Gasification - Versatile Solutions

Gasification - Versatile Solutions

Gasification Technologies Overview

NASEO 2006 Annual Meeting Seattle, WA September 10-13, 2006

Gary J. Stiegel - Gasification Technology Manager National Energy Technology Laboratory

Why the Interest in Gasification? • Continuing high price of fuels − Natural gas for home heating and industrial uses − Highway transportation fuels (gasoline and diesel) • Excellent environmental performance of IGCCs for

power generation • Growing environmental community view of IGCCs as

best technology option for coal systems • Gasification is baseline technology for H2, SNG, fuels

from coal and capture of CO2 for sequestration • Consolidation of IGCC development companies • Uncertainty of carbon management requirements and

potential suitability of IGCC for CO2 controls 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

What is Gasification? Oxygen

Coal

Extreme Conditions: ƒ 1,000 psig or more ƒ 2,600 Deg F ƒ Corrosive slag and H2S gas Products (syngas) CO (Carbon Monoxide) H2 (Hydrogen) [CO/H2 ratio can be adjusted]

By-products H2S (Hydrogen Sulfide) CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) Slag (Minerals from Coal)

Gas Clean-Up Before Product Use

Water Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

So what can you do with CO and H2 ?

Building Blocks for Chemical Industry

Clean Electricity

Transportation Fuels (Hydrogen) Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

Chemicals from Coal - Final Products

It is likely you have recently used a product based on coal gasification.

Coal

Acetic Anhydride Acetic Acid

Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

Comparison of Combustion and Gasification

Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

Fundamental Comparison of IGCC with Advanced PC-Fired Plant • • • • • • • • •

IGCC Operating Principles Partial oxidation Fuel Oxidant Oxygen or Air Pressure 400-1000 psi Sulfur Control Concentrate gas Nitrogen Control Not needed Ash Control Low Vol slag Trace Elements Slag Capture Wastes/Byproducts Several Markets Performance -- eff. (%) 40-44

PC Full Oxidation Air Atmospheric Dilute gas Pre/post combustion Fly/bottom ash ESP/Stack Limited Markets 35-41

Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

Gasification Chemistry Gasification with Oxygen C + 1/2 O2 CO

Coal

Combustion with Oxygen CO2 C + O2 Gasification with Carbon Dioxide C + CO2 2CO

Oxygen

Gasification with Steam CO + H2 C + H2 O Gasification with Hydrogen C + 2H2 CH4

Steam

Water-Gas Shift CO + H2O H2 + CO2

Gasifier Gas Composition (Vol %) H2 CO CO2 H2 O CH4

25 - 30 30 - 60 5 - 15 2 - 30 0-5

0.2 - 1 H2 S 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

Combustion Chemistry

Coal

Combustion with Oxygen C + O2

Air

1/ 2

O2 + H2

Combustion Gas Composition (Vol %)

CO2

H2O

CO2 H2 O SO2 N2 O2

13.5 9.8 0.4 73.2 3.2

Ash/Slag/PM

Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

Gasification Phase Diagram – An Example CH4

H2S

Complete Combustion

SO2

Gasification Zone

100%

O2

90% 80% 70%

Mole %

H2O

H2

60%

C

50%

CO2

40% 30%

CO

20% 10% 0% 0.1

0.7

1.3

1.9

2.5

3.1

O2/MAF Coal Feed

Coal: Illinois #6, Dry Feed Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)

Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

Gasification-Based Energy Production System Concepts

Sulfur Sulfur By-Product By-Product Fly Fly Ash Ash By-Product By-Product

Slag Slag By-Product By-Product

Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

Conventional Coal Plant (Illustration only)

40 % Efficiency

15 MW

85 MW 40 MW

100 MW

45 MW Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

Combined Cycle (Illustration only) 22 MW

100 MW Fuel

40 MW 62 MW 38 MW

19 MW

21 MW to condenser

19 + 38 = 57 MW 57% Efficiency! Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

Coal-Based IGCC Power Plant

Gasification Island •Converts coal to synthesis gas •Synthesis gas cleaned and conditioned

Natural gas is replaced by coal-based fuel gas

Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

Coal-Based IGCC Power Plant (Illustration only) 100MW Net Coal to Power: 30 + 22 – 9 = 43%

9MW

18MW 15MW 50MW

22MW

80MW 30MW

47MW Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

Polk

Wabash

Gasification Buggenum

A Commercial Reality

Sarlux

Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

Commercial-Scale Coal IGCC Power Plants • U.S. − Southern California Edison's 100 MWe Cool Water Coal Gasification Plant (1984-1988) − Dow Chemical's 160 MWe Louisiana Gasification Technology Inc (LGTI) Project (1987-1995) − PSI Energy's (now Cinergy) 262 MWe Wabash River Generating Station (1995 - present) − Tampa Electric's 250 MWe Polk Power Station (1996-present) • Foreign − NUON/Demkolec’s 253 MWe Buggenum Plant (1994-present) − ELCOGAS 298 MWe Puertollano Plant (1998present) Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

Cumulative Worldwide Gasification Capacity and Growth MWth Syngas 80,000

Planned Planned Operating Operating

70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

Gasification by Primary Feedstock 35,000

Planned Operating

MWth Syngas

30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Coal

Petroleum

Gas

Petcoke

Biomass/Waste Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

Gasification by Product 30,000

Planned

MWth Syngas

25,000

Operating

20,000

15,000 10,000 5,000 0 FT liquids

Chemicals

Power

Gaseous fuels

Not specified

Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

Summary of Gasification Projects • 160 commercial projects -- in operation/ • • • •

constructions/design 450 gasifier vessels in 28 countries 68,000 MW thermal energy 430 million normal cubic meter per day of syngas 770,000 barrels of oil equivalent energy per day

Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

Environmental Benefits

Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

Wabash River Clean Coal Project A Case Study for Cleaner Air 3.1

Emissions, Pounds per Million BTUs

3

2

SO2 The Wabash River Plant in Terre Haute, Indiana, was repowered with gasification technology

1

0.8 0.1

0

BEFORE AFTER CCT CCT

NOx 0.15

BEFORE AFTER CCT CCT Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

Tampa Electric (TECO) Clean Coal Project A Case Study for Cleaner Air Emissions (Pounds per Million Btus)

2.5 2.07

2.0

SO

1.5

2

1.2

0.6 to 1.2

TECO’s coal-to-gas plant in Polk County, FL, is the pioneer of a new type of clean coal plant.

1.0

NOx 0.47

0.5

0.07 (15ppm)

0.1

0

Older Coal Plant

Fleet Avg.

TECO CCT Plant

Older Coal Plant

Fleet Avg.

TECO CCT Plant Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

Comparison of Environmental Factors Pulverized Coal-Fired, NGCC, and IGCC Plants Without CO2 Capture 2.2 2.0

= GEE Radiant IGCC = E-Gas IGCC

1.8

= Shell IGCC

1.6

= SubCritical PC

1.4

= SuperCritical PC = NGCC

1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0

SO2 (lb/MWh)

NOx (lb/MWh)

Particulates (lb/MWh)

CO2 (lb/1000 MWh)

* Based on Study for DOE : “Cost and Performance Comparison of Fossil Energy Power Plants” Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

Comparison of Water Consumption for Various Fossil Plants

Gallons per MWh

1,400

Cooling Tower Losses

1,200

Flue Gas Losses

1,000

Process Losses

800 600 400 200 0 E-Gas

Shell

GE R-C

GE NGCC PC Sub PC Quench Super

Note:

Cooling water requirements are estimated for generic eastern site Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

Coal-Fired Power Plant Emissions – Recent Permits SCPC7 WePower

PC5 Prairie State

CFB6 Indeck

IGCC1 WePower

IGCC2 Wabash

SO2

0.15

0.18

0.15

0.03

0.1333

NOx

0.07

0.08

0.08

0.03

0.103

VOC

0.004

0.004

0.004

0.004

0.002

CO

0.12

0.12

0.11

0.03

0.045

PM/PM10

0.018

0.015

0.015

0.011

0.011

Hg (lb/1012Btu)

1.12

~2

4.0

0.5

3.244

(lb/106Btu)

1. WePower SCPC and IGCC information from April 2003 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Elm Road Generating Station, Volume 1, Public Service Commission of Wisconsin & Department of Natural Resources, Table 7-11, p. 157 (Pittsburgh 8 coal) 2. Wabash River Repowering Project, 1997 and 1998 average reported to IDNR, including fuel oil (Illinois 6 coal) 3. Wabash River has demonstrated 0.03 lb/MMBtu SOx, but operates nearer the 0.20 lb/MMBtu permit for economic reasons 4. Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit Mercury Test Program, USEPA, October 1999 (no controls) 5. “Project Summary for a Construction Permit Application from the Prairie State Generating Company, LLC”, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. BOILER STACK ONLY 6. “Supplemental Information for Air Permit Application”, March 25, 2003,EarthtechInc. 7. “Analysis and Preliminary Determination for the construction and Operation Permits for the proposed Construction of an Electric Generation Facility for Elm Road Generating Station”, October 2, 2003, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

Source: ConocoPhillips

IGCC IGCC without with Mercury Removal CONDENSER

and with it

ACID GAS REMOVAL

COAL SLURRY OXYGEN COS HYDROLYSIS

BFW

WATER SYNGAS COOLER

MERCURY REMOVAL

AIR GAS TUBINE

HP STEAM

BFW

PARTICULATE REMOVAL HRSG FINES SLAG

STEAM TURBINE

Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

Mercury Removal System Performance and Cost • Remove greater than 90% of mercury • Stable adsorption of mercury in carbon beds as

mercury sulfide • Incremental capital costs of $3.34 / kW for carbonbed removal system • Incremental cost of electricity of $0.254 / MWh for O&M and capital repayment − <0.6% COE from IGCC plant of $44 / MWh − Estimated cost of mercury removal in IGCC compares favorably (<10%) to costs of 90% removal in conventional PC power plant

Estimates for IGCC reference plant based on Tampa Electric Gasification Plant with GE Energy gasifier and sized to 287-MWe net Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

Gasification Technology Workshops State Economic/Environmental Regulators • DOE in cooperation with the Gasification Technologies Council

(GTC), NARUC, and SSEB conducts Workshops to:

− Educate federal, state, and local environmental/economic regulators on the environmental benefits of gasification • Expanding to include state legislators/energy officials − Improve communication between the industry and regulators • Eight workshops have already been held throughout the country

− Next workshops scheduled for March 2007 (Denver) and June 2007 (Indianapolis) • Last workshop in Bismarck, ND (June 2006)

− 150 attendees; 50% of states represented; 8 state legislators • All travel expenses for State and Local Officials are reimbursed

in entirety

NASEO is invited to participate Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

…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 CO2 capture

− Ultra-clean Liquids from Coal -- Early Source of Hydrogen

Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

Visit NETL Gasification Website www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/gasification/index.html

Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date

Comparison of Environmental Factors Pulverized Coal-Fired, NGCC, and IGCC Plants With CO2 Capture 2.2 2.0

= GEE Radiant IGCC = E-Gas IGCC

1.8

= Shell IGCC

1.6

= SubCritical PC

1.4

= SuperCritical PC = NGCC

1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0

SO2 (lb/MWh)

NOx (lb/MWh)

Particulates (lb/MWh)

CO2 (lb/1000 MWh)

* Based on 2006 Parson study for DOE : “Cost and Performance Comparison of Fossil Energy Power Plants” Descriptor - include initials, /org#/date