact

Gasifier

(Dry-feed with

rapid-mix

injectors)

Low Temp. Fluid

Bed Gasifiers

High Temp.

Entrained Flow

Gasifiers

Rocketdyne’s H

₂

Production Performance

Compact Gasifier with Various Coals vs. Entrained Gasifier

1.50

1.50

0.75

1.50

1.50

Cost of Fuel ($/mmBtu)

2.54

2.50

2.25

2.44

3.03

Required

Sales Price ($/MSCF)

89.6%

92.0%

92.3%

90.7%

93.3%

Carbon

Capture

70.3%

71.1%

71.0%

73.5%

66.5%

Overall

Efficiency (HHV)

Sequestration Ready CO

₂

2.26

2.21

1.97

2.18

2.73

Required

Sales Price ($MSCF)

72.8%

73.5%

73.3%

75.7%

68.8%

Overall

Efficiency (HHV)

CO

₂

Vented

Lignite

PRB

Petcoke

Bituminous

Coal

Bituminous

Coal

Compact Gasifier

Entrained

Gasifier

Ultra Gas Cleaning

Siemens Westinghouse Power

Corporation

•

Gas Technology Institute

Develop a two-stage process to reduce

H

₂

S, HCl, and particulates to ppb levels

Siemens Westinghouse Power

Corporation

•

Gas Technology Institute

Develop a two-stage process to reduce

H

₂

S, HCl, and particulates to ppb levels

RTI International

•

SRI International

•

MEDAL

•

Sud Chemie, Inc.

•

University of Texas at Austin

•

Eastman Chemical

•

KBR

Develop processes to reduce

H

₂

S and CO

₂

(using membranes),

NH

₃

(sorbents), and HCl (sodium

bicarbonate) to ppb levels

Pilot testing with Eastman

Chemical gasifier slipstream

at Kingsport

RTI International

•

SRI International

•

MEDAL

•

Sud Chemie, Inc.

•

University of Texas at Austin

•

Eastman Chemical

•

KBR

Develop processes to reduce

H

₂

S and CO

₂

(using membranes),

NH

₃

(sorbents), and HCl (sodium

bicarbonate) to ppb levels

Pilot testing with Eastman

Chemical gasifier slipstream

at Kingsport

NETL In-House Research

•

NETL with CrystaTech

•

Selective Catalytic Oxidation of H

₂

S

(SCOHS

)

TDA Research

•

DirectSulf

Single-step process for converting

H

₂

S to elemental sulfur

NETL In-House Research

•

NETL with CrystaTech

•

Selective Catalytic Oxidation of H

₂

S

(SCOHS

)

TDA Research

•

DirectSulf

Single-step process for converting

H

₂

S to elemental sulfur

Economic Advantage of Warm Gas Cleaning

Cold Gas

Warm Gas

Cool Gas

Type

Capital Cost

(in $millions)

+ 10.5%

- 7.9%

0 %

Delta Cost (as % of Base)

+ 39.6

- 30.0

0

Delta Cost ($ millions)

164.8

138.6

150.8

Power Generation / HRSG

27.6

7.4

32.3

S Recovery + Tail Gas Treat

49.7

38.7

19.3

NH

₃

+ AG Removal

12.3

0

12.3

Low Temp Gas Cooling

Rectisol

RTI HTDS

w/DSRP

Base Case

Field Test Objective:

First integrated evaluation of warm-gas

contaminant cleanup technologies with

coal-derived gas

Results:

Maintained H

₂

S and COS reduction level

below 2 ppmv detection limit with gasifier

produced syngas for 90 minutes test

Future Test Plans:

FY05 2000 hr test at Eastman Chemical of

HTDS with sorbents and DSRP

FY06 Multi-component removal of

NH

₃

, Hg, S

using membranes and sorbents

Future Test Plans:

FY05 2000 hr test at Eastman Chemical of

HTDS with sorbents and DSRP

FY06 Multi-component removal of

NH

₃

, Hg, S

using membranes and sorbents

Ultra-Clean Warm Gas Cleanup Progress at RTI

Lab Results:

Demonstrated regenerable NH

₃

sorbent to reduce 500 ppmv to

less than 40 ppmv

Identified in reverse-selective

membranes with H

₂

S/H

₂

selectivities of 40 and two

candidates for Hg

removal at 400 to 570

o

_F

Lab Results:

Demonstrated regenerable NH

₃

sorbent to reduce 500 ppmv to

less than 40 ppmv

Identified in reverse-selective

membranes with H

₂

S/H

₂

selectivities of 40 and two

candidates for Hg

Why Oxygen Separation Membrane

Technology is Important

•

In an IGCC plant, the air separation unit

−

Accounts for ~15% of the plant capital cost

−

Consumes ~ 10% of the gross power output

•

Reducing capital cost and increasing efficiency of ASU

−

Improve economic viability of IGCC,

−

Stimulate commercial deployment.

•

Systems studies of membrane technologies have

shown significant potential

−

Increased net MWe

−

IGCC plant efficiency

−

Major decreased cost of oxygen production,

−

Overall decrease in Cost of Electricity (COE)

Membrane Air Separation Advantages

Air Products

- 7

1,094

1,020

IGCC Specific Cost ($/kW)

---448,000

447,000

Total IGCC Cost ($,000)

- 35

20,132

13,000

Oxygen Plant Cost ($/sTPD)

+5

3,040

3,200

Oxygen Plant Size (sTPD)

- 37

235

147

Oxygen Power Req’t (kWh/ton)

+2

40.9

39.5

41.8

40.4

Net IGCC Efficiency (% LHV)

(% HHV)

+7

409

438

IGCC Net Power (MWe)

∆

%

Cryo

ASU

ITM

Oxygen

IGCC plant cost reduced 7%, plant efficiency increase 2%

with >35% cost and energy savings in oxygen production

APCI Air Separation ITM Modules

•

Test membrane

modules

−

FY06 – 5 TPD

−

FY08 – 25 TPD

•

Offer commercial air

separation modules

−

Post- FY09 demos

of IGCC and

FutureGen

Step 1:

Submodule

Construction

Step 2:

Module

Construction

12-wafer

submodule

Tonnage-Quantity

Module

Gas Separations - H

₂

& CO

₂

NETL OSTA In-House Research

Pd and Pd/Cu alloy membranes, characterization,

and standard test capabilities

ANL

High-temperature ceramic

membrane separating H

₂

from

syngas and water splitting

Eltron Research

- Coors Tek

-

Sud Chemie, Inc.

- ANL

-

NORAM Engineering & Construction Co.

-

WahChang

ORNL

Microporous inorganic membranes

development and fabrication

Nexant

- Simteche

- LANL

Low-temperature approach to H

2

and CO

2

separation via hydrates

RTI

Alternate membrane materials,

polymeric reverse

selective membranes

NETL OSTA

In-House Research

Fluorinated

Hydrocarbon

Membranes

NETL OSTA

In-House Research

Fluorinated

Hydrocarbon

Membranes

Summary of Hydrogen from Coal Cases

5.89 / 0.79

425

25

75.5

3000

158

Yes (100%)

Membrane

Advanced

Case 2

Advanced

Conventional

Gasifier*

Membrane

PSA

Separation System

Yes (100%)

Yes (87%)

Carbon Sequestration

3.98 / 0.54

8.18 / 1.10

RSP of Hydrogen ($/MMBtu) / ($/kg)

950

417

Capital ($MM)

417

26.9

Excess Power (MW)

59

59

Efficiency (%) (HHV basis)

6000

3000

Coal (TPD) as received

153

119

Hydrogen Production (MMSCFD)

Case 3

Case 1

*

Conventional gasification technology assumes quench gasification (GE technology; formerly Texaco); advanced gasification

technology assumes advanced E-Gas gasification

.

Source: Hydrogen from Coal, Mitretek Technical Paper MTR 2002-31. July 2002.

•

Membrane RD&D is estimated to reduce the cost of hydrogen from coal by

25%.

•

Co-production of hydrogen and electricity can further reduce the cost of

ELTRON H

₂

Separation Membrane

Characteristics

<50

320 to 500

Thin Film Palladium on Porous

Support

≈

0.01

700 to 950

Single Phase Ceramic

>400

320 to 440

Intermediate-Temperature

Composite

≈

4

550 to 950

High-Temperature Cermet with

H

₂

-Permeable Metal (Pd)

≈

1

700 to 950

High-Temperature Cermet

With Non H

₂

-Permeable Metal (Ni)

≈

0.1

700 to 950

Ceramic/Ceramic

Maximum

Permeation Rate

(mL·min

-1

_·cm

-2

₎

Temperature

Range (°C)

Membrane

Category

Oak Ridge Inorganic Membrane Technology

Offers Great Potential for Hydrogen Separation

•

Most advanced nanoporous inorganic membrane

technology in the world with excellent mechanical,

thermal, and chemical stability

•

Seventeen membrane products have been determined

to be unclassified

•

Technical goal: separate from synthesis gas 95% of

the hydrogen at 99+% purity in a single stage

•

Economic goal is <<$100/ft

2

_{fabrication cost for}

nanoporous inorganic membranes

•

High membrane permeance and low cost per foot will

result in economically superior hydrogen separation

systems

RTI/Medal CO

₂

Membranes

•

CO

₂

+ H

₂

S removal from syngas stream

•

Polymeric membranes

•

Reverse selective, enriching CO

₂

in permeate

•

Primary useful components of syngas (H

₂

and

CO) are maintained at high pressure

•

Avoids the high cost of providing the

significant heat for regeneration of sorbents in

competing technologies (such as Selexol)

•

Expected results:

−

Removal of 50% of CO

₂

with only 10% loss of H

₂

CO

₂

Hydrate - Process Advantages

•

Recovery of CO

₂

& H

₂

at High Pressure

•

Relatively Simple Process Flow Scheme

−

No Large Mass-Transfer Columns

−

CO

₂

Recovery is Simple Heat Input

−

No Organic Solvents Needed

•

Projected Low Capital Cost

•

Projected Low Energy/Operating Cost

•

Main Competitors – Selexol, Amine Processes

•

Engineering Analysis

−

Projected cost & capture targets compared to commercial

process @ $15/ton CO

₂

avoided

−

$8 per ton of CO

₂

avoided @ 68% carbon capture

−

$10-11 per ton of CO

₂

avoided @ 90% capture with use of

promoters

Technology Time Sequence for Deployment

Base

85% Capacity Factor

98% Carbon Conversion

Dry Feed

FB

Turbine

WGCU

ITM-O

₂

90% Capacity

Factor

H-Turbine SOFC

Timeline

TARGET

50% Efficiency (HHV)

$1000/kW

TARGET

60% Efficiency (HHV)

$900/kW

2003

2006

2008

2010

2012

2015

2018

2020

Warm Hg Removal

H

₂

Membrane Separator

100% CO

₂

Capture

Base with

CO

₂

Capture

Capital Cost ($/kW) Timeline

14

11(60)

11

10

9

13

8

7

6

5

3

4

12

2

1

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

Ca

pit

al $

/k

W

# = Case

With CO

₂

Capture

Without CO

₂

Capture

Efficiency Timeline

11(60)

14

11

10

1

9

13

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

12

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

Effi

ci

en

cy (%) H

H

V

With CO

₂

Capture

Without CO

₂

Capture

# = Case

COE Timeline

14

11(60)

11

10

8

9

13

7

6

5

3

4

12

2

1

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010 2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

CO

E

$

/MWh

With CO

2

Capture

Without CO

₂

Capture

# = Case

…the Benefits

GASIFICATION

−

Stable, affordable, high-efficiency energy supply with

a minimal environmental impact

−

Feedstock Flexibility/Product Flexibility

−

Flexible applications for new power generation, as well

as for repowering older coal-fired plants

BIG PICTURE

−

Energy Security - -Maintain coal as a significant

component in the US energy mix

−

A Cleaner Environment (…reduced emissions of

pollutants) --

The most economical technology for CO

₂

capture

−

Ultra-clean Liquids from Coal -- Early Source of

Hydrogen

Opportunities for Coal Gasification

•

Environmentally-preferred coal power generation

−

Near-zero levels of SO

₂

, NOx, PM, Hg achievable and

demonstrated

−

Gasification well suited to CO

₂

capture

•

Hydrogen production from coal (FutureGen)

−

Gasification is key element for producing H

₂

–rich syngas

•

Chemical and fertilizer industries

−

2003 trade deficit – loss of jobs, plant closures

−

Replace natural gas with coal and waste gasification

•

Production of synthetic natural gas

Visit the Gasification Technology Website

at

http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/gasification/index.html

Cases Analyzed: No Carbon Capture

Bituminous Coal to Power

Case Description

1

Base (Texaco) 75% Capacity Factor/95% Carbon Conversion

2

Texaco

85% Capacity Factor/95% Carbon Conversion

3

Texaco

85% Capacity Factor/98% Carbon Conversion

4

E-Gas

85% Capacity Factor/98% Carbon Conversion

5

Dry Feed

85% Capacity Factor/98% Carbon Conversion

6

Dry Feed

85% Capacity Factor/98% Carbon Conversion/FB Turbine

7

Dry Feed

85% Capacity Factor/98% Carbon Conversion/FB/SCOHS

8

Dry Feed

85% Capacity Factor/98% Carbon Conversion/FB/SCOHS/ITM

Target Date: 2010

9

Dry Feed

90% Capacity Factor/98% Conversion/FB/SCOHS/ITM

10

Dry Feed

90% Capacity Factor/98% Conversion /H-Turbine/SCOHS/ITM

11

Dry Feed

90% Capacity Factor/98% Conversion /H/SCOHS/ITM/SOFC

11(60) Same as Case 11 with ratio of SOFC to GT/ST adjusted to get

60% efficiency

Target Date: 2020

Cases Analyzed: With

Carbon Capture

Bituminous Coal to Power

Case Description

12 Baseline

Current

Slurry Feed Single Stage Gasification with

75% Capacity Factor / 95% Carbon Conversion

13 Target Date:

2010

Dry Feed 85% Capacity Factor / 98% Carbon Conversion

FB-Gas Turbines, SCOHS Gas Cleaning, ITM Air Separation

14 Target Date:

2020

Dry Feed 90% Capacity Factor / 98% Carbon Conversion

F-Turbine, SCOHS Gas Cleaning, ITM Air Separation, SOFC

Alstom Advanced Chemical Looping Process

CaO to CaCO

₃

Loop

CaO to CaCO

₃

Loop

CaS to CaSO

₄

Loop

CaS to CaSO

₄

Loop

Shift

Reaction

Shift

Reaction

4C+CaSO

₄

=

4CO+CaS

CaS+2O

₂

=

CaSO

₄

CO+H

₂

O=

CO

₂

+H

₂

CaO+CO

₂

=

CaCO

₃

CaCO

₃

=

CaO+CO

₂

H

₂

O

Coal

CaCO

₃

CaSO

4

CaS

CaCO

₃

CaO

H

₂

CO

₂

Air

Ash & spent

_CaSO

4

N

₂

CO

2

+

H

2

Hot Bauxite

Cold Bauxite