INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH

Int. J. Energy Res. 2017; 41:127–138

Published online 2 August 2016 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/er.3608

Effects of coal characteristics to performance of a

highly efficient thermal power generation system based
on pressurized oxy-fuel combustion
Tefera Zelalem Tumsa1, Tae-Young Mun2, Uendo Lee1,2 and Won Yang1,2,*,†
1
Green Process and System Engineering, University of Science and Technology (UST), Cheonan-Si, Chungnam 331-882, South Korea
2
Korea Institute of Industrial Technology, Cheonan-Si, Chungnam 331-882, South Korea

SUMMARY
Because of its fuel flexibility and high efficiency, pressurized oxy-fuel combustion has recently emerged as a promising
approach for efficient carbon capture and storage. One of the important options to design the pressurized oxy-
combustion is to determine method of coal (or other solid fuels) feeding: dry feeding or wet (coal slurry) feeding as well
as grade of coals. The main aim of this research is to investigate effects of coal characteristics including wet or dry feeding
on the performance of thermal power plant based on the pressurized oxy-combustion with CO2 capture versus atmospheric
oxy-combustion. A commercial process simulation tool (gCCS: the general carbon capture and storage) was used to sim-
ulate and analyze an advanced ultra-supercritical(A-USC) coal power plant under pressurized and atmospheric oxy-fuel
conditions. The design concept is based on using pure oxygen as an oxidant in a pressurized system to maximize the heat
recovery through process integration and to reduce the efficiency penalty because of compression and purification units.
The results indicate that the pressurized case efficiency at 30 bars was greater than the atmospheric oxy-fuel combustion
(base line case) by 6.02% when using lignite coal firing. Similarly, efficiency improvements in the case of subbituminous
and bituminous coals were around 3% and 2.61%, respectively. The purity of CO2 increased from 53.4% to 94% after
compression and purification. In addition, the study observed the effects of coal-water slurry using bituminous coal under
atmospheric conditions, determining that the net plant efficiency decreased by 3.7% when the water content in the slurry
increased from 11.12% to 54%. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS
oxy-fuel combustion; pressurization; flue gas heat recovery; plant efficiency; process integration; coal characteristics

Correspondence
*Won Yang, Green Process and System Engineering, University of Science and Technology (UST), Cheonan-Si, Chungnam 331-882,
South Korea.
†
E-mail: yangwon@kitech.re.kr

Received 16 February 2016; Revised 12 June 2016; Accepted 28 June 2016

1. INTRODUCTION removal of carbon from the fuel prior to combustion, and

One possible mitigation strategy for the stabilization of at-
mospheric greenhouse gas levels is carbon dioxide (CO2)
capture and storage. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is
a mechanism that captures and concentrates the CO2 re-
leased from power plants. Raising the current average
global efficiency rate of coal-fired power plants from
33% to 40% by utilizing off-the-shelf technology could re-
duce current CO2 emissions by two gigatons while creating
affordable energy for economic development [1].
The purpose of capturing CO2 is to produce a concen-
trated stream of CO2 at a high pressure ready for storage.
Several techniques have been suggested to-date, including
post-combustion capture in which CO2 is separated from
other components in the flue gas, pre-combustion with
oxy-combustion in which nearly pure oxygen (O2) is used
for the combustion, which results in a high CO2 concentra-
tion in the flue gas. If the fuel is burned in pure O2, the
flame temperature is expected to increase. However,
CO2- and water (H2O)-rich flue gas can be recycled to
the combustor to moderate the temperature.
Similarly, the development of an advanced ultra-super
critical (A-USC) oxy-fuel power plant could also signifi-
cantly reduce greenhouse gases and pollutant emissions
by increasing the power plant cycle efficiency and the rate
of CO2 capture by being able to withstand higher tempera-
tures. A higher cycle efficiency requires less fuel consump-
tion per unit of the plant output and results in lower levels
of gas emissions. However, the combination of ultra-super
critical and oxy-fuel technologies introduces new technical

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 127

T. Z. Tumsa et al.
challenges, especially in the development of advanced
high temperature-resistant boiler materials. The adoption
of an A-USC system with nickel (Ni)-based alloys is also
highly recommended for use with high-quality coals.
As previous studies have shown [2,3], oxy-fuel com-
bustion is based on burning coal with oxygen and recycled
flue gases to produce CO2 and water vapor as the main
components of the exhaust gas. Oxy-fuel combustion al-
lows for a much easier capture of CO2 from the exhaust
gas by the flue gas condensation than in air combustion
in which nitrogen is the dominant component. In addition,
flue gas has been mixed with pure oxygen to prevent
extreme temperature conditions and to concentrate the
produced CO2. Similar systems that have previously been
studied for pressurized coal combustion have shown a
reduction in the capture penalty. In the early stages,
Fassbinder [4] has investigated the effect of elevated
pressure on power system efficiency and pollution control.
Gazzino [5] also analyzed the pressurized oxy-combustion
of coal and found that both char combustion and
convective heat transfer were improved when compared
to atmospheric pressure oxy-combustion.
ENEL has conducted a number of experimental studies
that show the advantages of using pressurized conditions
[6]. CANMET has also examined the pressurized oxy-coal
combustion system in terms of technical and economic
studies [7]. The overall change in efficiency because of
pressurization was investigated by Hong et al. [8]. Their re-
sults showed that more latent heat was recovered in the flue
gas condenser (FGC), which improved the overall power
plant efficiency by integrating heat with the power island.
A dual reheat steam cycle was considered to maximize
the heat recovery. An in-depth part of this research investi-
gated the effects of operating pressure on heat recovery. As
a result, the optimum pressure because of the enhanced
heat recovery in the FGC was found to be 10 bars [9].
Other studies conducted on the same pressurized power
plant by Hong et al. [9] that considered multi-process var-
iables show that the optimum pressure is in the range of
3.75–6.25 bars. Pressure drops were taken into consider-
ation both in the heat recovery section and the auxiliary
equipment along the recycled flue gas line to optimize
the system [10]. A pressurized oxy-combustion coal-
based power plant, focusing on a state of the art coal-
based power plant with a single reheat steam cycle, has
previously been analyzed [11]. Radiative heat transfer
was taken into consideration in atmospheric oxy-fuel
combustion, whereas convective heat transfer was taken
into consideration in pressurized oxy-fuel combustion.
Recent research on the process design of staged pressur-
ized oxy-combustion (SPOC) for carbon capture using
Aspen Plus software has shown an observation of a
roughly 6% increment in net plant efficiency [12]. The
process uses pure oxygen with recycle as an oxidant,
and the fuel was supplied stage-wise using multiple
boilers in series. The pressurized oxy-fuel developed so
far was based on supercritical and ultra-supercritical
steam cycle.
128
Performance evaluation of pressurized oxy-fuel combustion
One of the important design considerations in a pressur-
ized oxy-fuel combustion is coal feeding method – wet or
dry feeding – which affects efficiencies of the boiler and
the power plant. Most of the pulverized coal combustion
systems use dry feeding method for minimizing efficiency
penalty caused by wet loss, but in case of entrained-flow
coal gasification system, wet feeding can be used for pre-
vention of overheating inside the reactor. Moreover, wet
feeding has more advantages in stable fuel handling. Espe-
cially, in pressurized oxy-fuel combustion system, wet loss
of the boiler can be recovered in the FGC, which allows
wider fuel flexibility in the system. Low-grade fuels are
preferable for use in the advanced system even if they have
a higher moisture content.
The main aim of this work is to evaluate the effects of
coal characteristics and coal feeding method on the effi-
ciency of an A-USC power plant based on the pressur-
ized oxy-fuel combustion, which has not been
quantitatively studied in the previous researchers’ works.
It compares and quantifies the potential efficiency im-
provement by implementing these combined effects for
various coal types. The oxidant used was pure oxygen
without recycling flue gases unlike others works that
had been conducted so far. In this study, pressurized
oxy-combustion was analyzed at different operating
pressures to investigate the effects of operating pressure
on power consumption and efficiency improvement. An
A-USC steam cycle with a single reheat steam was im-
plemented. The features and arrangements selected for
steam generator are very likely to evolve from the current
state-of-the-art-two-pass arrangement. The heat recovery
and steam generation (HRSG) unit was similar for both
the pressurized and atmospheric (base case) combustion.
There was no difference in the heat transfer section in
both the base case and the pressurized case, which im-
plies that convective heat transfer occurred in both cases.
Another important consideration is the use of pure oxy-
gen (95% O2, 2% N2, and 3% Ar) as an oxidant without
recycling flue gas. In addition, all previously considered
pressurized oxy-combustion systems have used recycled
flue gas as an oxidant mixing with pure oxygen in order
to reduce the flame temperature. However, in this case
the compressed oxygen was supplied from an air separa-
tion unit (ASU) directly to the combustor. Thus, the
volume of flue gas flow was reduced, and, indirectly,
the size of the unit operations involved in the process
was reduced. Nevertheless, the flame temperature might
be high for a high rank coal in a pure oxy-fired environ-
ment, which requires a boiler material that resists high
temperatures and pressure.
Oxy-combustion is often considered an alternative to
retrofitting a pre-existing coal-fired power plant to take ad-
vantage of already invested capital. However, existing
plants might be old and less efficient with increased losses
during carbon capture. Therefore, it should be pointed out
that even if an existing power plant has served as the basis
of the process design, a process feasibility study for a new
A-USC O2-fired power plant was implemented in this
Int. J. Energy Res. 2017; 41:127–138 © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er
Performance evaluation of pressurized oxy-fuel combustion
paper. Process integration of the steam cycle, ASU, and
compression and purification unit (CPU) was also
investigated.
2. METHODOLOGY
A power plant design and analysis was performed using
the gCCS v3.6 (general carbon capture and storage)
simulator. It is an equation-oriented model that
covered majority part of the power plant, such as the
ASU, CPU and the steam power plant. In this process
simulation, IAPWS-95 physical property method was ap-
plied for utility fluid (the water/steam side), whereas the
Peng–Robinson cubic equation of state was applied for
the boiler side, ASU, and CPU. Three main reactions had
been carried in the combustor between pulverized coal
and oxidants, which gives CO2, H2O, and SO2 as a main
product with other unreacted reactant and impurities. Main
design conditions of a combustor must be specified such as
design efficiency, exit oxygen concentration, and steam
condition (temperature and pressure).
The steam cycle performance data were used to
simulate the boiler side based on steam and water flow
parameters. The steam cycle was designed to generate
1000 MWe. The ASU and CPU were also simulated based
on this capacity. A low rank coal with high moisture con-
tent (lignite coal) was used in the simulation of pressurized
oxy-fuel combustion as a reference case. The main
simulation parameters of the water/steam side and the
boiler side were kept constant to perform a comparative
assessment of the pressurized and the base case under the
same parameters.
The main controlled operational variables were the
main steam temperatures and oxygen concentrations in
the flue gas. In this case, the reference oxygen concentra-
tion in the flue gas was maintained to 3-mole% [13]. In
the case of the pressurized study, the oxygen was supplied
to the combustor at a relatively high pressure and tempera-
ture by the compressor corresponding to the operating
pressure of the combustor.
The pressurization concept arises from the need to re-
duce the energy penalty resulting from the CPU and at
the same time utilize additional heat recovery because of
the pressurization. The pressurization increases the dew
point of the flue gas during condensation because the par-
tial pressure of water is increased. The dew points at differ-
ent partial pressures of water were determined using the
Multi Flash 4.1 software, which is helpful in evaluating
the behavior of complex fluids. The acid dew point deter-
mination is also helpful in minimizing corrosion in the heat
recovery, steam generation, and FGC tubes. The flue gas
exiting the HRSG was required to be at least 20 °C above
the acid condensation temperature. The ASU and CPU
simulation parameters were also maintained in each case.
The boiler heat released from combustion was absorbed
in the superheaters, reheater, and the economizer of HRSG
section. After exiting the economizer, flue gas passed
Int. J. Energy Res. 2017; 41:127–138 © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er
T. Z. Tumsa et al.
through the oxygen preheater to raise the temperature of
the oxygen stream in the case of atmospheric conditions
(base case). The inlet temperature of oxygen to the com-
bustor was dependent on the compressor pressure [13].
Various performance parameters, such as the auxiliary
power requirement, the net power produced, and the plant
efficiency, have been presented based on simulation
results. The heat recovery increment because of pressuriza-
tion was recovered in a FGC through integration with the
feed water after passing through the final feed water heater
to raise the temperature of the feed water. Low-pressure
feed water heaters (LPFWH) were also replaced by inte-
grating heat recovered from the FGC. The efficiency im-
provements achieved by pressurization were evaluated.
The plant efficiencies using different fuels were compared
based on a similar cycle efficiency. The purity of CO2
achieved after compression and purification was compared
with the saline reservoir sequestration limits [14].
3. PROCESS OVERVIEW OF
OXY-FUEL COMBUSTION
The oxy-fuel combustion power plant in this study is
similar to recent developments in state-of-the-art oxy-
combustion, with the exception of the recycled flue gas
stream. The process flow diagram shown in Figure 1 con-
sists of the main primary units including a cryogenic
ASU, a power island, a pressurized combustor, and a
purification/compression system. ESP was used to remove
particulates. Pure oxygen (95%) was used to burn different
types of coal to produce high CO2 and H2O contents in the
flue gas, which was helpful to recover more latent heat and
to capture CO2. An A-USC steam condition of 375 bars
and 700 °C/720 °C superheater/reheater temperatures, re-
spectively, were proposed for this study. The type of boiler
material is an important consideration in ensuring that the
boiler can withstand high temperatures and pressure be-
cause of a high adiabatic flame temperature. In addition,
an A-USC power plant has higher efficiency than a super-
critical plant, which results in a reduction in CO2 emissions
(kg/MWe power generated) and reduces the efficiency pen-
alty of carbon capture [15].
3.1. The ASU and pressurized combustor
The ASU is one of the most energy intensive units in the
system, which leads to an energy penalty and an efficiency
reduction. The ASU in this simulation model was repre-
sented by one block diagram followed by an oxygen com-
pressor with 90% isentropic efficiency. The oxygen stream
from the ASU was compressed to the required pressure.
The inlet temperature of oxygen varies with compressor
pressure. In the case of atmospheric combustion, the
oxygen stream was preheated to the minimum inlet tem-
perature of 200 °C [5]. The air separation was carried out
at atmospheric conditions. Similarly, the specific energy
consumption per unit kg of O2 produced to achieve 95%
129
T. Z. Tumsa et al. Performance evaluation of pressurized oxy-fuel combustion

Figure 1. Process flow diagram of the pressurized oxy-fuel combustion system.

purity of oxygen was approximately 0.173 kWh/kg by
considering energy efficiency improvements because of
heat integration according to technology developers [16].
The oxygen flow rate to the combustor and the power re-
quired for the CPU were determined based on the excess
oxygen content in the flue gas. However, the flow rate
varies with other factors such as the combustor efficiency
and the inlet feed water temperature.
The pressurized combustor used in this process is simi-
lar to that used by Hong et al. [7], in which the heat transfer
was carried out in the heat recovery section of the boiler
(economizer, reheater, and superheater) convectively. The
efficiency of the combustor was maintained at 87.5%
(reference) in the case of lignite coal [17]. The base case
and the pressurized combustors were assumed adiabatic;
no heat should be rejected from the combustor by the
cooling water circulating in the outer layer of the combus-
tor. The temperature of the flue gas was also found to be
higher than in the air-fired case in the pure oxygen environ-
ment. The combustor flue gas temperature can be
maintained by using the proper boiler material, which can
withstand high pressure and temperatures during high rank
coal combustion. The addition of water to the combustor in
the form of coal slurry reduces the temperature of the flue
gas to the heat regeneration unit. Lignite coal, which is a
type of low rank coal, was used as a reference case to in-
vestigate the effects of pressurization on the efficiency of
the plant in comparison with subbituminous and bitumi-
nous coals. The ultimate data analysis for selected coals
are outlined in Table I. The total power consumed by the
pulverizers was based on power consumed per unit kg of
selected coals fed to the combustor. Leakage is another

Table I. Data analysis of selected coals.

Coal type
Composition Lignite[22] Subbituminous[29] Bituminous[29]

Moisture (wt%) 52.0 27.42 11.12

Ash (wt%) 6.50 4.50 9.70
Carbon (wt%) 29.1 50.23 63.75
Nitrogen (wt%) 0.30 0.65 1.25
Hydrogen (wt %) 2.47 3.41 4.50
Sulfur (wt%) 1.43 0.22 2.51
Chlorine (wt%) 0.01 0.02 0.29
Oxygen (wt%) 8.19 13.55 6.88
HHV(MJ/kg) 12.2 20.47 27.13
LHV(MJ/kg) 10.40 19.0 25.84

130 Int. J. Energy Res. 2017; 41:127–138 © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er
Performance evaluation of pressurized oxy-fuel combustion T. Z. Tumsa et al.

factor in air-fired combustion. However, it was not consid- Table II. Main simulation parameters.
ered in this study because pure oxygen at a high pressure Parameters Values Units
was supplied to the combustor without preheating during
pressurized combustion. Air separation unit (ASU)
Oxygen purity 95 %
Compressor pressure Varied bar
3.2. Turbine island
Oxygen delivery Depends on °C
The scheme of an A-USC steam cycle was developed temperature compressor pressure
based on supercritical steam cycle condition. The turbine Boiler side
consists of high-pressure turbines (HP), intermediate- Combustor pressure 1–30 bar
Combustor efficiency 87.5 %
pressure turbines (IPTs), and low-pressure turbines (LPTs)
(reference)
in which all are connected to a generator (98.8%) with a com-
Oxygen in flue gas 3 %
mon shaft. [18]. Superheated steam leaves the HRSG section
Carbon content in ash 5 %
at a pressure of 375 bars and temperature of 700 °C. At
Turbine island
HPT section, part of steam entered to high pressure feed
Main steam temperature/ 700/375 °C/bar
water heaters (HPFWH). In addition, some part of the pressure
steam also reheated to 720 °C before entering to IPT sec- Reheater temperature 720 °C
tion. Each HPT and IPT section has two extractions to Feed water heater (FWH) 7 No.
feed water heaters systems, while LPT section has four- Inlet flow rate of 654 Kg/s
extraction points. The water is subcooled to 32 °C in the feed water at 1 bar
condenser operating at 0.05 bar [19]. The condensed wa- Inlet temperature of 278.15 °C
ter pumped through low pressure feed water heater feed water
(LPFWH) and fed to the deaerator operating at 8.5 bars Condenser pressure 0.05 bar
to remove undesired steam constituents. The water leav- Compression and
ing the deaerator is reheated to 278.15 °C before it was purification (CPU)
supplied to HRSG section. In order to optimize the ther- First compressor pressure 15 bar
mal integration with the other cycles, the steam extracted Second compressor 33 bar
from turbines is replaced by flue gas thermal heat recov- pressure
ery system in the FGC. The quantity of steam required Warm/cold MHX outlet
30/
54 °C
for each feed water heater determined based on a drain temperature
cooler approach temperature of 5.6 °C between the cold Final pressure 110 bar
and hot streams. The main simulation parameters used
in this power plant design are shown in Table II.

3.3. The CPU

The CO2 compression and purification process consisted of
another set of unit operations, which contributed to the en-
ergy penalty and efficiency reduction. Unlike the ASU, the
CO2 CPU and pressurized oxy-fuel boiler have yet to be
commercialized. However, technological advancements
in this area have been made. A large number of pilot scale
tests have been carried out to achieve sufficient informa-
tion for the full-scale development of an oxy-fuel power
plant [20].
The flue gas from the heat recovery section of the boiler
passed through the FGC where it can be cooled to 40 °C. In
the FGC, the latent heat of flue gas could be recovered and
transferred to the boiler feed water as a heat sink. The wa-
ter in the flue gas was condensed as it passed through the
water cooler and was separated in the flush drum. The
CO2 content in the flue gas was around 85% before com-
pression. The CO2-rich stream was then compressed to
33 bars using the first compressor train [21]. The first com-
pressor contained two stages. In the first stage, the flue gas
was compressed to 15 bars then after cooling and conden-
sation it was compressed to 33 bars in the second stage.
The heat of compression can be used to preheat the feed
water, and, as a result, a high amount of cooling water
was consumed from the cooling tower [22]. Cooling is al-
ways followed by a flash drum to separate the condensate
and vapor, including the inert impurities.
Partially condensed gas was fed to the dehydrator to re-
move water and other gases, where it could increase the
CO2 recovery rate to above 90%. The CO2-rich stream
from the dehydrator was then fed to a cold box where the
CO2 stream in the flue gas was cooled by heat exchange
with the returning superheated CO2 and impurity streams.
The cold box was represented using dual multi-heat
exchangers in the GCCS simulation model based on the
CO2-rich stream dew point temperature and pressure
drop. The inert impurities and gas removal was carried
out using the principle of phase separation at a temperature
of
54 °C, at which point CO2 is condensed into liquid
form [23]. The concentrated flue gas fed to the first warm
heat exchanger was cooled to
30 °C. The flue gas vapor
from the flash drum was cooled further in the cold heat ex-
changer to
54 °C. The refrigeration for plant operation
was obtained by evaporating liquid CO2. The flue gas,
CO2-rich stream (stream from the first flash drum) was re-
duced by 15 bars using a throttle valve. The CO2-rich

Int. J. Energy Res. 2017; 41:127–138 © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 131
DOI: 10.1002/er
T. Z. Tumsa et al.
stream from the second flash drum after the warm cycle was
also reduced to 25 bars to function as a refrigerant to cool
the fresh dry gas from the dehydrator. Finally, the CO2-rich
flue gas was then compressed to 110 bars for transportation
and storage. An integrated removal of SOx and NOx from
the flue gas at elevated pressure was not implemented in
this study because the focuses were efficiency improvement
and energy integration. However, a detail process modeling
on the removal mechanism using contact column is under
way independently. The composition of the condensed flue
gas was compared to the standard minimum composition of
gases for saline reservoir sequestration, as shown in
Table III. The composition of the flue gas before and after
the CPU is also shown in Figure 2.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The overall performances of the atmospheric and pressur-
ized systems for the lignite coal are shown in Table IV. It
is evident that a high-energy penalty was mainly because
of the ASU and the CPU. The plant efficiency of the power
plant at the reference condition (i.e. air firing without CCS)
was around 42.36% when using low rank coal (lignite).
Hence, an efficiency reduction of roughly 10% was ob-
served in the oxy-fuel combustion with a carbon capture
system and in the absence of flue gas recycling. As shown in
Table IV, it is possible to increase the net plant efficiency by
6.02% when the operating pressure of the combustor in-
creases from atmospheric pressure to 30 bars in the case of
lignite coal firing for the same process flow diagram as illus-
trated in Figure 1. The efficiency increment beyond 15 bar is
also insignificant, so it can be considered as an optimum op-
erating pressure. The plant efficiency increment shows sim-
ilar trend with related previous works cited in this paper,
even if the simulations have been conducted on different ba-
sis (steam cycle condition and fuel grade). As it has been
discussed in the previous study, nearly equivalent efficiency
increment was observed in case of SPOC concept as
compared to the reference atmospheric oxy-combustion.
In addition, its optimum pressure was also around 16 bar.
4.1. The effect of pressurization on auxiliary
loads
The ASU, CPU, pumps, and pulverizers are the main aux-
iliary units of the system that reduce the efficiency of the
Table III. Comparison of flue gas composition with saline reservoir sequestration limits.
Components Saline reservoir sequestration limit[14]
CO2 95
H2 O 500
N2 1 0.01–7
O2 0.001
SO2 100
Ar 1 0.001–4
132
Performance evaluation of pressurized oxy-fuel combustion
Figure 2. Composition of flue gases at atmospheric conditions
conducted.
power plant because of an increment in power consump-
tion. It is evident that the oxygen compressor power con-
sumption increases with operating pressure. The ASU
power consumption increased by 90.9 MWe from 119.3
MWe (1 bar) to 210.19 MWe (30 bars). Similarly, the
CPU power consumption decreased by 90.86 MWe from
133.57 MWe (1 bar) to 42.71 MWe (30 bars), in case of lig-
nite coal firing as shown in Figure 3, because an increase in
the operating pressure lowers the pressure ratio across the
CPU. Other coal types considered here have similar and
equivalent trend.
As shown in Figure 3, with an increase in operating
pressure the gas compression power requirement shifts
from the CPU to the ASU, even if it does not occur in
the same proportion. In the low-pressure range the total
power requirement decreases because the CPU power con-
sumption falls for the following reasons: first, when the op-
erating pressure increases, the pressure ratio of the CPU
compressor that assists in raising the flue gas pressure de-
creases. Second, as the operating pressure increases, the
rate of condensation rapidly increases, which suggests that
the flue gas flow to the CPU decreases. Thus, the power
consumption of the first compressor decreases. However,
the ASU power consumption slowly increases at a lower
pressure range up to 5 bars because of a reduced pressure
ratio. This implies that the combined power consumption
is reduced in the lower pressure ranges. As the operating
Range in literature[14] Simulation Unit
90–99.8 94 Vol%
20–650 60.3 ppmv
0.59 Vol%
0.001–4 2.38 Vol%
10–50 000 18 900 ppmv
0.943 Vol%
Int. J. Energy Res. 2017; 41:127–138 © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er
Performance evaluation of pressurized oxy-fuel combustion T. Z. Tumsa et al.

Units

MWth
MWe
MWe
MWe
MWe
MWe
MWe
MWe
MWe
Bar

%
210.19
42.71
7.61
31.06
291.57
1155.21
124.59
881.91
38.01
2320.5
30

184.29
54.85
7.61
30.65

1139.54
108.92
880.41
37.94
2320.5

277.4
Pressurized cases
15
Table IV. Performance of baseline and pressurized oxy-fuel combustion using lignite coal(reference) after heat recovery.

171.19
63.34
7.61
30.44
272.58
1131.45
100.83
877.14
2320.5

37.8
10

151.89
80.32
7.61
30.13
269.95
1120.02

868.34
37.42 Figure 3. The effect of pressure on the ASU, CPU, and total
2320.5

89.4

power consumption of the power plant.

5

pressure further increases, the ASU power consumption

Atmospheric (optimized)

becomes greater than the rate of the CPU power consump-

tion drop. In addition, the oxygen flow rate from the ASU
is larger than that of the CO2 flow rate in the flue gas. As a
119.29
133.57
7.61
29.78
290.25
1107.24
76.62
835.26
35.99
2320.5
Baseline cases (oxy-combustion)

result, the oxygen power consumption is larger than that of

the CPU power consumption. Because the flue gas sent to
the CPU is pressurized, the power required for CO2 com-
pression and purification is reduced [24].
There is no power consumption associated with flue gas
recycling, as in previous studies, because pure oxygen is
Atmospheric (base case)

used as an oxidant. Even if a large amount of power is con-

sumed in the oxygen compressor because of pressuriza-
119.29
133.57
7.61
27.72
288.19
1030.62

742.43
31.99

tion, there are compensations such as the absence of an

2320.5

oxygen preheater that is considered in air-fired combustion

system, the increment of thermal heat recovery, and the re-
duction in flue gas volume that reduces the size of the
equipment along the boiler side. It is known that the oxy-
gen preheating steps result in thermal efficiency penalties,
Atmospheric pressure

which lower the overall efficiency of the system. There is

no leakage because of the absence of a preheater between
19.12
27.72
47.64
1030.62

42.36

the flue gas and oxygen in the pressurized environment,

Air fired

2320.5

982.9
—
—

which considerably reduced the power consumption of

the CPU.

4.2. The effect of pressure on latent heat

recovery
Steam side
Gas side

The main goal in operating oxy-fuel combustion under a

Total
ASU
CPU

pressurized environment is to recover a large amount of

heat in the FGC by integrating the heat from hot flue gas
with feed water leaving the final feed water heater and
Power consumption by

the LPFWH. The heat exchangers networking principle

Thermal energy input
Combustor pressure

Net plant efficiency

Net electric power

was implemented as shown in Figure 4. As a result, the

Power increment

number of heat exchangers employed in the system was

Gross power

reduced.
Parameters

The water vapor in the flue gas begins to condense

when the temperature of the flue gas reaches the dew point
of water in the flue gas [25]. The dew point of water

Int. J. Energy Res. 2017; 41:127–138 © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 133
DOI: 10.1002/er
T. Z. Tumsa et al. Performance evaluation of pressurized oxy-fuel combustion

Figure 4. A schematic of heat exchangers network where the possible heat integrations were conducted.

increases as the pressure increases because the partial pres-

sure of water in the flue gas also increases. Thus, both the
recovered sensible and latent heat is used for integration
with the steam cycle to raise the feed water temperature.
The dew point of the flue gas also depends on the fuel type.
The higher the moisture content in the fuel, the higher the
latent heat recovery of the flue gas. The temperature of the
flue gas at the exit of the FGC was maintained at 40 °C to
compare the heat recovery at different operating pressures
of the combustor. Here, the cooling water consumed in
the FGC increased with operating pressure to maintain
the exiting flue gas temperature. The dew point of water
at different operating pressures was determined using
Multi Flash 4.1 software based on the equilibrium flash
calculation. Similarly, the removal of sulfurous oxide from
the flue gas strongly depended on the combustion pressure.
The dew point of acid also increased with operating pres- Figure 5. The effect of pressure on flue gas heat recovery and
sure, which aids in condensing and removing sulfurous ox- condensation rate (FGC outlet temperature: 40 °C).
ide from the flue gas before reaching the CPU. The
temperature of the flue gas exiting the HRSG should be
enthalpy was equivalent to the oxidant compressor work
higher than the acid condensation temperature for various
input, which increased with operating pressure.
operating pressures to prevent corrosion. Acid should be
condensed in a direct contact column manufactured with
corrosion-resistant material, which has not been considered P ¼ mðh2
h1 Þ (1)
in this study. The total percentage of condensed water col-
lected from the flash drum slightly increased with an in- where P—power input, m—mass of oxidant, and h1 and h2
crease in the operating pressure up to 10 bars. Beyond 10 —inlet and out let enthalpy respectively. The heat recovery
bars, almost no difference in the moisture condensation in the FGC because of operating pressure was determined
rate was observed, as shown in Figure 5. The thermal heat based on latent heat of vaporization or condensation.
recovery increased with an increase in the operating pres-
sure up to 30 bars, as shown in Figure 5. Therefore, as Q ¼ mhf g (2)
the operating pressure increased, the latent heat recovery
also increased because of the elevation of the dew point where m—mass of condensed water, hfg —latent heat of
temperature. vaporization, and Q —recovered heat.
The thermal heat recovery in the HRSG increased be- The enthalpy flue gas from the FGC was constant be-
cause of a combined effect of an increased oxidant en- cause the outlet temperature and flue gas flow rate were
thalpy and operating pressure. The increased oxidant fixed in this simulation using an indirect contact heat

134 Int. J. Energy Res. 2017; 41:127–138 © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er
Performance evaluation of pressurized oxy-fuel combustion
recovery. As the pressure increased, the temperature of the
flue gas exiting the HRSG increased, which implies that a
greater amount of thermal energy was recovered in the
FGC. The thermal energy transferred to the low tempera-
ture section of the steam cycle increased the feed water
temperature. However, the temperature of the steam at
the exit of the HRSG and the temperature increase in the
reheater remained constant. The temperature increase in
the HRSG grew smaller because of an increase in the inlet
feed water temperature, and, thus, the feed water flow that
circulated through the HRSG and the turbines increased,
which lead to an increase in power generation for an iden-
tical thermal share input. The feed water flow rate varies
with the operating pressure for various coal grades as
shown in Figure 6.
4.3. Process integration and plant efficiency
The net plant efficiency of the pressurized power plant can
be improved by increasing the power generated and reduc-
ing the power consumed. Increasing the power generated is
related to steam quality, whereas reducing the energy pen-
alty is related to optimizing the auxiliary power consump-
tion. Here, the heat integration was conducted in the FGC
within the feed water from the final feed water heater and
the flue gas [26]. As a result, the temperature of the feed
water increased with operating pressure.
The addition of heat to the steam cycle had a significant
effect on the efficiency of the plant. The latent heat from
flue gas moisture condensation was also integrated with
low-pressure feed water for additional heat recovery to re-
place the LPFWH. As a result, the steam extraction flow
required for regeneration of the boiler feed water (BFW)
decreased, which lead to a net plant efficiency increase.
The overall performance of the power plant after integra-
tion in the case of lignite coal firing is shown in Table IV
. The design efficiency of the combustor and the steam
quality were kept constant for each case.
Figure 6. The effect of flue gas pressure on power produced
and steam flow rate.
Int. J. Energy Res. 2017; 41:127–138 © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er
T. Z. Tumsa et al.
As shown in Figure 6, the power produced increased
with operating pressure. When the heat added to the steam
cycle increased, the inlet temperature of the feed water to
the HRSG also increased. Thus, the feed water flow rate in-
creased, as shown in Figure 6, corresponding to the
amount of heat added. The turbine power increased contin-
uously up to 15 bars; however, there was no significant
change within the 15–30 bars pressure range. The change
in efficiency was also insignificant within this operating
pressure range. Generally, the combined effect of the feed
water temperature and the steam flow rate increment be-
cause of enhanced heat recovery from process integration
lead to significant improvements in efficiency. On the other
hand, a significant reduction in flue gas volume was ob-
served because of compression effects and the absence of
flue gas recycling. The sizes of various units in the system
were decreased because of the reduced flue gas volume.
The size and heat transfer area of the HRSG decreased with
a reduction in the flue gas volume. However, a larger
amount of construction material was needed because of
the required increase in wall thickness to resist the elevated
pressure operation. There was also a significant reduction
in the size of the processing units with an increasing pres-
sure because of the reduced flue gas volume.
4.4. Efficiency assessment using different
fuels
Improvements in the work output of the steam turbine var-
ied with different fuels because of the moisture content in
each fuel. To investigate the effects of fuel variations on
the efficiency improvement of the power plant because of
pressurization, three different types of coal were selected:
lignite coal (design coal), subbituminous coal, and bitumi-
nous coal. A study was conducted at a constant thermal
share input of 2320.5 MWth and all simulation parameters
remained constant except for the combustion pressure and
design efficiency. The design efficiencies of bituminous
and subbituminous coal were determined based on the de-
sign coal (lignite) efficiency for the same thermal share in-
put by estimating load points (LP) for each type of coal.
QEDSH þ QRH
LP ¼ *100 (3)
QM CR
where QEDSH heat is the input into the steam cycle (econo-
mizers, desuperheaters, and superheaters), QRH is the
reheater heat input, and QMCR is the maximum thermal
heat input into the steam cycle. It is well known that burn-
ing low rank coal at atmospheric conditions or increasing
the moisture content in the fuel decreases the plant effi-
ciency because an additional flue gas volume results in ad-
ditional heat loss from the stack. Whereas in a pressurized
system the latent heat because of flue gas condensation in-
creases with an increasing fuel moisture content.
As shown in Figure 7, the net plant efficiency decreased
when the moisture content in the fuel increased. The mois-
ture contents in the fuel were 52%, 27.42%, and 11.12%
135
T. Z. Tumsa et al.
Figure 7. Efficiency improvement because of pressurization
using different fuels.
for lignite, subbituminous, and bituminous coal, respec-
tively. The high temperature sensible heat in the HRSG
(superheaters, reheater, and economizer) was reduced with
an increasing moisture content, whereas the latent heat re-
covery in the FGC increased with an increasing moisture
content. The highest net plant efficiency, 39.89%, was
achieved using bituminous coal. The net plant efficiency
for subbituminous and lignite coals were 39.36% and
38.01%, respectively. The net heat supplied to the steam
cycle was constant. However, a considerable amount of
heat shifted from the HRSG to FGC as the moisture con-
tent in the fuel increased, which reduces the steam quality
and the net plant efficiency by decreasing the steam flow
rate to the steam cycle.
As the moisture content in the fuel increased, more heat
was recovered from the FGC with increasing pressure. The
net plant efficiency increased by 6.02%, 3%, and 2.61% for
lignite, subbituminous, and bituminous coals, respectively,
as the combustion pressure increased from atmospheric
pressure to 30 bars. The highest heat recovery was
achieved from the FGC during lignite coal combustion.
Subbituminous coal had a higher heat recovery in the
FGC than bituminous coal, which lead to a higher net plant
efficiency increment because its moisture content is rela-
tively higher [27].
4.5. Effects of moisture content on the
efficiency of the plant
The effects of coal water slurry feed on the net plant effi-
ciency were also investigated using bituminous coal as a
case study at various coal water slurry ratios. In a high-
pressure operation, coal water slurry feeding is effective
for high rank coals but not for low grade coals [28]. The
proper slurry ratio was decided by considering the mini-
mum amount of heat that could be integrated into the steam
136
Performance evaluation of pressurized oxy-fuel combustion
Figure 8. The effect of coal (bituminous) water slurry ratios on
the net plant efficiency penalty and boiler efficiency.
cycle. The heat available from FGC was integrated with
LPFWH, which minimized or eliminated the steam extrac-
tion. The simulation in this study was conducted at various
coal–water slurry ratios by increasing the moisture content
in the fuel, including as received coal composition as a ref-
erence for the same thermal share input. As shown in
Figure 8, when the moisture content in the fuel increased
from 11.12% to 54%, the net plant efficiency continuously
decreased at atmospheric conditions (base case) because of
a reduction in the boiler efficiency because of heat loss
from the flue gas. The reduction in the boiler efficiency
was because of the shift of heat from the HRSG to FGC.
Even if the low-grade heat shifted to the FGC increased
with water content in the fuel, the possibility of integration
remained limited. The efficiency penalty rapidly increased,
as shown in Figure 8, when the integration of the heat re-
covered from the flue gas to the feed water could no longer
be applied. Water added in excess of the point at which
heat integration is no longer possible leads to an increment
in efficiency penalty. Overall, the high-grade heat shifted
from the HRSG was much higher as compared to the heat
integrated to the steam cycle by integration with the
LPFWH, which resulted in an efficiency penalty as mois-
ture increased in both the atmospheric and pressurized
systems.
5. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, effects of coal characteristics and method of
feeding on the performance of an A-USC plant based on
a pressurized oxy-fuel combustion system was investigated
in comparison with atmospheric conditions using the
gCCS simulator. Significant efficiency improvements were
achieved under pressurized conditions because of auxiliary
load reduction, increased heat recovery, and the absence of
recycled flue gas. The net plant efficiency increased by
6.02%, 3%, and 2.61% for an increase in pressure from at-
mospheric pressure up to 30 bars, in the case of lignite,
subbituminous, and bituminous coals, respectively. The
Int. J. Energy Res. 2017; 41:127–138 © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er
Performance evaluation of pressurized oxy-fuel combustion
net plant efficiency increment specifically because of pres-
surization was around 2%. In addition, the efficiency pen-
alty was reduced from 10.37% to 4.35% in the case of
lignite coal firing after heat integration. Therefore, it is pos-
sible to achieve a net plant efficiency, which is equivalent
to the exiting state-of-art-of supercritical air-fired power
plant using an A-USC oxy-combustion with carbon cap-
ture because of pressurization and heat integration. Further
techno-economic assessments are under way to investigate
reductions in capital costs and operating costs in relation to
a reduced flue gas volume.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by the Renewable Energy R&D
Program of the Korea Institute of Energy Technology
Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) grant funded by the Ko-
rean Government Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy
(20131020102320).
REFERENCES
1. WCA. Coal & Electricity. World Coal Association
2016; available from: www.worldcoal.org[accesed
02.02.16].
2. Park S, Kim JA, Ryu C, Chae T, Yang W, Kim Y-J,
et al. Combustion and heat transfer characteristics of
oxy-coal combustion in a 100 MWe front-wall-fired
furnace. Fuel 2013; 106:718–729.
3. Park S, Kim JA, Ryu C, Yang W, Kim YJ, Seo S. Ef-
fects of gas and particle emissions on wall radiative
heat flux in oxy-fuel combustion. Journal of Mechan-
ical Science and Technology 2012; 26(5):1633–1641.
4. Fassbinder A. Power system with enhanced thermody-
namic efficiency and pollution control 2001.
5. Gazzino M, Benelli G. Pressurized oxy-coal combus-
tion Rankine-cycle for future zero emission power
plants:process design and energy analysis. In Energy
Sustainability. Jacksonville: Florida, USA, 2008.
6. Malavasi, M, Rossetti, E. High-efficiency combustors
with reduced environmental impact and processes for
power generation derivable therefrom 2005.
7. Benelli G, Cumbo D, Gazzino M, Morgani E. Pressur-
ized oxy-combustion of coal with flue gas recircula-
tion: pilot scale demonstration. In Power Gen Europe
Conference and Exhibition. Milan, Italy, 2008.
8. Hong J, Chaudhry G, Brisson JG, Field R, Gazzino M,
Ghoniem AF. Analysis of oxy-fuel combustion power
cycle utilizing a pressurized coal combustor. Energy
2009; 34(9):1332–1340.
9. Hong J, Field R, Gazzino M, Ghoniem AF. Operating
pressure dependence of the pressurized oxy-fuel com-
bustion power cycle. Energy 2010; 35(12):5391–5399.
Int. J. Energy Res. 2017; 41:127–138 © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er
T. Z. Tumsa et al.
10. Zebian H, Gazzino M, Mitsos A. Multi-variable opti-
mization of pressurized oxy-coal combustion. Energy
2012; 38(1):37–57.
11. Soundararajan R, Gundersen T. Coal based power
plants using oxy-combustion for CO2 capture: pressur-
ized coal combustion to reduce capture penalty. Ap-
plied Thermal Engineering 2013; 61(1):115–122.
12. Gopan A, Kumfer BM, Phillips J, Thimsen D, Smith
R, Axelbaum RL. Process design and performance
analysis of a Staged, Pressurized Oxy-Combustion
(SPOC) power plant for carbon capture. Applied En-
ergy 2014; 125:179–188.
13. Hagi H, Nemer M, Le Moullec Y, Bouallou C. To-
wards second generation oxy-pulverized coal power
plants: energy penalty reduction potential of pressur-
ized oxy-combustion systems. Energy Procedia 2014;
63:431–439.
14. U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technol-
ogy Laboratory. Quality guideline for energy system
studies: CO2 impurity design parameters 2013.
15. Seltzer A, Fan Z, Hack H. Ultra-supercritical oxy-fuel
power generation for CO2 capture. In 36th Interna-
tional Technical Conference on Coal Utilization and
Fuel System. International Pittsburgh Coal Conference:
Clearwater, Florida, 2011.
16. Perrin N, Dubettier R, Lockwood F, Court P, Tranier
J-P, Bourhy-Weber C, et al. Oxycombustion for car-
bon capture on coal power plants and industrial pro-
cesses: advantages, innovative solutions and key
projects. Energy Procedia 2013; 37:1389–1404.
17. Mun TY, Tefera ZT, Lee U, Lee JW, Yang W. Evalu-
ation of plant performance during biomass co-firing in
pulverized coal power plant. Korean Society of
Combustion 2014; 19(3):8–17.v
18. Marion L. Advanced ultra-supercritical steam power
plant. In International Pittsburg Coal Conference.
Coal Technology Association: Beijing, China, 2013.
19. U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology
Laboratory. Quality guideline for energy system
studies: process modelling design parameters 2014.
20. Morita T, Nakićenović NJ, Robinson J. Overview of
mitigation scenarios for global climate stabilization
based on new IPCC emission scenarios (SRES). Envi-
ronmental Economics and Policy Studies 2014; 3
(2):65–88.
21. Liszka M, Ziębik A. Coal-fired oxy-fuel power unit—
process and system analysis. Energy 2010; 35
(2):943–951.
22. Anderson K, Johnsson F. Process evaluation of an 865
MWe lignite fired O2/CO2 power plant. Energy Con-
version and Management 2006; 47:3487–3498.
23. Pipitone G, Bolland O. Power generation with CO2
capture: technology for CO2 purification.
137
T. Z. Tumsa et al.
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control
2009; 3(5):528–534.
24. Chen H-T, Wu W. Efficiency enhancement of pressur-
ized oxy-coal power plant with heat integration.
International Journal of Energy Research 2015; 39
(2):256–264.
25. Hetland J. Flue gas processing: Strategies for water
treatment. Water removal and moisture control via
dew point modelling. In Third Oxy-Fuel Combustion
Conference. Ponferrada: Spain, 2013.
26. Hagi H, Nemer M, Le Moullec Y, Bouallou C. Opti-
mal integration of the flue gas heat for the
138
Performance evaluation of pressurized oxy-fuel combustion
minimization of the energy penalty of oxy-fired power
plants. Energy Procedia 2014; 63:7359–7366.
27. Lasek JA, Janusz M, Zuwała J, Głód K, Iluk A.
Oxy-fuel combustion of selected solid fuels under at-
mospheric and elevated pressures. Energy 2013;
62:105–112.
28. Laskowski JS. Chapter 3 Coal surface properties. In
Developments in Mineral Processing. Elsevier:
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2001; 31–94.
29. U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technol-
ogy Laboratory. Quality guideline for energy system
studies: detail coal specifications 2012.
Int. J. Energy Res. 2017; 41:127–138 © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er