Coal Gasification as Alternative Fuel for
Glass Industry
Gasification Primer
Presented By
Donald L. Bonk
Senior Technical Advisor
National Energy Technology Laboratory
U. S. Department of Energy
Owens Corning Corporate
Headquarters
1, Owens Corning Parkway,
Toledo, OH
July 27, 2005
10:00 4:00
Meeting Objective: Develop plans to
obtain glass industry support for
an investigation to determine the
viability of using coal gasification
"synfuel" as an economical
alternative to natural gas for
melting glass.
Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date
Gasification Chemistry
Gasification with Oxygen
C + 1/2 O2
CO
Coal
Combustion with Oxygen
C + O2
CO2
Gasification with Carbon Dioxide
C + CO2
2CO
Oxygen
Gasification with Steam
C + H2O
CO + H2
Gasification with Hydrogen
C + 2H2
CH4
Steam
Water-Gas Shift
CO + H2O
H2 + CO2
Gasifier Gas
Composition
(Vol %)
H2
CO
CO2
H2O
CH4
25 - 30
30 - 60
5 - 15
2 - 30
0-5
H2S
0.2 - 1
COS
0 - 0.1
N2
0.5 - 4
Ar
0.2 - 1
NH3 + HCN 0 -0.3
Ash/Slag/PM
Methanation
CO + 3H2
CH4 + H2O
Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date
History of Gasification
Town Gas
Town gas, a gaseous product manufactured from coal,
supplies lighting and heating for America and Europe.
Town gas is approximately 50% hydrogen, with the rest
comprised of mostly methane and carbon dioxide, with 3%
to 6% carbon monoxide.
First practical use of town gas in modern times was for
street lighting
The first public street lighting with gas took place in Pall
Mall, London on January 28, 1807
Baltimore, Maryland began
the first commercial gas
lighting of residences,
streets, and businesses in
1816
Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date
History of Gasification
Used during World War II to convert coal into
transportation fuels (Fischer Tropsch)
Used extensively in the last 50+ years to convert coal
and heavy oil into hydrogen for the production of
ammonia/urea fertilizer
Chemical industry (1960s)
Refinery industry (1980s)
Global power industry (Today)
Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date
Major Gasification Milestone
1842
1887
1910
1940
1950
1960
1970s
1970
1983
1984
1990s
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
2002
Baltimore Electric Town Gas
Lurgi Gasification Patent
Coal Gasification Common in U.S. / Europe for Town Gas
Gasification of Nature Gas for Hydrogen in the Chemical Industry
(Ammonia)
Gasification of Coal for Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) Liquids (Sasol-Sasolburg)
Coal Tested as Fuel for Gas Turbines (Direct Firing)
IGCC Studies by U.S. DOE
Gasification of Oil for Hydrogen in the Refining Industry
Gasification of Coal to Chemicals Plant (Eastman Chemical)
First Coal IGCC Demonstration (Coolwater Plant)
First Non-Recourse Project Financed Oil IGCC Projects (Italy)
First Natural Gas Gasification F-T Project (Shell Bintulu)
NUON/Demkolecs 253 MWe Buggenum Plant Begins Operation
PSI Walbash, Indiana Coal IGCC Begins Operation (DOE CCT IV)
Tampa Electric Polk Coal IGCC Begins Operation (DOE CCT III)
First Oil Hydrogen/IGCC Plant Begin Operations (Shell Pernis)
ELCOGAS 298 MWe Puertollano Plant
IGCC is now an Accepted Refinery and Coal Plant Option
Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date
Characteristics of a Gasification Process
FEEDS
Alternatives:
Asphalt
Coal
Heavy Oil
Petroleum Coke
Orimulsion
Natural Gas
Wastes
Clean Fuels
GASIFICATION
GAS CLEANUP
END PRODUCTS
Combined Cycle
Power Block
Oxygen
Electricity
Steam
Gas & Steam
Sulfur Turbines
Removal
Gasifier
Syngas
Marketable
Byproducts:
Byproducts:
Alternatives:
Hydrogen
Ammonia
Chemicals
Methanol
Sulfur
Solids (ash)
Source: ChevronTexaco
Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date
Gasifier Configurations
Moving Bed
Fluidized Bed
Entrained Flow
Transport
Gasifier
Top
Product
Gas,
Ash
Transport
Gasifier
Coal, Char
Recycle, Gas
Coal,
Sorbent or
Inert
Recycle Drive
Gas
Steam,
Oxygen
or Air
Gasifier
Bottom
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date
Gasifier Types
Flow Regime
Moving (or "Fixed") Bed
Fluidized Bed
Entrained Flow
Combustion
Analogy
grate fired combustors
fluidized bed combustors
pulverized coal combustors
Fuel Type
solids only
solids only
solids or liquids
Fuel Size
5 - 50 mm
0.5 - 5 mm
< 500 microns
Residence Time
15 - 30 minutes
5 - 50 seconds
1 - 10 seconds
Oxidant
air- or oxygen-blown
air- or oxygen-blown
almost always oxygen-blown
Gas Outlet Temp.
400 - 500 C
700 900 C
900 1400 C
Ash Handling
slagging and non-slagging
non-slagging
always slagging
Commercial
Examples
Lurgi dry-ash (non-slagging),
BGL (slagging)
GTI U-Gas, HT Winkler,
KRW
GE Energy, Shell, Prenflo,
ConocoPhillips, Noell
"moving" beds are
mechanically stirred, fixed
beds are not
bed temperature below ash
fusion point to prevent
agglomeration
not preferred for high-ash
fuels due to energy penalty
of ash-melting
gas and solid flows are
always countercurrent in
moving bed gasifiers
preferred for high-ash
feedstocks and waste fuels
unsuitable for fuels that are
hard to atomize or pulverize
Comments
Note: The "transport" gasifier flow regime is between fluidized and entrained and can be air- or oxygen-blown.
Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date
Gasifier Characteristic Comparison
Moving Bed
Fluidized Bed
Entrained
Flow
Transport Flow
Ash Cond.
Dry
Slagging
Dry
Agglomer
ate
Slagging
Dry
Coal Feed
~2in
~2in
~1/4 in
~1/4 in
~ 100
Mesh
~1/16in
Fines
Limited
Better
than dry
ash
Good
Better
Unlimited
Better
Rank
Low
High
Low
Any
Any
Any
Gas Temp.
(F)
800-1,200
800-1,200
1,7001,900
1,7001,900
>2,300
1,500-1,900
Oxidant Req.
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Steam Req.
High
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Issues
Fines and
Hydrocarbon liquids
Raw gas
cooling
Control carbon
inventory and
carryover
Carbon Conversion
Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date
Gasifiers
Oxygen Blown
Entrained Flow
Texaco
E-GAS
Shell
Prenflo
Noell
Fluidized Bed
HT Winkler
Foster Wheeler
Moving Bed
British Gas Lurgi
Sasol
Lurgi
Transport Reactor
Kellogg
Air Blown
Fluidized Bed
HT Winkler
IGT Ugas
KRW
Foster Wheeler
Spouting Bed
British Coal
Foster Wheeler
Entrained Flow
Mitsubishi
Transport Reactor
Kellogg
Hybrid
Foster Wheeler
British Coal
ENERCON
FERCO/Silva
Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date
Gasification-Based Energy Production
System Concepts
Sulfur
By-Product
Fly Ash
By-Product
Slag
By-Product
Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date
Gasification-Based Industrial Concept
Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date
Moving Bed Gasifier Lurgi, BGC
Counter current flow of
reactants, products: gases and
solids
Separate zones for coal
processing
Products: top gases, hcs, tars;
bottom dry ash or slag
Issues: uniform flow of solids
and gases
Design: bottom temperature
determines H2O/O2
Effects of dry or slagging
bottom
High cold gas efficiency, low O2
Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date
Mixed Bed Gasifier Winkler, KRW, IGT
Fluidized bed, mixed flow of
reactants, products
Mixed zones of heating, drying,
devolatilization, gasification,
combustion; dependent on feed
location
Process conditions: temperature
limited by ash fusion; high
temperatures promote gasification,
limit desulfurization; flow velocity
determined by fluidization
requirements
Products: top gases, no hcs tars,
potentially desulfurized, particulates
(C, ash); bottom, ash perhaps
agglomerated
Issues: reactant feed means,
locations; ash removal means
Design: bed volume, by gasification
requirements; cross section, velocity
Moderate cold gas efficiency; O2 H2O
requirements; broad range of coals
Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date
Co Current Gasifier Krupp Koppers,
Texaco, Shell
Entrained flow of coal in O2 + H2O,
reactants
Widely dispersed particles heated by
radiation, gas mixing
Process conditions: high temperature
for ash fusion, rapid gasification
Products: CO, H2 (no CH4, hcs, oils
tars); ash slag
Issues: uniform feed of pulverized coal,
slurry, dry; separation of gases and ash;
heat recovery from high temperature
product fuel gases
Design: required volume is the time
weighted average of reactant and
product gas volumes/wt coal * the coal
flow rate * the coal conversion time
Low cold gas efficiency, high O2 demand
Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date
Entrained Staged Gasifier Kellogg Rust
Product
Gas,
Ash
Coal,
Sorbent or
Inert
Recycle Drive
Gas
Steam,
Oxygen
or Air
Coal flow into recirculating particulates,
devolatilization; char, particulates introduced
to fluid bed, combustion, gasification
Process conditions: nearly uniform
temperature limited by ash agglomeration
Products: CO, H2, devol products, ash fines
Issues: coal particle size, flow conditions for
rapid devol; recycle for char combustion,
gasification; recirculation particulates
Design: riser entrains particulates, coal;
devolatilizes, cracks oils, tars; delivers char
for gasification, combustion. Stand pipe,
particulates from cyclones, delivers to fluid
bed. Fluid bed combustion, gasification of
char; product gases, particles enter riser
Moderate efficiency, O2 demand, control of
devolatilization
Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date
Independence does not
come cheap for
the
small utility
Based on NETL Studies
Repowered Total Plant Cost vs. Original Size of Steam Plant
Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date
Cedar Lane Farms FGR-FBC
A Study
of
Small Project
Success & Cost
Cedar Lane Coal-Fired Flue Gas
Recirculating Fluidized Bed Boiler
Cedar Lane
Farms
Unit achieved ~7 months of
Wooster, Ohio
9,000,000 Btu FGC- FBB Demonstration
continuous computer
control operation
96.9% availability over the
193 day heating season
$200,000+ Saved over
Natural Gas this season (2
of 5 Acres)
20% reduction in coal usage
compared to old undergrate stokers
2 types of computer
controlled operation
demonstrated; demand and
slumping
Only 2 man-hours of labor
required daily
Unit up to 40,000,000 Btu
Input Available
Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date
Economic Advantage Estimated Annual Fuel Cost
Savings with Coal-Fired AFBC at Cedar Lane Farms
Based upon a 10 million Btu high sulfur coal fired AFBC for hot water application.
Heating season set AT 250 days per year at 100% capacity.
Type Unit
AFBC
Natural Gas
Natural Gas
Natural Gas
Capital Cost
$698,600
$101,400
$101,400
$101,400
Fuel Cost
$30/ton
$6/106 Btu
$7/106 Btu
$12/106 Btu
Annual Capital
Charge and
Operating
Costs
$276,400
$470,800
$530,800
$830,800
Annual Savings
with AFBC
$246,100
$306,100
$606,100
06-FBC015-21
Descriptor - include
Cedarinitials,
Lane Farms
/org#/date
FBC
FGR-FBC Features
Energy Type Possible:
Hot Water
Steam Generation
Power Generation/ Co-Gen
Low Stack Emissions
Low Limestone Consumption
High Efficiency
No In-Bed Heat Transfer Tubes
Flue Gas Recirculation
Automatic PLC Control
Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date
2005 Ex Works Budget Costs* for Hopper-to-Stack
Equipment Similar to Cedar Lane Farms ABFB
Equipment
10 MM BTU/hr [Coal Input]
$750,000.
20 MM Btu/hr [Coal Input]
$1,300,000.
30 MM BTU/hr [Coal Input]
$1,800,000.
NOT Included in Above:
Financing & Permitting
Foundations & Building(s)
Freight to Site
Installation; Mechanical & Electrical
Compliance Stack Testing
*Generic cost not project estimate
Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date
Fuel and Ash Storage Considerations based upon
Cedar Lane Farms Experience
Where To Start - Good Engineering and Creditable
Vendors
Fuel, Limestone, and Ash Economics
Economic Loads = 26 tons Coal or Limestone
Therefore Storage Needs =
Coal at 55 tons
Limestone at 36 tons
Alternate Fuel at 55 tons (Tire Chips or Waste)
Ash at 55 tons
Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date
Storage Types
Storage Horizontal or Vertical with
Preparation Equipment
List below arranged from highest labor cost
to lowest
Agriculture Horizontal (BFG) = $100,000
Agriculture Vertical (ML)
= $287,000
Industrial Vertical (F&P)
= $689,000
Utility Vertical (R&S)
= $910,000
Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date
Cedar Lane Farms Actual Computer Graphic
Of FBC Operation
Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date
FGR-FBC Easily Met OEPA Requirements
Testing March 25, 2004
Ohio require sulfur release below 1.3 lbs/MMBtu and
under 20% opacity on this size unit if equipped with
baghouse
Local coal was an Ohio #6 having 12,877 Btu/lbs, 6.57%
moisture and 3.46% sulfur on an as received basis
Local sorbent was a Bucyrus #18 dolomite having 80%
calcium
Control was completely automatic for three tests at an
average 8.96 MM Btu/hr
Average sorbent feed was 0.12 lbs/lbs of coal, approximately
a Ca/S ratio = 1
Average sulfur capture approximately 88% or a release of 0.65
lbs/MMBtu
Opacity = Zero
Average oxygen % dry = 3.122
Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date
NETLs Compact Industrial Hybrid
Gasifier Concept
Based Upon Cedar Lane
Experience and the Hybrid
Gasification/Combustion
Studies
Combustion/Gasification Fluidized Bed
Combustion Combined Cycle (CGFBCC)
char
pressurized
circulating
fluidized-bed
partial gasifier
Syngas
cooler
atmospheric
circulating
fluid bed
combustor
limestone
coal
fluid bed heat exchanger
SNCR
coal
syngas
urea
steam
air
generator
syngas airfeed compressor
steam turbine
Metallic
filters
topping
combustor
baghouse
ID fan
air
generator
air
compressor
exhaust
stack
gas
turbine
gas turbine
gas turbine exhaust
used CFB combustion air
Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date
NETLs Compact Industrial Hybrid Gasifier
Concept
Addresses Issues of Carbon Utilization Typical of Fluidized Bed Gasifiers
Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date
Typical Gasifier Syngas Compositions
Wabash
River
Texaco
KoppersTotzek
Shell
(Lurgi)
Winkler
Possible NETL
Compact Gasifier
Composition
Nitrogen
5.0%
5.8%
1.4%
5.1%
3.0%
Hydrogen
26.0%
27.0%
32.8%
29.7%
49.5%
32.5%
Carbon monoxide
45.0%
35.6%
58.7%
60.0%
25.0%
16.7%
Carbon dioxide
14.0%
12.6%
7.1%
2.3%
18.0%
11.1%
Water
6.7%
18.6%
Methane
2.0%
0.1%
3.0%
**37.4%
H2S
1.3%
0.8%
1.5%
2.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99.7%
Ammonia
Total
2.1%
0.1%
100.0%
99.8%
100.0%
** Methane, Ethane, Ethylene
Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date
