Gasification - Versatile Solutions€¦ · Gasification - Versatile Solutions Overview of...
Transcript of Gasification - Versatile Solutions€¦ · Gasification - Versatile Solutions Overview of...
Gasification - Versatile Solutions
Overviewof
GasificationTechnologies
Global Climate and Energy Project
Advanced Coal Workshop
March 15, 2005
Gary J. Stiegel, Technology Manager - Gasification National Energy Technology Laboratory, US Department of Energy
Gasification Overview for Global Climate Energy Project, Provo, UT / GJS / March 15, 2005
What is Gasification?
Coal
Water
Oxygen Extreme Conditions:1,000 psig or more2,600 Deg FCorrosive slag and H2S gas
Products (syngas)CO (Carbon Monoxide)H2 (Hydrogen)[CO/H2 ratio can be adjusted]
By-productsH2S (Hydrogen Sulfide)CO2 (Carbon Dioxide)Slag (Minerals from Coal)
GasClean-Up
BeforeProduct
Use
Gasification Overview for Global Climate Energy Project, Provo, UT / GJS / March 15, 2005
So what can you do with CO and H2 ?
Syngas
Transportation Fuels(Hydrogen)
Building Blocks forChemical Industry
CleanElectricity
Gasification Overview for Global Climate Energy Project, Provo, UT / GJS / March 15, 2005
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
= IGCC Plant without SCR
* Based on 1998 Parson study for DOE : “Market-Based Advanced Coal Power Systems”
Gasification Overview for Global Climate Energy Project, Provo, UT / GJS / March 15, 2005
• 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 EnvironmentYear ($/kWe) (%HHV)
Today 1200 - 1300 40 - 42 NSPS2010 900 - 1000 45 - 50 <1/10 NSPS2020 850 50 - 60 Near-zero
Capital Costs Efficiency EnvironmentYear ($/kWe) (%HHV)
Today 1200 - 1300 40 - 42 NSPS2010 900 - 1000 45 - 50 <1/10 NSPS2020 850 50 - 60 Near-zero
Gasification Overview for Global Climate Energy Project, Provo, UT / GJS / March 15, 2005
Oxygen Membrane
Gasification
Fuel Gas
Gas Cleaning
Durability of the MembraneIntegration with Overall Process
Oxygen
Coal
CO2
Hydrogen
Cost-Effective Multi-Contaminant Control toUltra-Clean Specifications
Moderate TemperatureHg Removal at Elevated
TemperaturesIntegrated Specifications
with Downstream Process RequirementsIntegration with NOx
Reduction Processes
Injector ReliabilitySingle Train AvailabilityDurability of Refractory MaterialDurability and Accuracy of
Monitoring DevicesAlternative FeedstocksFeed System ReliabilityHeat RemovalTemperature Measurement & Control
Water-Gas ShiftH2 – CO2 Gas SeparationDurability of the MembraneLow Flux Contaminant SensitivityHeat Removal
Low-rank Coal
Major Technology Issues
Gasification Overview for Global Climate Energy Project, Provo, UT / GJS / March 15, 2005
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 Overview for Global Climate Energy Project, Provo, UT / GJS / March 15, 2005
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 DevelopmentTemperature 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
Develop and test monitoring devices
Gasification Overview for Global Climate Energy Project, Provo, UT / GJS / March 15, 2005
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 O2-blown-Bituminous and low-rankcoals
Alstom
Develop hybrid combustion-gasification using high tempchemical and thermal looping- Solids transfer media - Multiple reactors for oxidation,
reduction , carbonation, andcalcination of calcium compounds
Alstom
Develop hybrid combustion-gasification using high tempchemical and thermal looping- Solids transfer media - Multiple reactors for oxidation,
reduction , carbonation, andcalcination of calcium compounds
GE Global Research.• California Energy
Commission
Development of advancedgasification process for CO2 separation and H2production
Gasification Overview for Global Climate Energy Project, Provo, UT / GJS / March 15, 2005
Some Visions for Gasifier Options
Ready for FutureGen FY10All Applications
Not economicallyAttractive
Low Carbon Burnout
CommercialPower/Chem/H2
Low Efficiency
Bituminous Coal/Petcoke
Ready for FutureGen FY10All Applications
Economically Attractive
Under Developmentfor Power (air-blown)
Not EconomicallyAttractive (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
Gasification Overview for Global Climate Energy Project, Provo, UT / GJS / March 15, 2005
Rocketdyne’s H2 Production PerformanceCompact Gasifier with Various Coals vs. Entrained Gasifier
1.501.500.751.501.50Cost of Fuel ($/mmBtu)
2.542.502.252.443.03RequiredSales Price ($/MSCF)
89.6%92.0%92.3%90.7%93.3%CarbonCapture
70.3%71.1%71.0%73.5%66.5%Overall Efficiency (HHV)
Sequestration Ready CO2
2.262.211.972.182.73RequiredSales Price ($MSCF)
72.8%73.5%73.3%75.7%68.8%OverallEfficiency (HHV)
CO2 Vented
LignitePRBPetcokeBituminous
CoalBituminous
Coal
Compact GasifierEntrained Gasifier
Note: Increased efficiency due primarily to novel dry feed system
Gasification Overview for Global Climate Energy Project, Provo, UT / GJS / March 15, 2005
Ultra Gas Cleaning
Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation
• Gas Technology InstituteDevelop a two-stage process to reduceH2S, HCl, and particulates to ppb levels
Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation
• Gas Technology InstituteDevelop a two-stage process to reduceH2S, 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 H2S and CO2(using membranes),NH3 (sorbents), and HCl (sodium bicarbonate) to ppb levels
Pilot testing with EastmanChemical gasifier slipstreamat Kingsport
RTI International• SRI International• MEDAL• Sud Chemie, Inc.• University of Texas at Austin• Eastman Chemical• KBR
Develop processes to reduce H2S and CO2(using membranes),NH3 (sorbents), and HCl (sodium bicarbonate) to ppb levels
Pilot testing with EastmanChemical gasifier slipstreamat Kingsport
NETL In-House Research• NETL with CrystaTech• Selective Catalytic Oxidation of H2S
(SCOHS)TDA Research• DirectSulf
Single-step process for convertingH2S to elemental sulfur
NETL In-House Research• NETL with CrystaTech• Selective Catalytic Oxidation of H2S
(SCOHS)TDA Research• DirectSulf
Single-step process for convertingH2S to elemental sulfur
Gasification Overview for Global Climate Energy Project, Provo, UT / GJS / March 15, 2005
Economic Advantage of Warm Gas Cleaning
Cold GasWarm GasCool GasTypeCapital Cost (in $millions)
+ 10.5%- 7.9%0 %Delta Cost (as % of Base)
+ 39.6- 30.00Delta Cost ($ millions)
164.8138.6150.8Power Generation / HRSG
27.67.432.3S Recovery + Tail Gas Treat
49.738.719.3NH3 + AG Removal
12.3012.3Low Temp Gas Cooling
RectisolRTI HTDS w/DSRP
Base CaseMDEA
Gasification Overview for Global Climate Energy Project, Provo, UT / GJS / March 15, 2005
Field Test Objective:First integrated evaluation of warm-gas contaminant cleanup technologies with
coal-derived gas
Results:Maintained H2S and COS reduction levelbelow 2 ppmv detection limit with gasifierproduced syngas for 90 minutes test
Future Test Plans:FY05 2000 hr test at Eastman Chemical of
HTDS with sorbents and DSRPFY06 Multi-component removal of NH3, Hg, S
using membranes and sorbents
Future Test Plans:FY05 2000 hr test at Eastman Chemical of
HTDS with sorbents and DSRPFY06 Multi-component removal of NH3, Hg, S
using membranes and sorbents
Ultra-Clean Warm Gas Cleanup Progress at RTI
Lab Results:Demonstrated regenerable NH3sorbent to reduce 500 ppmv to less than 40 ppmv
Identified in reverse-selectivemembranes with H2S/H2 selectivities of 40 and two candidates for Hgremoval at 400 to 570oF
Lab Results:Demonstrated regenerable NH3sorbent to reduce 500 ppmv to less than 40 ppmv
Identified in reverse-selectivemembranes with H2S/H2 selectivities of 40 and two candidates for Hgremoval at 400 to 570oF
Gasification Overview for Global Climate Energy Project, Provo, UT / GJS / March 15, 2005
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)
Gasification Overview for Global Climate Energy Project, Provo, UT / GJS / March 15, 2005
Membrane Air Separation AdvantagesAir Products
- 71,0941,020IGCC Specific Cost ($/kW)-----448,000447,000Total IGCC Cost ($,000)- 3520,13213,000Oxygen Plant Cost ($/sTPD)
+53,0403,200Oxygen Plant Size (sTPD)- 37235147Oxygen Power Req’t (kWh/ton)
+240.939.5
41.840.4
Net IGCC Efficiency (% LHV)(% HHV)
+7409438IGCC Net Power (MWe)
∆ %CryoASU
ITM Oxygen
IGCC plant cost reduced 7%, plant efficiency increase 2% with >35% cost and energy savings in oxygen production
© Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. 2002
Gasification Overview for Global Climate Energy Project, Provo, UT / GJS / March 15, 2005
APCI Air Separation ITM Modules
• Test membrane modules− FY06 – 5 TPD− FY08 – 25 TPD
• Offer commercial air separation modules− Post- FY09 demos
of IGCC and FutureGen
Step 1:Submodule
Construction
Step 2:Module
Construction
12-wafersubmodule
Tonnage-Quantity Module
Gasification Overview for Global Climate Energy Project, Provo, UT / GJS / March 15, 2005
Gas Separations - H2 & CO2
NETL OSTA In-House ResearchPd and Pd/Cu alloy membranes, characterization, and standard test capabilities
ANLHigh-temperature ceramicmembrane separating H2 fromsyngas and water splitting
Eltron Research- Coors Tek- Sud Chemie, Inc.- ANL - NORAM Engineering & Construction Co.- WahChang
ORNLMicroporous inorganic membranes development and fabrication
Nexant- Simteche - LANL
Low-temperature approach to H2and CO2 separation via hydrates
RTIAlternate membrane materials,polymeric reverse selective membranes
NETL OSTA In-House ResearchFluorinated HydrocarbonMembranes
NETL OSTA In-House ResearchFluorinated HydrocarbonMembranes
Gasification Overview for Global Climate Energy Project, Provo, UT / GJS / March 15, 2005
Summary of Hydrogen from Coal Cases
5.89 / 0.79
425
25
75.5
3000
158
Yes (100%)
Membrane
Advanced
Case 2
AdvancedConventional Gasifier*
MembranePSASeparation System
Yes (100%)Yes (87%)Carbon Sequestration
3.98 / 0.548.18 / 1.10RSP of Hydrogen ($/MMBtu) / ($/kg)
950417Capital ($MM)
41726.9Excess Power (MW)
5959Efficiency (%) (HHV basis)
60003000Coal (TPD) as received
153119Hydrogen Production (MMSCFD)
Case 3Case 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
hydrogen production by 32%.
Gasification Overview for Global Climate Energy Project, Provo, UT / GJS / March 15, 2005
ELTRON H2 Separation Membrane Characteristics
<50320 to 500Thin Film Palladium on Porous Support
≈ 0.01700 to 950Single Phase Ceramic
>400320 to 440Intermediate-TemperatureComposite
≈ 4550 to 950High-Temperature Cermet with H2-Permeable Metal (Pd)
≈ 1700 to 950High-Temperature CermetWith Non H2-Permeable Metal (Ni)
≈ 0.1700 to 950Ceramic/Ceramic
MaximumPermeation Rate(mL·min-1·cm-2)
TemperatureRange (°C)
MembraneCategory
Gasification Overview for Global Climate Energy Project, Provo, UT / GJS / March 15, 2005
Oak Ridge Inorganic Membrane TechnologyOffers 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/ft2 fabrication cost for nanoporous inorganic membranes
• High membrane permeance and low cost per foot will result in economically superior hydrogen separation systems
Gasification Overview for Global Climate Energy Project, Provo, UT / GJS / March 15, 2005
RTI/Medal CO2 Membranes
• CO2 + H2S removal from syngas stream• Polymeric membranes• Reverse selective, enriching CO2 in permeate• Primary useful components of syngas (H2 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 CO2 with only 10% loss of H2−Removal of significant amount of H2S
Gasification Overview for Global Climate Energy Project, Provo, UT / GJS / March 15, 2005
CO2 Hydrate - Process Advantages
• Recovery of CO2 & H2 at High Pressure• Relatively Simple Process Flow Scheme
− No Large Mass-Transfer Columns− CO2 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 CO2 avoided
− $8 per ton of CO2 avoided @ 68% carbon capture− $10-11 per ton of CO2 avoided @ 90% capture with use of
promoters
Gasification Overview for Global Climate Energy Project, Provo, UT / GJS / March 15, 2005
Technology Time Sequence for Deployment
Base
85% Capacity Factor98% Carbon Conversion
Dry FeedFB
Turbine
WGCUITM-O2
90% CapacityFactor
H-Turbine SOFC
Timeline
TARGET50% Efficiency (HHV)
$1000/kW
TARGET60% Efficiency (HHV)
$900/kW
2003 2006 2008 2010 2012 2015 2018 2020
Warm Hg RemovalH2 Membrane Separator
100% CO2 CaptureBase withCO2 Capture
Year of Pre-Commercial Demonstration Availability
Gasification Overview for Global Climate Energy Project, Provo, UT / GJS / March 15, 2005
Capital Cost ($/kW) Timeline
14
11(60)11
109
13
8
76
5
34
12
21
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Cap
ital $
/kW
# = Case
With CO2 Capture
Without CO2 Capture
Year of Pre-Commercial Demonstration Availability
Gasification Overview for Global Climate Energy Project, Provo, UT / GJS / March 15, 2005
Efficiency Timeline
11(60) 14
11
10
1
9
13
8765
432
1230
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Effic
ienc
y (%
) H
HV
With CO2 Capture
Without CO2 Capture
# = CaseYear of Pre-Commercial Demonstration Availability
Gasification Overview for Global Climate Energy Project, Provo, UT / GJS / March 15, 2005
COE Timeline
14
11(60)11
108 9
13
765
34
12
21
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
CO
E $/
MW
h
With CO2 Capture
Without CO2 Capture
# = CaseYear of Pre-Commercial Demonstration Availability
Gasification Overview for Global Climate Energy Project, Provo, UT / GJS / March 15, 2005
…the BenefitsGASIFICATION− 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 plantsBIG 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 CO2capture
− Ultra-clean Liquids from Coal -- Early Source of Hydrogen
Gasification Overview for Global Climate Energy Project, Provo, UT / GJS / March 15, 2005
Opportunities for Coal Gasification
• Environmentally-preferred coal power generation− Near-zero levels of SO2, NOx, PM, Hg achievable and
demonstrated− Gasification well suited to CO2 capture
• Hydrogen production from coal (FutureGen)− Gasification is key element for producing H2 –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− Significant interest because of high natural gas prices.
Gasification Overview for Global Climate Energy Project, Provo, UT / GJS / March 15, 2005
Visit the Gasification Technology Websiteat http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/gasification/index.html
Gasification Overview for Global Climate Energy Project, Provo, UT / GJS / March 15, 2005
Cases Analyzed: No Carbon CaptureBituminous Coal to Power
Case Description1 Base (Texaco) 75% Capacity Factor/95% Carbon Conversion2 Texaco 85% Capacity Factor/95% Carbon Conversion3 Texaco 85% Capacity Factor/98% Carbon Conversion4 E-Gas 85% Capacity Factor/98% Carbon Conversion5 Dry Feed 85% Capacity Factor/98% Carbon Conversion6 Dry Feed 85% Capacity Factor/98% Carbon Conversion/FB Turbine7 Dry Feed 85% Capacity Factor/98% Carbon Conversion/FB/SCOHS8 Dry Feed 85% Capacity Factor/98% Carbon Conversion/FB/SCOHS/ITM
Target Date: 20109 Dry Feed 90% Capacity Factor/98% Conversion/FB/SCOHS/ITM10 Dry Feed 90% Capacity Factor/98% Conversion /H-Turbine/SCOHS/ITM11 Dry Feed 90% Capacity Factor/98% Conversion /H/SCOHS/ITM/SOFC11(60) Same as Case 11 with ratio of SOFC to GT/ST adjusted to get
60% efficiencyTarget Date: 2020
Gasification Overview for Global Climate Energy Project, Provo, UT / GJS / March 15, 2005
Cases Analyzed: With Carbon CaptureBituminous Coal to Power
Case Description12 Baseline Current
Slurry Feed Single Stage Gasification with75% Capacity Factor / 95% Carbon Conversion
13 Target Date: 2010Dry Feed 85% Capacity Factor / 98% Carbon ConversionFB-Gas Turbines, SCOHS Gas Cleaning, ITM Air Separation
14 Target Date: 2020Dry Feed 90% Capacity Factor / 98% Carbon ConversionF-Turbine, SCOHS Gas Cleaning, ITM Air Separation, SOFC
Gasification Overview for Global Climate Energy Project, Provo, UT / GJS / March 15, 2005
Alstom Advanced Chemical Looping Process
CaO to CaCO3 LoopCaO to CaCO3 Loop
CaS to CaSO4 LoopCaS to CaSO4 Loop
ShiftReaction
ShiftReaction
4C+CaSO4=4CO+CaS
CaS+2O2=CaSO4
CO+H2O=CO2+H2
CaO+CO2=CaCO3
CaCO3=CaO+CO2
H2O
Coal
CaCO3CaSO4
CaS
CaCO3
CaO
H2 CO2
Air Ash & spentCaSO4
N2
CO 2+ H
2
Hot Bauxite
Cold Bauxite