Conventional gasification & gas-to-diesel conversion - Agricultural
Transcript of Conventional gasification & gas-to-diesel conversion - Agricultural
119/1/2006
Biomass Gasification
Presented byDr. Richard L. Bain, Principal Research Supervisor, Biorefinery AnalysisBiorefinery Analysis and Exploratory Research GroupNational Bioenergy Center
USDA Thermochemical Conversion WorkshopPacific Northwest National LaboratoryRichland, WASep 6, 2006
9/1/2006 2
Disclaimer and Government License
This work has been authored by Midwest Research Institute (MRI) under Contract No. DE-AC36-99GO10337 with the U.S. Department of Energy (the “DOE”). The United States Government (the “Government”) retains and the publisher, by accepting the work for publication, acknowledges that the Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this work, or allow others to do so, for Government purposes.
Neither MRI, the DOE, the Government, nor any other agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe any privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of the authors and/or presenters expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of MRI, the DOE, the Government, or any agency thereof.
9/1/2006 3
Presentation OutlinePresentation Outline• DefinitionsDefinitions
•• Biomass Properties Biomass Properties
•• Biomass GasifiersBiomass Gasifiers
•• Combined Heat and PowerCombined Heat and Power
•• Transportation FuelsTransportation Fuels
9/1/2006 4
There are a number of reasons for considering gasification based processes
• Gasification can handle a wide range of biomass feedstocks, ranging from woody residues to agricultural residues to dedicated crops without major changes in the basic process. A system can be designed to handle a variety of feeds
• Gasification is applicable across a wide-range of sizes, e.g., farm, village, small industry or town, to large-scale industrial
• The thermal efficiency of gasification based processes can be high
• CHP – up to 90%
• 1st generation fuels processes – up to 60%
• Fuels and chemicals synthesis processes from syngas are already commercial
• Gasification-based CHP can maximize the renewable character of existing and proposed ethanol projects.
9/1/2006 5
ThermalConversion
Combustion Gasification Pyrolysis
(CO + H2)
No AirPartial airExcess air
ThermalConversion
Combustion GasificationPyrolysis &
Hydrothermal
Heat Fuel Gases (CO + H2
Liquids
No AirPartial airExcess air
The primary conversion routes give different types of products
9/1/2006 6
Gasification Cleanup Synthesis
Conversionor Collection Purification
Separation Purification
Pyrolysis
OtherConversion *
Biomass
* Examples: Hydrothermal Processing, Liquefaction, Wet Gasification
• Hydrogen• Alcohols• FT Gasoline• FT Diesel• Olefins• Oxochemicals• Ammonia• SNG
• Hydrogen• Olefins• Oils• Specialty Chem
• Hydrogen• Methane• Oils• Other
Fungible fuels & chemicals are major products. New classesof products (e.g., oxygenated oils) require market development
9/1/2006 7
Pyrolysis is defined as• Thermal conversion (destruction) of organics in the absence of oxygen • In the biomass community, this commonly refers to lower temperature thermal
processes producing liquids as the primary product• Possibility of chemical and food byproducts
Gasification is defined as• Thermal conversion of organic materials at elevated temperature and
reducing conditions to produce primarily permanent gases, with char, water, and condensibles as minor products
• Primary categories are partial oxidation and indirect heating (steam gasification)
Combustion is defined as• Thermal conversion of organic matter with an oxidant (normally oxygen)
to produce primarily carbon dioxide and water• The oxidant is in stoichiometric excess, i.e., complete oxidation
Combustion, pyrolysis, and gasification are the primary types of thermochemical conversion processes
9/1/2006 8
Primary Processes Secondary Processes Tertiary Processes
VaporPhase
LiquidPhase
SolidPhase
Low P
HighP
Low P
HighP
Biomass Charcoal Coke Soot
PrimaryLiquids
PrimaryVapors
Light HCs,Aromatics,
& Oxygenates
Pyrolysis Severity
Condensed Oils(phenols, aromatics)
CO, H2,CO2, H2O
PNA’s, CO, H2, CO2,
H2O, CH4
Olefins, AromaticsCO, H2, CO2, H2O
CO, CO2,H2O
Gasification involves primary, secondary, and tertiary reactions
9/1/2006 9
To understand thermochemical conversion we need to know the physical and thermal properties that influence thermal behavior
9/1/2006 10
Poplar Corn Stover Chicken Litter Black LiquorProximate (wt% as received)
Ash 1.16 4.75 18.65 52.01Volatile Matter 81.99 75.96 58.21 35.26Fixed Carbon 13.05 13.23 11.53 6.11Moisture 4.80 6.06 11.61 9.61
HHV, Dry (Btu/lb) 8382 7782 6310 4971
Ultimate, wt% as received
Carbon 47.05 43.98 32.00 32.12Hydrogen 5.71 5.39 5.48 2.85Nitrogen 0.22 0.62 6.64 0.24Sulfur 0.05 0.10 0.96 4.79Oxygen (by diff) 41.01 39.10 34.45 0.71Chlorine <0.01 0.25 1.14 0.07Ash 1.16 4.75 19.33 51.91
Elemental Ash Analysis, wt% of fuel as received
Si 0.05 1.20 0.82 <0.01 Fe --- --- 0.25 0.05 Al 0.02 0.05 0.14 <0.01 Na 0.02 0.01 0.77 8.65 K 0.04 1.08 2.72 0.82 Ca 0.39 0.29 2.79 0.05 Mg 0.08 0.18 0.87 <0.01 P 0.08 0.18 1.59 <0.01 As (ppm) 14
Representative Biomass & Black Liquor Compositions
The basic properties for the comparison of thermal behaviorare proximate and ultimate analyses
9/1/2006 11
The heating value is important in estimating process efficiency
Biomass Higher Heating Value
Correlation HHV, MJ/kg
10 15 20 25 30
Expe
rimen
tal H
HV,
MJ/
kg
10
15
20
25
30
Regression, r2=0.834, n = 17999% CIAquatic Herbaceous RDF WoodyLigninAnimal Waste
High Ash
Low Ash
HHV = 0.349C + 1.178H + 0.1005S - 0.1034O - 0.015N - 0.211A
Channiwala, S.A. and P.P. Parikh (2002), Fuel, 81, 1051-1063
MAF Higher Heating Valueas a Function of MAF C, H, O
Predicted HHV (MJ/kg)
16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Expe
rimen
tal H
HV
(MJ/
kg)
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
HHV (MJ/kg) = 0.364C + 0.319H - 0.00381Or2 = 0.764, n = 179
9/1/2006 12
Potassium Content of Biomass
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Mixed waste paperFir mill waste
RFD - TacomaRed oak sawdust
Sugar Cane BagasseUrban wood waste
Willow - SV1-3 yrFurniture waste
Willow - SV1-1 yrAlder/fir sawdust
Switchgrass, MNHybrid poplar
Switchgrass, D Leaf, MNDemolition woodForest residuals
Poplar - coarseMiscanthus, Silberfeder
Wood - land clearingAlmond wood
Wood - yard wasteDanish wheat straw
Rice husksSwitchgrass, OH
Oregon wheat strawAlfalfa stems
California wheat strawImperial wheat straw
Rice straw
Potassium Content (lb/MBtu)
Bain, R. L.; Amos, W. P.; Downing, M.; Perlack, R. L. (2003). Biopower Technical Assessment: State of the Industry and the Technology. 277 pp.; NREL Report No. TP-510-33123
Potassium content influences slagging, fouling,and pyrolysis oil properties
9/1/2006 13
Nitrogen Content of Biomass
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Red oak sawdustFir mill waste
Mixed waste paperSugar Cane Bagasse
Urban wood wasteFurniture waste
Miscanthus, SilberfederWillow - SV1-3 yr
Wood - land clearingDanish wheat straw
Alder/fir sawdustOregon wheat straw
California wheat strawDemolition wood
Poplar - coarseImperial wheat straw
Hybrid poplarWillow - SV1-1 yr
Rice husksSwitchgrass, MN
Almond woodSwitchgrass, D Leaf, MN
Switchgrass, OHBana Grass, HI
Forest residualsRFD - Tacoma
Wood - yard wasteRice straw
Alfalfa stems
Nitrogen (lb/MBtu)
Bain, R. L.; Amos, W. P.; Downing, M.; Perlack, R. L. (2003). Biopower Technical Assessment: State of the Industry and the Technology. 277 pp.; NREL Report No. TP-510-33123
Nitrogen is important in determining the needfor NOx emission mitigation strategies
9/1/2006 14
Gasification has a long history of development and useMurdoch (1792) coal distillation
London gas lights 1802
Blau gas – Fontana 1780
1900s Colonial power
MeOH 1913 BASF
Fischer Tropsch 1920s
Vehicle Gazogens WWII
SASOL 1955 - Present
GTL 1995 – Present
Hydrogen – Future?
Circa 1898
9/1/2006 15
4%8%
11%
23%
53%
ammonia
refineries (H2)
methanol
electricity
gas-to-liquids
other
A. van der Drift, R. van Ree, H. Boerrigter and K. Hemmes: Bio-syngas: key intermediate for large scale production of green fuels and chemicals. In: The 2nd World Conference on Biomass for Energy, Industry, and Climate Protection, 10-14 May 2004, Rome, Italy, pp. 2155-2157 (2004).
The world syngas market is approximately 6 EJ/yr
9/1/2006 16
Bio
mas
s
Primary Conversion Tar Removal Syngas Conditioning Biofuel Synthesis
Dry-AshGasifier
Direct
Indirect
SlaggingEntrained-Flow
Gasifier
Or
High-TempThermal
Tar Cracking
FastPyrolysis
SlowPyrolysis
Torrefaction
CatalyticReforming Filter
Quench
SulfurRemoval
Shift
TraceRemoval
Ethanol
Mixed Alcohols
F-T Liquids
Methanol
DME
OtherHydrogenAmmonia
SNG
There are a numberof gasification pathways
Source: ECN (2006), ECN-C-06-001
9/1/2006 17
Freeboard
Fluid Bed
PlenumAir/Steam
Biomass
Ash
Cyclone
Fluid-Bed Gasifier
Freeboard
Fluid Bed
PlenumAir/Steam
Biomass
Ash
Cyclone
Fluid-Bed Gasifier
Secondary
Circulating Fluid-Bed Gasifier
Fly Ash
Bottom Ash
Biomass
Air/Steam
GasifierPrimaryCyclone
CycloneSecondary
Circulating Fluid-Bed Gasifier
Fly Ash
Bottom Ash
Biomass
Air/Steam
GasifierPrimaryCyclone
Cyclone
Fly Ash
Bottom Ash
Biomass
Air/Steam
GasifierPrimaryCyclone
Cyclone
Biomass
Pyrolysis
Reduction
Combustion
Gas, Tar, Water
AshAir
C + CO2 = 2COC + H2O = CO + H2
C + O2 = CO24H + O2 = 2H2O
Downdraft Gasifier
Biomass
Pyrolysis
Reduction
Combustion
Gas, Tar, Water
AshAir
C + CO2 = 2COC + H2O = CO + H2
C + O2 = CO24H + O2 = 2H2O
Downdraft Gasifier
Biomass
N2 or Steam
Furnace
Char
Recycle Gas
ProductGas
Flue Gas
Entrained Flow Gasifier
Air
Biomass
N2 or Steam
Furnace
Char
Recycle Gas
ProductGas
Flue Gas
Entrained Flow Gasifier
Air
Pyrolysis
Reduction
Combustion
Gas, Tar, Water
Ash
Biomass
Air
C + CO2 = 2COC + H2O = CO + H2
C + O2 = CO24H + O2 = 2H2O
Updraft Gasifier
Pyrolysis
Reduction
Combustion
Gas, Tar, Water
Ash
Biomass
Air
C + CO2 = 2COC + H2O = CO + H2
C + O2 = CO24H + O2 = 2H2O
Updraft Gasifier
QUENCHWATER
OXYGENFEED SLURRY
NATURALGAS
SYNGAS
SLAG
WATER
Entrained-FlowSlagging Gasifier
There are a number of types of biomass gasifiers –e.g., fixed bed, fluid bed, and entrained flow
9/1/2006 18
Each gasifier has advantages and disadvantages
Gasifier Advantages Disadvantages Updraft Mature for heat
Small scale applications Can handle high moisture No carbon in ash
Feed size limits High tar yields Scale limitations Producer gas Slagging potential
Downdraft Small scale applications Low particulates Low tar
Feed size limits Scale limitations Producer gas Moisture sensitive
Fluid Bed Large scale applications Feed characteristics Direct/indirect heating Can produce syngas
Medium tar yield Higher particle loading
Circulating Fluid Bed Large scale applications Feed characteristics Can produce syngas
Medium tar yield Higher particle loading
Entrained Flow Can be scaled Potential for low tar Potential for low CH4 Can produce syngas
Large amount of carrier gas Higher particle loading Potentially high S/C Particle size limits
9/1/2006 19
Efficient biomass gasifiers exploit the unique characteristics of biomass
Characteristic
Fibrous material
High reactivityHigh volatiles contentHigh char reactivity
Raw syngas compositionTarsSulfurAlkali, ammonia, others
Scale of Operation
Implications
Feeding systems:
Particle size limitations, pressurized operation more difficult
Gasifier design
Allows gasification without pure oxygen
Gas cleanup
More tar, water solubleLow sulfur (except BL)Must be considered
Limits economies of scale
9/1/2006 20
Low(300-600°C)
Medium(700-850°C)
High(900-1200°C)
LowPressure
0.2 MPa
HighPressure
ENSYNDynamotiveBTGFortum
Bio-OilChanging World
TechnologiesChemrec (O2)Future Energy (Siemens)
GTI (O2)Carbona (O2)HTW O2)Foster Wheeler (O2)
FERCO (Indirect)MTCI (Indirect)Pearson (Indirect)TUV (Indirect)
For CHP:TPS (Air)Carbona (Air)Lurgi (Air)Foster Wheeler (Air)EPI (Air)Primenergy (Air)Community PowerFrontline
Chemrec (Air)
Feed: Biomass Feed: Black LiquorFeed: Biomass
MTCI-also BlackLiquor
Gas Product: PNNL Wet Gasification (CH4/H2)
10-25 MPa 1- 3 MPa 2 – 3 MPa
SyngasProductDry Ash Slag
Choren – 2 stage
A large number of companies are involved inbiomass thermal conversion
9/1/2006 21
Gasifier FERCO Carbona Princeton IGTModel
Type Indirect CFB Air FB Indirect FB PFBAgent steam air steam O2/steamBed Material olivine sand none aluminaFeed wood chips wood pellets black liquor wood chips
Gas Composition H2 26.2 21.7 29.4 19.1 CO 38.2 23.8 39.2 11.1 CO2 15.1 9.4 13.1 28.9 N2 2 41.6 0.2 27.8 CH4 14.9 0.08 13.0 11.2 C2+ 4 0.6 4.4 2.0GCV, MJ/Nm3 16.3 5.4 17.2 9.2
Gas compositions vary according to gasifier type
9/1/2006 22
Gasifier Inlet Gas Product Gas Product GasType HHV
MJ/Nm3
Partial Oxidation Air Producer Gas 5-7Partial Oxidation Oxygen Synthesis Gas 10Indirect Steam Synthesis Gas 15
Natural Gas 38Methane 41
Typical gas heating values vary from 15% to 40% of natural gas heating value
9/1/2006 24
DOE and the USDA Forest Service have supported developmentCommunity Power Corporation’s BioMax Modular Biopower System
5, 15, 50 kW systems
9/1/2006 25
CPC’s direct air gasification produces no waste water
70% of Biomass Energy = Chemical Fuel15% of Biomass Energy = Recoverable Heat, Gas Cooling
Pyrolysis Air(Primary)
Dry Biomass Feed
Coarse Filter
Gas Application
Fine Filter< 0.7 µmCooling Air
750°C
80°C
Feedstock DryerOr Heat Application
Char Air
Pyrolysis (900°C)
Tar Cracking(900 to 1000°C)
22% CO16% H210% H2O9% CO23% CH440% N2
9/1/2006 26
DOE, the European Union, the Danish government, Skive Fjernvarme, and Carbona are cooperating in the 5MWe Carbona Project in Skive, Denmark
BIOMASSBIOMASS
ASHASH
AIRAIR
ASHASH
POWERPOWER
HEATHEAT
FUELFUELFEEDINGFEEDING
GASIFIERGASIFIERTAR CRACKERTAR CRACKER
GAS COOLERGAS COOLER GAS COOLERGAS COOLERSTACKSTACK
HEAT RECOVERYHEAT RECOVERY
GAS TANKGAS TANK
GAS ENGINE(S)GAS ENGINE(S)
BIOMASSBIOMASS
ASHASH
AIRAIR
ASHASH
POWERPOWER
HEATHEAT
FUELFUELFEEDINGFEEDING
GASIFIERGASIFIERTAR CRACKERTAR CRACKER
GAS COOLERGAS COOLER GAS COOLERGAS COOLERSTACKSTACK
HEAT RECOVERYHEAT RECOVERY
GAS TANKGAS TANK
GAS ENGINE(S)GAS ENGINE(S)
• 110 tpd wood pellets• 5.4 MW electric power• 11.5 MW thermal• 30, elec LHV eff, 90% overall
9/1/2006 27
http://www.primenergy.com/Projects_detail_LittleFalls.htm 8/28/06
Producers are starting to use biomass gasifiersfor CHP in corn ethanol facilities
•Central Minnesota Ethanol Cooperative (CMEC)•15million gpy ethanol plant in Little Falls, MN•Funding – USDA, XCEL Energy, Private•E&C – Sebesta Blomberg•Gasifier – Primenergy•280 tpd wood•50 k-lb/hr high pressure steam for electricity•35 MMBtu/hr thermal energy
9/1/2006 28
Chippewa Valley Ethanol Company has entered into an agreement with Frontline Bioenergy to support the installation of a prototype gasifier at the CVEC Benson, MN ethanol plant.
• The objective is to replace all of the plant’s natural gas usage
• 45 mil gal/yr plant with $20 million in annual natural gas costs
• $3.4 million in research services• $12.4 million in equipment and materials
Source: frontlinebioenergy.com 8/29/06
9/1/2006 29
Transportation fuels production will probably be at larger scalebecause of process complexity and capital intensive nature. There may be opportunities for smaller modular “skid mount”systems.
Feed PrepBiomass
Dryer
Gasification (BCL, & cyclones)
Scrubber Syngas Compression
Char & Sand
Char combustor & cyclonesAir
SteamFlue gas
Tar reformer
Sand
Ash
Water
Totreatment
LO-CAT
Sulfur
Amine System
CO2
Gas Compression
Mixed Alcoholssynthesis
Gas
purge
Separation Amine System
CO2
Tar reformer catalyst regenerator
Natural gas
Steam cycle
Air
Catalyst
Liquids
Mol sieve Separation EtOH
C3+ alcohols
MeOH
H2O
Separation
C2+ alcohols
to atm
Feed PrepBiomass
Dryer
Gasification (BCL, & cyclones)
Scrubber Syngas Compression
Char & Sand
Char combustor & cyclonesAir
SteamFlue gas
Tar reformer
Sand
Ash
Water
Totreatment
LO-CAT
Sulfur
Amine System
CO2
Gas Compression
Mixed Alcoholssynthesis
Gas
purge
Separation Amine System
CO2
Tar reformer catalyst regenerator
Natural gas
Steam cycle
Air
Catalyst
Liquids
Mol sieve Separation EtOH
C3+ alcohols
MeOH
H2O
Separation
C2+ alcohols
to atm
9/1/2006 30
Hydrocarbon fungibility will be a key to successPrimary Energy
Source Syngas Step Conversion Technology Products
Syngas(CO + H2)
Fischer Tropsch
(FT)Upgrading
Lubes
Naphtha
DieselSyngas to Liquids (GTL) Process
Mixed Alcohols (e.g. ethanol, propanol)
Syngas to Chemicals Technologies
Methanol
Acetic Acid
Others (e.g. Triptane, DME, etc)
Coal
Natural Gas
Biomass
Hydrogen
Extra Heavy
Oil
Source: BP
9/1/2006 32
A 30x30 advanced integrated biorefinery scenario, i.e., the E85 Refinery, includes both thermochemical and biochemical processing
Ethanol yield = 94 gal/dry ton stoverGasoline yield = 90 gal/dry ton of lignin (13 gal/ton of stover)
(Plant total Ethanol equivalent yield = 118 gal/dry ton stover)
Ethanol via bioconversionCorn Stover
10,000 dMT/day
Ethanol1,035,000 gpd36.2 MM gal/yr
Lignin-rich Residue 1,500 dMT/day
Steam &Power
Selective thermal processing
Gasoline148,011 gpd
(Diesel is recycled to produce a lignin slurry feed)
Lignin-rich Residue 1,432 dMT/day
LigninCHP Plant
Diesel5,911 gpd
Minimum gasoline selling price = $0.51/gal gasoline(Minimum Ethanol equivalent selling price = $0.35/galEtOH)
Plant Minimum Ethanol equivalent selling price = $0.57/gal EtOH
9/1/2006 33
Methanol from BiomassComparison of Capital Investment
(2002$)
Cap
ital I
nves
tmen
t ($/
annu
al g
al M
etha
nol e
q)
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Atmospheric O2 slaggingentrained flow
Pressurized O2fluid bed
Pressurized O2fluid bed
Pressurized O2fluid bed
Pressurized O2 slaggingentrained flow
Indirect steam
Indirect steamIndirect steam
Indirect steam withcatalytic reforming
Indirect Steam withhot particulate removal
Wyman, et al., 19932000 tpd biomass
Hamelinck & Faaij, 20012000 tpd biomass
Katofsky, 19931815 tpd biomass
rlb, 08/25/06
Although ethanol and Fischer-Tropsch liquids are presently preferredproducts, previous work on methanol can help guide analysis
9/1/2006 34
Analysis of ethanol from TC mixed alcohols shows the potential to reach the DOE goal of $1.07/gal in 2012
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Min
imum
Eth
anol
Sel
ling
Pric
e ($
per
gal
lon) Conversion
FeedstockPrevious DOE Cost TargetsPresident's Initiative
State of Technology Estimates
Integrated with Biochemical Processing
104 gal/ton total yield
Biorefinery Residues67 gal/ton
Costs in 2002 Dollars
ForestResources56 gal/ton
9/1/2006 36
What is the scale of proposed processes?
The scale can range from 15 kg/hr for home-based systemsto 400 tons/hr for large nth plant central facilities.
9/1/2006 37
What feedstocks care appropriate for gasification?
Almost any biomass feed is suitable. Certain high moisture feeds like wet manure may be uneconomic because of high drying costs. Feeds high in potassium, e.g., alfalfa, may require special processing.
9/1/2006 38
What feed preparation, storage, and handling is required?
Feed preparation is specific to the gasifier being used.
• Certain gasifiers require defined particle sizes, e.g., downdraft – no fines, or entrained flow - very small particles. Almost all gasifiers require particle size less than 1.5 inches.
• Others require low moisture content, e.g. downdraft
Typically screening of oversize materialand metal removal is required
Storage requirements are standard. On site typically 3 – 7 days.
Handling requirements are a function of the form of biomass at the plant gate.
9/1/2006 39
What are the estimated efficiency of gasification processes?
Gasification efficiency is a function of the feed, gasification process and final product. Typical values from operating experience and technoeconomic analyses are.• Combined heat and power, 90%• Electricity only, 25 – 35%•Methanol, 60%•DME, 54%•FTL, 45%•Mixed alcohols, 40-45%
9/1/2006 40
What co-products could be marketed, and what further processing would they require?
This is process specific. An example would be a mixed alcohols process where higher alcohols could be produced along with ethanol. Generally, separation and purification to meet commercial specifications is required. Specifications are generally defined by ASTM standards.
9/1/2006 41
How would product quality be assured?
through standard business practices defined by contracts and standards
9/1/2006 42
What equipment maintenance would be required, and how would maintenance be handled?
This is project specific.
It will be a function of project size.
9/1/2006 43
What are the emissions and waste disposal issues or uncertainties?
All processes have to be permitted and limits are set by the permitting agencies. Emissions estimates based on existing processes can beused, e.g., EPA AP-42 for CHP, or can be estimated by E&C contractors.
Probably the biggest unkown is ash disposal.
9/1/2006 45
There are technical barriers needing addressing in the major processing steps in thermochemical conversion
Feed Processing
and Handling
Gasification
Pyrolysis
Gas Cleanup
High T Separation
Gas Conditioning
Collection/Fractionation
Fuel Synthesis
Upgrading
Heat&
Power
• Size Reduction• Storage and Handling• De-watering• Drying
• Partial Oxidation• Air blown• Oxygen blown• Indirect
• Flash pyrolysis• Steam pyrolysis• Vacuum pyrolysis
• Particulate removal• Tar reforming• Benzene removal• S, N, Cl mitigation
• High T Filtration• Alkali removal
• Methane reforming• CO2 removal• H2/CO adjustment• Sulfur polishing
• Aerosol collection• Microfiltration• Chemical Stabilization• Hydrotreating• Dehydration
• C1 chemistry– FT liquids– MTG– Mixed OH
• Upgrading• Production Separation
9/1/2006 46
Barriers and R&D needs were identified by a panel of expert stakeholders at the DOE 30 x 30 Workshop in August
• Technology issues with scale and syngas quality, and process integration• Feeder systems• Gas cleanup: tars, sulfur, particulates, etc.• Matching scale to economy• Lack of demonstration plants
• Other• Business links: fuel resources > conversion > product distribution• Competition between biomass, coal, natural gas, and tar sands for talent, construction materials, capital• Competing markets for resources• Permitting issues