Coal Conversion and

Utilization for Reducing

C CO2 Emission

Chenxi Sun
Ruthut Lapudomlert
Sukanya Thepwatee
Problem statement
This project will examine oxy-co-gasification method and Ion
Transport Membrane for an Integrated Gasification Combined
Cycle (IGCC) power plant incorporates the highest potential
technology for carbon capture.

Objective
1. Enhance power generation and reduce CO2 emissions from an
IGCC power plant using co- gasification of coal and biomass.
2. Reduce production cost by introducing new gas separation
technology (Ion Transport Membrane).
3. Reduce pollutant emissions using CO2and H2S co-capture.
 3

Plant location

 Location:
Pittsburgh

 Plant size:
122 Mwe.

 Coal usage:
Bituminous
764 TPD

98% (64 million ton/y) 2% (1.6 million ton/y)

 4

Why IGCC?
proven lowest NOx, SOx, particulate matter and hazardous air
pollutants

Less water consumption and waste

Low cost electricity for economic growth

Market barrier

Currently higher capital and operating costs relative to supercritical boilers

(2400- 3000+ $/kW)

Standard designs and guarantee packages not yet fully developed

“Official US government figures give more optimistic

estimates of $1,491/kW for a conventional clean coal facility”

Ref.: Coal and oil, John Tabak, 2009. pg. 66, 2).Clean Air Task Force
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/pdf/electricity.pdf#page=3
 5

Coal-biomass IGCC power plant

circulating
fluidized-bed
gasifier H2-rich fuel
H2S and CO2
Co- capture
H2

H2 Transportation fuels
Coal Water-gas
Gases shift H2S + CO2
Fuel cell
reactor
Biomass H2 Electric power
Combustion turbine
CO2 Air Combined cycle
Non-permeated gas
Solids O2 I Electric power
T Air Exhaust
M Water

Steam Exhaust
Heat recovery
Marketable Steam generator
solid byproducts

Steam turbine Electric power

 Analysis for coal & biomass
Coal (Pitt 8#) Wood (Pine Tree)
Proximate Analysis (wt%)
Fixed Carbon 0.524 0.16652
Volatile Matter 0.352 0.70196
Moisture 0.024 0.08
Ash 0.1 0.05152
Ultimate analysis (wt%) 1
Carbon 0.833 0.528
Oxygen 0.083 0.392
Hydrogen 0.057 0.057
Nitrogen 0.014 0.022
Sulphur 0.013 0.0009
Ash 0 0.056
Lower Heating vlaue (KJ/Kg)
LHV 30410 16365
 7

Feedstock and gasifier

• Biomass co-gasification
circulating fluidized-bed gasifier ▫ Competitive price compare to coal.
▫ Biomass can increase the
Water-gas
shift reactor
gasification efficiency as well as
reduce the CO2 emission.
Coal
Gases • Circulating fluidized-bed gasifier
▫ Can accept a variety of feeds, in
Biomass different shapes and densities.
CO2 ▫ Investment fit for small or mid-
sized power plants.
Solids O2
ITM
• O2/CO2 as oxidant gas
Steam ▫ increase coal conversion ratio.
▫ Increase gasification efficiency.
Marketable
solid byproducts ▫ Decrease the consumption for
Oxygen(6ton/MW per day).
Gasification with O2/CO2
• Gasification with O2/CO2 can get better coal conversion
rate than air only. But this result is not compared with
Oxygen gasification.

Coal conversion rate as a function of reaction distance for the temperature

of 800℃ (a) and 1000℃ (b)
Lian Zhang, Energy&Fuels, 2010, 4803-4811
Water-gas shift reaction
• Water-gas shift reaction:
CO + H2O ←→ CO2 + H2, ΔH = −41.1kJmol−1
▫ In this reaction, higher CO conversions are favored at
lower temperatures.

▫ Fe/Cr oxide catalysts are applied at a reactor inlet

temperature of 300–360◦C and a total pressure
between 10 and 60 bar.

▫ About 97% of CO is converted to CO2 by this reaction.

After pre-combustion CO2 capture, mainly H2 is left
for combustion and steam is the final product.
Gasifier modeling
• Volatilization is the decomposition of
coal/biomass into volatiles and char:
CHhfOofNnfSsf(H2O)wZ→CHhOoNnSsZ+V+wH2O
• Char particles react with gas:
▫ Combustion
Char+aO2→bCO+cCO2+dH2O+eH2S+fN2
▫ Boudouard reaction
Char+CO2→2CO+(o/2)H2O+(h/2-s-o)H2+sH2S+(n/2)N2
▫ Steam gasification
Char+(1+o)H2O→CO+(1-o+h/2-s)H2+sH2S+(n/2)N2
▫ Methane reforming
Char+(2+o+s-h/2)H2→CH4+oH2O+sH2S+(n/2)N2
Oxy-co-gasification modeling
Equivalence ratio for gasification, oxygen needed for per
100kg feedstock, gasification efficiency and temperature.

Coal 10%Biomass (wt%) 20%Biomass (wt%)

Combustion
LHV (KJ/Kg) 30410 29005 27601
Oxygen (mole/100kg) 6.4208 5.9983 5.5942
Gasification
Oxygen (mole/Kg) 24.737 22.3 19.971
Equivalence Ratio 2.5956 2.6898 2.8011
Gasification Efficiency 0.6968 0.6968 0.6982
Temperature (oC) 1100.27 885.12 652.72
Need For Feedstock for a 122MWe Power Plant (Energy efficiency 40%)
Coal/Biomass (TPD) 874 818/91 764/191
 12
10%Biomass CO2 concentration 0%-50%
Total mole of oxidant gas
11.0 Total mole of product gas
6
10.5 CO2
10.0 CO

Mole of each component in the product gas

9.5 H2
5
Mole of gas per 100g feedstock

9.0 SO2
8.5 H2O
8.0
4

(per 100g feedstock)

7.5
7.0
6.5
3
6.0
5.5
5.0
2
4.5
4.0
3.5
1
3.0
2.5
2.0
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Percentage of CO2 in oxidant gas CO2 percentage in the oxidant

20%Biomass Feedstock: 10%Biomass/90%Coal
Total mole of oxidant gas
Feedstock: 10%Biomass/90%Coal

11.0 Total mole of product gas

6
10.5 CO2
10.0 CO

Mole of each component in the product gas

9.5 5 H2
Mole of gas per 100g feedstock

9.0 SO2
8.5 H2O
8.0 4

(per 100kg feedstock)

7.5
7.0
6.5 3
6.0
5.5
5.0 2
4.5
4.0
3.5 1
3.0
2.5
2.0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Percentage of CO2 in oxidant gas CO2 percentage in the oxidant

Feedstock: 20%Biomass/80%Coal Feedstock: 10%Biomass/90%Coal
 13
10%Biomass Effect of different steam/coal ratio
10%CO2
Total Mole of Input Gas CO2
10 Total Mole of Output Gas CO
H2
0.6
9 SO2
H2O
Moleof Gas/Feedstock (Mole/100g)

Mole percentage of Output Gas

8 0.5

7
0.4

6
0.3
5

0.2
4

3 0.1

2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
H2O/Feedstock (Mole/100kg)
10%Biomass Total Mole of Input Gas
Steam/Feedstock (Mole/100kg)
CO2

20%CO2 10 Total Mole of Output Gas CO

H2
0.6
9
SO2
H2O
Moleof Gas/Feedstock (Mole/100g)

Mole percentage of Output Gas

8 0.5

7 0.4

6
0.3

5
0.2
4

0.1
3

2 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
H2O/Feedstock (Mole/100kg) Steam/Feedstock (Mole/100kg)
 14
20%Biomass Effect of different steam/coal ratio
10%CO2
Total Mole of Input Gas CO2
9 Total Mole of Output Gas CO
H2
0.6
SO2
8 H2O
Moleof Gas/Feedstock (Mole/100g)

Mole percentage of Output Gas

0.5
7

0.4
6

0.3
5

0.2
4

3 0.1

2 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
H2O/Feedstock (Mole/100kg) Steam/Feedstock (Mole/100g)
20%Biomass Total Mole of Input Gas CO2
Total Mole of Output Gas CO
20%CO2
9
H2
0.6
SO2
8
H2O
Moleof Gas/Feedstock (Mole/100g)

Mole percentage of Output Gas

0.5
7

0.4
6

0.3
5

4 0.2

3 0.1

2 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
H2O/Feedstock (Mole/100kg) Steam/Feedstock (Mole/100g)
 15
Gasifier Pressure 1-30bar
20%Biomass
10%CO2 Input Gas CO2
8 Out put Gas 0.7 CO
H2
SO2
0.6
Total mole of gas per 100g feedstock
7 H2O

Mole ratio of the product gas

0.5
6
0.4

5
0.3

4 0.2

0.1
3

0.0
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Gasifier Pressure (bar) Gasifier Pressure (bar)

20%Biomass 8
Input Gas
Out put Gas
CO2
CO

20%CO2 0.6
H2
SO2
Total mole of gas per 100g feedstock

7 H2O
0.5

Mole ratio of the product gas

6 0.4

0.3
5

0.2

4
0.1

3
0.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Gasifier Pressure (bar) Gasifier Pressure (bar)
 16

20%Biomass Gasifier Temperature 750-1300 ℃

10%CO2 input gas CO2
8 Product gas 0.7 CO
H2
0.6
SO2
Mole of gas per 100g feedstock 7 H2O

0.5

Mole ratio of product gas

6
0.4

5
0.3

4 0.2

0.1
3

0.0
2
700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
Temperature (C) Gasifier Temperature (C)

CO2
20%Biomass
input gas
8 Product gas CO
0.7
H2
20%CO2 0.6
SO2
H2O
7
Mole of gas per 100g feedstock

0.5

Mole ratio of product gas

6
0.4

5 0.3

0.2
4
0.1

3
0.0

700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
Temperature (C) Gasifier Temperature (C)
 17

Gas Separation- ITM (Ion Transport

Membrane) Technology
 18

Goals for Oxygen supply

• Supply large amount of Oxygen
• High purity to gasifier unit
• Low production cost (gas
separation)

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/howgasificationworks.html
 19

Gas Separation
Air
Cryogenic
Separation
distillation
Unit

Gas Ion transport

Separation Membrane

Non- Molecular
Cryogenic sieve
distillation adsorbents

Polymeric
Membrane

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (2011) 1284-1293

 20

Non-Cryogenic
Ion transport Molecular sieve Polymeric
Membrane adsorbents Membrane

Production range Large , up to 3000 Less than 150 Less than 20

Tons per day Tons per day Tons per day
(small plant)
Purity (vol.%) 99+ - 100% 93-95% approx. 40%
Status developing semi-mature Semi-mature
Others operate at high bed volume poor chemical
temperature i.e. control capital resistance, limited
800-900 ºc cost temperature

Fuel Processing Technology 70(2001) 115-134

Membrane Technology No. 110, Mixed conducting ceramic membranes for gas separation and reaction
 21

Candidates: ASU VS ITM

• ASU
▫ Maturity, produce tonnage of O2, high purity
▫ Consume large fraction of the plant internal energy ie.15% of
IGCC capital cost
▫ Few possibilities to provide step-change cost reduction

• ITM
▫ 25-30% reduction in capital requirements over conventional
cryogenic oxygen plants e.g. cooling cost.
▫ 30% reduction in operation cost for oxygen
▫ 35-60% reduction in power consumption
▫ Can be integrated with high-temperature processes to produce
electrical power and/or steam from air
▫ Compact design
 Solid state diffusion of

How ITM works?

Oxygen anion through
Mixed conductors

1. O2 from air feed adsorbs onto the surface, where it dissociates and ionizes by
electron transfer from membrane
2. O2- fill vacancies in the lattice structure, diffuse through the membrane under
O2 chemical- potential gradient (applied by maintaining difference in O2 partial
pressure on opposite sides)
3. O2- release electrons, recombine, and desorbs from surface as O2 molecule

O2 flux α (1/L)ln(Phigh/Plow)
>> Thin film Cryogenics& Ceramic Membrane, 4th European Gasification Conference
Integrated: ITM + IGCC Thermal activated: heating
air feed from gas turbine

1. Hot air from combustion

turbine (800-900 ˚C) is fed to
ITM  high purity O2 
Gasifier.
Note: Supplemented air 2. Non-permeated gas from ITM
compressor adds is heated before being
sufficient air to replace transported into the turbine
the O2 removed by this unit.
process cycle. Solid State Ionics 134 (2000) 21-33
ITM Design- Membrane type
• Mixed conducting ceramic membrane
▫ Doped compound
▫ Different in electronic and ionic conductivity
▫ Classified based on the following oxide

• 1. Sr(Co,Fe)O3−δ (SCFO)
▫ High Oxygen ionic conductivity and oxygen
permeability
• 2. La(Co,Fe)O3−δ(LCFO)
▫ high oxygen ionic conductivity and but low oxygen
permeability
• 3. LaGaO3(LGO)
▫ low electronic conductivity
Ceramic Membranes for Separation and Reaction, Kang Li, Chapter 6
Journal of the European Ceramic Society 29 (2009) 2815- 2822
ITM Structure
SrCo0.9Sc0.1O3-δ
Disk- shaped membrane Hollow-fiber ceramic
membrane
Easy to fabricate More complicate technique e.g.
sintering
Provide limited area of O2 Large membrane area per unit
permeation volume
High electrochemical transport Less membrane resistance to
resistance oxygen transfer

NETL, The Energy Lab

AIChE Journal, July 2002 Vol. 48,No.7
Jiangsu Jiuwu Hitech CO.,LTD
CEPAratiom, partners in filtration
 26

Performance Analysis
• Effect of flow patterns
▫ At same temperature, co-current flow exhibits
higher oxygen productivity compared to
countercurrent flow pattern when the vacuum
pressure is less than 0.05 atm.

AIChE Journal, July 2002 Vol. 48,No.7

ITM-Design
• Flow Pattern : Co-Current flow

• Material balance
▫ Overall: Nf = NO2+ NR
▫ Oxygen: 0.21Nf = NO2[p’o2/P]+ NR
Ceramic Membranes for Separation and Reaction, Kang Li, Chapter 6
AIChE Journal, July 2002 Vol. 48,No.7
ITM-Design
• Oxygen flux

Where

Ceramic Membranes for Separation and Reaction, Kang Li, Chapter 6

AIChE Journal, July 2002 Vol. 48,No.7
ITM- Design Parameters
Design Parameters
Temperature (˚C) T= 900 (exhibit high stability)
Thickness (mm) h = 0.62 (thin, high flux)
Outer radius (mm) Rout =2.35
• f
Inner radius (mm) Rin = 1.73
Length (cm) L = 30
Air feed flow rate (mol/s) F = 200 mL/min
Pressure at shell side Ps = 1 atm
Pressure at lumen side Pl = 0.01 atm
Diffusivity of oxygen vacancy (cm^2/s) Dv = 1.58x10^-2 exp(-8852.5/T)
Forward reaction rate constant kf = 5.9x10^6 exp(-27291/T)
(cm/atm^0.5*s)
Reverse reaction rate constant Kr = 2.07x10^4 exp(-29023/T)
(mol/cm^2*s)
Oxygen flux (ml/cm^2*min) Jo2 = 4.41
Journal of the European Ceramic Society 29 (2009) 2815-2822
AIChE Journal, July 2002 Vol. 48,No. 7
 Plant size (Mwe) 122

ITM- Design Feed stock (TPD) 800-900

Oxygen (TPD) 700

• JO2 = 3.28x10^-6 mol/cm^2*s (D=1.429 g/L, MW

=32)
• Calculate oxygen amount per day
▫ O2 = 90685.44 g/ m^2 per day
• Total membrane area to produce 700 TPD O2
▫ (700x1000000)/90685.44 = 7718.9 m^2
• Ceramic membrane cost is $1000/m^2
▫ Total membrane cost = $7,718,900
• Number of fiber tube ( 0.00427 m^2/unit)
▫ N = 7718.9/0.00427 = 1807704.92

http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/water/media/pdfs/report040.pdf
ITM – Economic Consideration
• Using Linear extrapolation from reported data
set we get:
Cost O2 700 TPD USD
Air compression 17% 2,624,426
Separation part 50% 7,718,900
Product compression 33% 5,094,474
Total ITM cost 100% 15,437,800

• ITM Cost per kW

▫ Cost = 15437800/(122x1000) = 127 $/kW

Air separation unit integration for alternative fuel projects

ITM VS ASU in IGCC Power Plant
Factors ASU ITM-O2 % Change
Illinios#6 Coal (TPD) 3180 3176 0.125
Oxygen (TPD) 2565 (95%) 2420 (99+%) 5.6
Power production (MW) 409 420 2.7
Power plant capital investment 1567 1453 7.3
($/kW)
Gas separation capital 60.2 41.6 31
investment ($million)
Gas separation capital 147.2 99.1 32
investment ($/kw)
Thermal efficiency 45.2 46.5 2.9

Solid State Ionics 134 (2000) 21-33

ITM Economics and Concerns
Development project by Air Products/ U.S. Department of Energy/
Ceramatec Inc.

Phase1: Phase2:
- Construction of oxygen technology -Demonstrate scale-up to
development unit for process commercial scale.
concept validation test -Expected : 1000 TPD to be
- re-confirm expected commercial available to the market near
economics to address market the end of the decade.
requirements.

YEARS O2 Production
Concerns: (TPD)
-Size of ITM unit to supply 2006- 5-50
sufficient O2 to the system. 2008
-e.g. 458 Mw Power Plant size 2008- 100
need 3200 TPD of O2 2009
- Compression cost for pressurized
air. 2009- 1000
201x
 34

CO2 capture
 35

Coal plant performance targets include:

• 90% CO2 capture
• <10% increase in IGCC COE with CCS

CO2 capture

Chemical Physical Co-capture

Post-combustion
absorption absorption (H2S/CO2)
Oxyfuel-combustion
and
Pre-combustion
MEA Selexol Separated
& capture
Ionic liquid
 36

Post-combustion
Steam
Power
turbines
N2

200 ˚C,15 psi CO2

Air Boiler CO2
Fuel Flue gas capture
N2 (70%)
CO2 (3-15%)

• Capture the CO2 from the exhaust gas

• Monoethanolamine (MEA): a wildly used capture technology
• Allow retrofit at existing facilities
 37

Oxyfuel-combustion
Fuel

Air O2 CO2+H2O
Air Boiler Condensation CO2
separation

N2 H2O

• Use O2 instead of air for fuel combustion

• Flue gas is mainly H2O and CO2, which is readily captured
• Produce high CO2 content (> 80 vol%) flue gas
• Power consumption of air separation unit is high, which impact
on the overall efficiency of the power plant
 38

Pre-combustion
N2 CO2

Air O2 400 ˚C,

Air
separation Gasifier 950 psi CO2 H2 Combustion
Power
/shift Syn gas capture turbine
Fuel
H2, CO2 (40%)
Steam
Air
Heat cycle

• Fuel is reacted w/ either O2 or steam

• Water-gas-shift reactor is used to convert CO to CO2 which is
readily captures
• Physical absorption: Selexol
• Relevant for IGCC
• Proven industrial-scale technology
 39

MIT estimates of additional costs of selected carbon

capture technology (percent increase in electric generating
costs on levelized basis).

New Retrofit*
construction
Post-combustion 60-70% 220-250%
(MEA)
Pre-combustion 22-25% Not applicable
(IGCC)
Oxy-fuel 46% 170-206%
combustion
* Assumes capital costs have been fully amortized.

CRS report for congress, 2008

 40

Coal plant performance targets include:

• 90% CO2 capture
• <10% increase in IGCC COE with CCS

CO2 capture

Post-combustion Chemical Physical co-capture

absorption absorption (H2S/CO2)
Oxyfuel-combustion
or
Pre-combustion
MEA Selexol Separated
& capture
Ionic liquid
 41

Chemical absorption: monoethanolamine (MEA)

MEA heat MEA-carbamate

Pros
• Applicable to low-CO2 partial pressures.
• Recovery rates of up to 98% and product purity >99 vol% can be
achieved.

Cons
• Process consumes considerable energy.
• Solvent degradation and equipment corrosion occur in the
presence of O2.
• Concentrations of SOx and NOx in the gas stream combine with
the MEA to form nonregenerable, heat-stable salts.
 42

Physical absorption: Selexol (glycol)

• A mixture of dimethyl ethers polyethylene glycol with the formulation

of CH3(CH2CH2O)nCH3, where n is between 3 and 9

Comparison of physical solvent • Selexol has a higher capacity to absorb gases

vs. chemical solvent
than amines
Physical • Solvent is allowed to be regenerated by
solvents
pressure reduction
Chemical
solvents • Selexol can remove H2S and organic sulfur
compounds
• Low utility consumption
 43

Physical absorption: Ionic liquid (IL)

o A promising future membrane: - Non-volatility
- Thermal stability
- Tunable chemistry
Post-combustion MEA IL
CO2 capacity ( metric tons/yr) 47,100 46,900
CO2 recovery (%) 91.4 91.3
CO2 purity (%) 95.3 98.7

Equipment cost ($1,000) 1,623 1,192

Total investment ($1,000) 18,133 16,200
Cost for CO2 capture 147 63
($/metric ton CO2) * Not optimized yet
(Next goal is 33)

ILs : need more research

Bara, J. E.; Camper, D. E.; Gin, D. L.; Noble, R. D., Accounts of Chemical Research 2009, 43 (1), 152-159.
 44

Coal plant performance targets include:

• 90% CO2 capture
• <10% increase in IGCC COE with CCS

CO2 capture

Post-combustion Chemical Physical co-capture

absorption absorption (H2S/CO2)
Oxyfuel-combustion
or
Pre-combustion
MEA Selexol Separated
& capture
Ionic liquid
 45

Economic: Co-capture, Selexol

(1) IGCC (2) IGCC (3) IGCC
No Capture Separated H2S, Co-capture
CO2 captures
CO2 emission 744 193 193
(g/kWh) ( 24% to PC) ( 74% to (1)) ( 74% to (1))
Capital investment 2176 2916 2308
(US$/kW) ( 34% to (1)) ( 6% to (1))
Net capital cost (1)+20 million$
CO2 mitigation cost 25.45 6.35
(US$/ton CO2
avoided)
COE 5.09 6.67 5.48
(US¢/kWh) ( 31% to (1)) ( 7.7% to (1))
Note: National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) shows that CO2 capture and
compression using Selexol raises the cost of electricity from a newly built IGCC power plant by
30 percent, from an average of 7.8 ¢/kWh to 10.2 ¢/kWh.
 46

IGCC power plant parameters

Gasifier temperature 1000 ℃ Plant size 122MWe

Gasifier pressure 20 bar Life cycle 30 years
Coal feed per day 764 ton Capacity factor 80%
Biomass feed per day 191 ton Energy efficiency 40% (LHV)
Oxygen per day 611ton Coal conversion ratio 99.8%
Gas turbine GE MS6101FA Steam/coal ratio 0.2
Gas turbine output 82.1 MWe
Steam turbine output 55.1 MWe
Internal consumption 15.2 MWe
Net system output 122 MWe
 47

Economics analysis
Capital cost $/kWe Variable cost
Feedstock handling 36 Coal (Pitts 8#) 42/ton
Feedstock drying 45 Biomass (wood) 30/ton
Gasifier (CFBG) 150 Transportation 12/ton
HRSG 63 WGS catalyst 2.4/ton
Gas Turbine 217 O&M cost 120Mill/kWe-yr
Steam Turbine 230
ITM 128 Price for electricity $40/MWh
CO2 capture 142 -Capital cost $6.6/MWh
Construction 382 -O&M cost $13.7/MWh
Total 1393 -Fuel cost $19.6/MWh
 48

THANK YOU
for your attention