Energy Conversion and Management 151 (2017) 414–425

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Analysis of integrated gasification combined cycle power plant MARK

incorporating chemical looping combustion for environment-friendly
utilization of Indian coal
⁎
Haneef Shijaz, Yerrayya Attada, Venkata Suresh Patnaikuni , Ramsagar Vooradi,
Sarath Babu Anne
Department of Chemical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Warangal 506004, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The concern on the effect of global warming due to greenhouse gases has been increasing. Carbon dioxide is the
Chemical looping combustion most powerful greenhouse gas and more than 40% of its emission is from fossil fuelled power plants. So the
Pre-combustion capture efficient use of fossil fuel with carbon dioxide capture is the best method for achieving the energy demands with
Oxygen carriers less pollutant emissions. But the conventional capture technologies are more energy intensive and cause a drop
Indian coal
in net power production. This energy penalty can be overcome by using Chemical looping combustion technique.
Exergy analysis
In this technique, combustion occurs in two reactors – Air reactor and Fuel reactor. The former is fluidised by air
and the later by fuel. Metal oxides called oxygen carriers loop in between two reactors carrying oxygen and heat
required for combustion to the fuel reactor. So there is no direct contact between air and fuel and results in pure
combustion products- carbon dioxide and water. Therefore a separate air separation or gas separation unit is not
required which are energy eating units in conventional capture methods. This work presents steady state si-
mulations of three systems: Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle power plant (i) without carbon dioxide
capture, (ii) with pre-combustion capture and (iii) integrated with chemical looping combustion. All the si-
mulations are carried out using Aspen plus simulation package. High ash Indian coal is used as the fuel. The
performance of each case is compared in terms of overall energy efficiency and carbon dioxide capture rate. The
efficiencies of the system without capture, with looping combustion and with pre-combustion capture are found
to be 42.69%, 40.2% and 35.8% respectively. The respective capture efficiencies of looping combustion and pre-
combustion capture are 99.97% and 94%. It can be seen that the reduction in the overall efficiency is marginal in
the case of chemical looping combustion. This shows the superiority of chemical looping combustion technique
over the pre-combustion capture technique in terms of higher capture efficiency and overall plant thermal ef-
ficiency. An exergy analysis is also carried out to identify the units having higher exergy destruction rates.
Parametric studies are carried out on these units to observe their effect on the overall plant performance. Thus, a
process for an energy efficient and environment friendly utilization of high ash Indian coal is presented in this
paper.

1. Introduction
The carbon dioxide (CO2) level in the atmosphere is considered as a
main environmental concern to be addressed immediately. The level of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increased at a tremendous
pace for last few decades [1]. Since carbon dioxide is the most powerful
greenhouse gas [2], it causes global warming and subsequent rise in
atmospheric temperature. Average global temperature is raised from
14.25 °C in 2000 to 14.6 °C in 2010 [3]. Power and industrial sectors
are the main sources of carbon dioxide [4]. Among the power plants,
fossil fuel combustion accounts for about 40% of CO2 emissions to the
atmosphere. At the same time, more than 50% of the energy demand in
the world is satisfied by the fossil fuels. Therefore, switching to a re-
newable fuel or less-carbon fuel is not practical to achieve the future
energy demand. So the efficient use of fuel with less pollutant emission
to the atmosphere gives a solution for both energy demand and CO2
emission.
Carbon dioxide capture and sequestration is the best method to get
concentrated CO2 stream from power plants to store it safe and per-
manently. There are three methods of carbon dioxide capture; pre-

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: pvsuresh@nitw.ac.in (V.S. Patnaikuni).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.08.075
Received 29 March 2017; Received in revised form 23 August 2017; Accepted 27 August 2017
0196-8904/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Shijaz et al.
combustion, post-combustion and oxy-fuel combustion methods [5]. In
pre-combustion method, fuel is partially oxidised to CO and H2
(syngas), CO formed can be converted to CO2 to capture prior to the
combustion step using physical absorption, adsorption, etc. Post-com-
bustion method separates the CO2 from the flue gas of combustion, i.e.
after the combustion step. In oxy-fuel combustion method, an addi-
tional air separation unit is provided to give pure oxygen as oxidant for
combustion. So the combustion products are pure CO2 and H2O that
eases the separation of carbon dioxide. But both gas separation unit and
air separation unit are energy-intensive that reduces the overall effi-
ciency of the plant.
Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant is a
unique technology for power production from solid fuels. In IGCC, solid
fuels are initially gasified and resulting gaseous fuel is cleaned and sent
for combustion. The flue gas from the combustion chamber is expanded
in gas turbine for power production and remaining heat in the flue gas
is recovered in heat recovery steam generator (HRSG). Steam produced
in HRSG is used for power production by a steam turbine. So this
combined cycle increases the efficiency of the plant and cleaning pro-
cesses after gasification reduces the pollutant emissions. But the in-
tegration of CO2 capture unit into an IGCC power plant causes a re-
duction in the net power production and there by reduced overall
efficiency. Then the interest in IGCC technology would be less due to its
higher capital cost.
Chemical looping combustion (CLC) is a novel technology for
combustion with CO2 capture, which can be integrated in an IGCC
power plant without compromising the efficiency. In CLC (Fig. 1)
combustion occurs in two reactors- air reactor and fuel reactor. Solid
materials (metal oxides) called oxygen carriers circulate in between
these reactors to transfer oxygen required for combustion. Air reactor
and fuel reactor are fluidised by air and fuel respectively. Fuel takes the
oxygen from metal oxides for combustion and reduces the metal oxides.
These reduced metal oxides are further oxidised with air in air reactor.
This loop continues and combustion occurs in fuel reactor without any
direct contact of fuel with air. The flue gas contains pure combustion
products- CO2 and H2O. Carbon dioxide from flue gas can be separated
easily by condensing water. So, CLC resembles the oxy- fuel combus-
tion, but no air separation unit is needed and CO2 separation is in-
herent. Considering NiO as oxygen carrier and syngas as fuel, reactions
in two reactors are:
Fig. 1. Chemical looping combustion.
415
Energy Conversion and Management 151 (2017) 414–425
In fuel rector: combustion of fuel
CO + NiO → CO2 + Ni (1)
H2 + NiO → H2 O+ Ni (2)
In air reactor: oxidation of metal
2Ni + O2 → 2NiO (3)
Overall reaction is:
CO + H2 + O2 → CO2 + H2 O (4)
Reaction in air reactor is exothermic and that in fuel reactor is en-
dothermic. So the heat required in fuel reactor can be carried from air
reactor by oxygen carriers. Therefore, the total heat evolved from the
system remains same as that of normal combustion.
India’s contribution to the CO2 emissions has been increasing year
by year [6]. Being at the top of the table of population, environment
friendly technologies to reduce the carbon foot print are required to
achieve the future energy demand. There are several publications
showing the effect of integration of CO2 capture system in an existing
IGCC plant. Descamps et al. [7] studied the effect of pre-combustion
CO2 capture in an IGCC plant of low ash coal and showed that the
energy consumption of CO2 capture unit would result in a reduction of
8–12% in the overall efficiency. Kapetaki et al. [8] discussed two ga-
sification processes in an IGCC plant with and without CO2 capture. The
dry coal gasifier (Shell IGCC) was compared with the coal- slurry ga-
sifier (GEE-Gasifier) and their effect on the plant performance were
studied. Shell IGCC showed higher efficiency in non- capture case
whereas GEE IGCC showed the better efficiency in CO2 capture case.
This work shows the impact of CO2 capture unit on plant performance.
Majoumerd et al. also reported a reduction of 10% in overall efficiency
due to the CO2 capture integration in IGCC power plant [9]. These
works clearly show the energy penalty associated with the CO2 capture
unit in an IGCC power plant.
The main elements which cost CO2 capture units are separation and
final compression steps. Therefore, a technology which produces CO2 at
higher pressure than atmosphere can reduce the associated energy
penalty of CO2 capture [10]. Chemical looping combustion (CLC) is a
potential technology due to the inherent nature of CO2 capture and high
pressure off gas. Ishida and Jin [11] carried out oxidation and reduction
studies of Nickel and iron oxides where pure hydrogen is used as fuel.
They found CLC as superior to conventional methods because of higher
thermal efficiency and lower CO2 emissions.
More experimental works were carried out for various fuels and
conditions in small or medium scale. Mattisson et al. [12] developed the
oxygen carriers for CLC where syngas is used as fuel. They also re-
commended the reactor design and feasible conditions for the con-
tinuous operation of CLC reactor [12]. The use of syngas fuelled CLC in
an IGCC process was presented by Sorgenfrei and Tsatsaronis [13]. A
work done by Berguerand and Lyngfelt discloses the feasibility of solid
fuel based CLC using African coal. They examined the effect of particle
circulation on various conversions and CO2 capture [14]. Models are
developed for CLC reactors for deeper understanding of the process and
parameters which would affect its performance in large- scale. Mingze
et al. carried out CFD studies on 5 kWth coal fired CLC for a better
understanding of reactions and flow patterns in fuel reactor. Slow char
gasification was identified as the rate controlling step and parametric
studies on coal flow rate and operating conditions are carried out [15].
Tariq et al. also developed CFD models for CLC reactors and parametric
studies on dimensions of reactor and size of particles are carried out
[16]. Viability of CLC in large scale power plants are carried out
through flow sheeting studies. A study on CLC integration in natural gas
fired power plants is conducted by Brandvoll et al. They varied main
parameters to examine their influence on plant efficiency [17]. Mahsa
et al. integrated chemical looping reforming and solid oxide fuel cell for
H2 production and to reduce the carbon footprint from biomass fuelled
H. Shijaz et al.
power plants [18]. Nirmal et al. suggested means to reduce CO2 emis-
sions from IGCC power plant by varying the gasification parameters
[19]. Four types of solid fuels have been checked for various gasifica-
tion ranges and identified that increasing gasification range reduces
CO2 emissions. Simulation studies for conventional and CLC- integrated
IGCC for biomass fuelled power plant with entrained flow gasifier is
done by Angel et al. CLC integrated plant showed a better performance
over conventional IGCC [20].
The thermodynamic analysis of CLC integrated with IGCC gives
better understanding of system. Improvements in thermodynamic pro-
cess mainly depend on energy analysis. Hence, energy analysis followed
by exergy analysis can be carried out to identify the major exergy de-
struction for improving the performance of the system. Kaushik et al.
carried out energy analysis of IGCC with CLC, based on the first law of
thermodynamics, which is related to the conservation of energy [21].
Second law analysis (exergy analysis) was also done, which was mainly
based on the conservation of mass and degradation of the quality of
energy along with the entropy generation. Exergy analysis is a useful
method; to complement but not to replace energy analysis. Bilgen et al.
calculated the chemical exergy of coals by using equations given in the
literature to detect and to evaluate quantitatively the effect of irrever-
sible phenomena which finally leads to the thermodynamic imperfec-
tion of the processes [22]. Erlach et al. studied theoretically the CLC
integrated IGCC and compared the results with a conventional IGCC
with pre-combustion carbon capture by physical absorption [23]. The
analysis was based on process simulation using Aspen Plus and Gate-
Cycle. Design parameters were varied, and the results were observed
using exergy analysis. The IGCC-CLC showed higher plant efficiency
and more complete carbon capture. Efficiency of combustion reactor
and CLC reactor system was found to strongly depend on temperature.
Yerrayya and Suresh [24] conducted an exergy analysis on a small
50 MW syngas fuelled chemical looping combustion power plant and
concluded that exergy destruction efficiency in the fuel reactor is more
than all other units in the plant.
More than 50% of India’s power requirements are met by coal-fired
power plants. The maximum efficiency of this well-established tech-
nology in India reported till date is less than 40 percentage. One of the
main reasons for the low efficiency is the high ash content of the coal.
Moreover, the addition of conventional CO2 capture technologies would
decrease the overall efficiency further. The power requirement of the
country India will continue to hike steadily due to accelerating rate of
its population. Therefore, the coal- dependent power sector has to
consume more amount of coal to meet the energy demand. On the other
hand, consumption of more coal would lead to the emission of more
CO2 to the atmosphere.
Most of the works on efficiency studies on power plants are based on
low ash coal and other alternate fuel such as biomass. There are a very
few works available on high ash coals or Indian coals. No studies are
available in the literature on showing the advantage of potential tech-
nologies such as Chemical looping combustion, IGCC and their in-
tegration in Indian scenario using high ash Indian coal. So this work
attempts to fill this void. As IGCC is in its developmental phase in India,
it is economic to go for a grass root design than retrofitting the existing
coal- fired power plants. Therefore, a more specific study revealing the
effect of CO2 capture unit in IGCC and the feasibility of integrating CLC
in Indian IGCC plants with high ash coals are interesting at this stage.
Also, the tuning parameters in the process to improve the efficiency
further must be explored. This work comes out with a more efficient
power production technology in India, the country with a lot of coal
reserves to meet their energy requirement in near future. Being the
second highest populated country, any reduction in the emission of
greenhouse gases from their plants would be a great contribution for
the move to control the global temperature rise. Also, this can motivate
other countries using high ash coals to accept an efficient power pro-
duction technology and by meeting the environmental constraints.
The objective of this study is to provide a theoretical support to rely
416
Energy Conversion and Management 151 (2017) 414–425
on the active developmental stage of IGCC and the novel CO2 capture
technology- Chemical looping combustion to move ahead of the
growing energy demand of the country. This work checks the effect of
CO2 capture addition and the feasibility of integrating Chemical
Looping Combustion in Indian IGCC power plants. In this work, per-
formance of IGCC without CO2 capture, conventional IGCC with pre-
combustion CO2 capture and CLC integrated IGCC are compared based
on overall energy efficiency and CO2 capture rate. Exergy analysis
based on exergy efficiency and exergy destruction for two cases with
CO2 capture give an idea on changes or improvements of units/areas
where the destruction of exergy is more, so that the respective changes
will enhance the overall energy efficiency further. Effect of important
parameters in gasification as well as combustion sections are studied by
sensitivity analyses of particular variables on plant performance. So the
reader will get an insight into the effect of CO2 capture unit integration,
advantage of Chemical looping combustion over conventional pre-
combustion CO2 capture technique, units of thermodynamic in-
efficiencies which can be improved further and important parameters
which affect the whole performance of the IGCC plant.
2. Process simulation
In Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) process, solid fuel
is converted to gaseous state by gasification that feeds the combined
cycle for generating electricity. The different units of this process are
sizing of coal, gasification, air separation unit (ASU), cooling and
cleaning of syngas, water gas shift reaction (WGSR) and acid gas re-
moval (AGR) in CO2 capture unit, heat recovery steam generator
(HRSG) and combined cycle includes gas turbine and steam turbine for
power production.
This work focused on effect of CO2 capture unit in IGCC and the
comparison of pre-combustion CO2 capture with chemical looping
combustion. Therefore, steady state simulations of three cases are car-
ried out using Aspen plus V8.4. They are;
Case 1: combined cycle plant without capture.
Case 2: combined cycle plant with pre-combustion capture.
Case 3: combined cycle plant with chemical looping combustion.
The following assumptions are made for carrying out all three si-
mulations. Most of the assumptions are adopted from the study con-
ducted by Erlach et al. [23]. Some of them are slightly modified to suit
the Indian conditions.
• The coal is dried to 2% moisture content before being fed to the
gasifier.
• All simulations have a fuel input of 500 MW.
• Atmospheric conditions are 25 °C, 1.013 bar.
• Gasification process is steady state and isothermal.
• Carbon conversion efficiency in gasifier is 100%.
• CO conversion in WGSR is 94%.
• Gasifier and air reactor are isothermal and all other reactors are
adiabatic.
• Captured CO is compressed to 110 bar.
2
• Gas turbine system: poly-tropic efficiency: compressor 92%, and in
turbine, isentropic and mechanical efficiencies are 90 and 95% re-
spectively.
• Steam turbine mechanical efficiencies: high pressure turbine 92%,
medium pressure turbine 95%, low pressure turbine 90%.
2.1. Combined cycle plant without capture
IGCC process without CO2 capture is shown in Fig. 2. Coal specifi-
cation [25] is obtained from Badarpur Thermal Power station (BTPS),
Badarpur New Delhi and is given in Table 1. The coal enters the gasi-
fication unit after the coal preparation section. Coal preparation in-
cludes drying and crushing to desired moisture content and size re-
spectively. In gasification unit, coal is converted to syngas by the
H. Shijaz et al. Energy Conversion and Management 151 (2017) 414–425

Fig. 2. Integrated gasification combined cycle without CO2 capture.

Table 1 2.2. Combined cycle plant with pre-combustion capture

Coal specifications (Indian coal).
Carbon dioxide capture unit is included, containing Water gas shift
Proximate analysis Weight (Wt.%)
reactors (WGSR) and Acid gas removal (AGR) units and is shown in
Moisture 2.81
Fig. 3. Since it is a pre-combustion CO2 capture technique, these units
Ash 45.25
Volatile matter 16.54
are before the gas turbine unit. So the cleaned syngas is fed to the
Fixed carbon 35.40 WGSR unit which facilitates pre-combustion CO2 capture process by
Ultimate analysis Weight (Wt.%)
converting almost all CO to CO2 by following reaction.
Ash 45.25
CO + H2 O→ H2 + CO2 Δ H= −41 kJ/mol (5)
Carbon 39.81
Hydrogen 3.35
Steam to carbon monoxide ratio is maintained at 1.5. The steam
Sulfur 0.50
Nitrogen 0.78 requirement for this process can be achieved by recovering the heat
Oxygen 10.31 produced during this exothermic reaction itself. Additional steam is
Sulfur analysis Weight (Wt.%)
provided from the heat recovery steam generator (HRSG). The product
Pyritic 0.2 gas from shift reactor is cooled to 40 °C [26] and sent to acid gas re-
Sulphate 0.2 moval (AGR) unit where H2S and CO2 are separated. CO2 separation is
Organic 0.1 achieved by an absorption-regeneration system where methanol is used
Calorific value kcal/kg as the solvent. Solvent regeneration is an endothermic process where
Higher heating value (HHV) 3995.375 steam is used. CO2 stream is compressed to 110 bar for storage and
transport. Hydrogen rich syngas coming out of AGR is sent to com-
bustion chamber of gas turbine. Remaining process of power produc-
reaction with oxygen and steam. The gasifier is fluidized bed gasifier,
tion and heat recovery is same as case 1.
which operates at 1000 °C where the oxygen is delivered by an air se-
paration unit. The syngas coming out of gasifier is quenched to remove
ash. A part of cooling gas from the cooling section is used for 2.3. Combined cycle plant with chemical looping combustion
quenching. Then the cooling syngas is cooled further to produce steam
at different pressure levels. The cool gas is then scrubbed with water to IGCC process with chemical looping combustion is shown in Fig. 4.
remove the particulate matter, NH3, etc. Syngas free from particulate Here the normal combustion is replaced by chemical looping combus-
matter is fed to the combustion chamber of gas turbine where CO and tion. In CLC, combustion takes place in two reactors- air reactor and
H2 are converted to combustion products with compressed air. Flue gas fuel reactor. These are modelled by RGibbs model in Aspen plus.
is expanded in gas turbine producing power and remaining heat is re- Oxygen carrier is NiO (60%) supported by MgAl2O4 (40%). Clean gas
covered in HRSG section. The three pressure level steams (HP, IP, LP) from AGR is sent to fuel reactor and solid materials loop in between the
produced in HRSG are used for various units and for power production reactors. Air reactor is fluidised by compressed air. The depleted air
in steam turbine. The final exhaust containing less pollutants is emitted from air reactor is fed to the gas turbine. Since the integration of CO2
to atmosphere. turbine is not effective [27], flue gas from fuel reactor is sent to the
HRSG. Heat from CO2-H2O stream and gas turbine exhaust is used for

417
H. Shijaz et al.
Fig. 3. Integrated gasification combined cycle with pre-combustion CO2 capture.
producing steam. Then the water in CO2-H2O stream is condensed and
CO2 is compressed to the final storage pressure. Therefore WGSR and
AGR are not required in this process. The steam in HRSG can be used for
generating electricity and for other steam requirements in units.
Aspen flow sheet of CLC- integrated gas turbine unit is shown in
Fig. 5. Stream class is selected as MIXCISLD containing MIXED stream
and CONVENTIONAL Solids. Air reactor and fuel reactor are modelled
by RGibbs reactor model, based on Gibbs free energy minimization
method. Gas- solid separators are modelled by ideal Component Se-
parator model. The looping effect of CLC is brought into the flow sheet
by the addition of a Mixer unit. So the ‘NI’ stream acted as a make-up
stream maintaining a constant solid flow rate between the reactors. ‘NI’
flow rate is calculated with the aid of a design spec. block in Aspen plus.
Parametric studies of air flow rate and oxygen carrier flow rate on
CLC performance are carried out.
3. Method of exergy analysis
Exergy is defined as the maximum useful energy that can be ob-
tained from the system. In this study, exergy transfer associated with
material streams is considered in two ways: physical exergy transfer
(thermal and mechanical) and chemical exergy transfer. Other com-
ponents of exergy transfer such as potential and kinetic exergy are
neglected. The procedure used by Yerrayya and Suresh [24] for calcu-
lating the physical and chemical exergies has been adopted in this
study. In order to avoid the repetition of the formulae used, they are not
again presented in this paper and they can be referred from [24].
Exergy is not conserved and destroyed by irreversibility of a process
due to increase in entropy. Exergy is lost, when the energy associated
with a material or energy stream is rejected to the environment.
Exergy destruction efficiency (%) is defined as the ratio of the rate
of exergy destruction (ED) in a system to the input exergy rate to the
system (EF, total) [24].
418
Energy Conversion and Management 151 (2017) 414–425
ED
yD = × 100
EF ,total (6)
whereas, the exergy efficiency is defined as the ratio of the rate of ex-
ergy out (Eout) to the rate of exergy in (Ein).
Eout
yE = × 100
Ein (7)
4. Results and discussions
As there are no studies directly available with high ash India coal on
IGCC and integration of CLC in IGCC, to begin with, the present
methodology has been validated for low ash coal and the results ob-
tained are compared with the studies conducted by Erlach et al. [23]
and a fairly good agreement in the overall net efficiency of the IGCC
plant with CLC for low ash coal (with an accuracy of 3.25% error) is
obtained. Further the study is extended to high ash Indian coal.
The performances of IGCC without CO2 capture, conventional IGCC
with pre-combustion CO2 capture and CLC integrated IGCC are com-
pared based on net power production, overall energy efficiency, CO2
emissions and CO2 capture rate. Results of exergy analysis are discussed
and the units with more exergy destructions are identified. Effect of
various parameters such as O2 to coal ratio, steam to coal ratio, gasi-
fication temperature in gasification unit and Air flow rate and oxygen
carrier flow rate in Chemical looping combustion units are investigated
by sensitivity analyses.
4.1. Comparison of the plant performance with and without capture
The results of simulations are summarised in Tables 2 and 3. Table 2
gives the energy analysis of the overall plant in terms of total power
production, total power consumption and energy input to the plant. The
H. Shijaz et al. Energy Conversion and Management 151 (2017) 414–425

Fig. 4. Integrated gasification combined cycle with chemical looping combustion.

net power produced is calculated in each case. Table 3 compares the consumption.
performances of all three cases based on overall efficiency. CO2 capture CO2 capture efficiency is calculated as,
is also compared in terms of CO2 capture efficiency and CO2 emission to CO2in−CO2out
the atmosphere for all the cases. The performance parameters, overall CO2 capture efficiency =
CO2in (9)
efficiency and CO2 capture efficiency are calculated as follows.
Overall efficiency is calculated as, CO2 in – Molar flow of CO2 in the gas stream going into the CO2
capture unit.
Net power production CO2 out – Molar flow of CO2 in the gas stream coming out of CO2
Overall efficiency =
Total energy input (8) capture unit.
The individual energy flow - in and out of each unit in the con-
Net power production = Total power output − Total power ventional IGCC power plant and CLC integrated IGCC plant are given in

Work
Heat

Material

Fig. 5. Aspen flow sheet of CLC integrated gas turbine unit.

419
H. Shijaz et al. Energy Conversion and Management 151 (2017) 414–425

Table 2 Integrated Gasification Combined cycle power plant is a time tested

Energy analysis of three cases. technology for lower emission and higher efficiency than coal fired
power plants. Power plants based on IGCC technologies are under
Energy (MW) Conventional-IGCC Conventional-IGCC IGCC-CLC
(without CO2 capture) (with CO2 capture) consideration in India and active R & D works are going on based on
Indian coal. So it can be a good alternative against conventional Indian
Coal input 500 500 500 coal fired power plants. It is very clear from the above data that, CLC
Gas turbine/CLC 178.7 176.08 140.95
integrated IGCC plant is going to be the most efficient method in spite
Steam turbine 53.78 48.7 89.1
output of its practical limitations. Hopefully, various pilot units which are set
Total output 232.48 224.78 230.05 up and on-going dynamic research activities in Chemical looping
Total power consumption combustion may overcome those limitations in near future. To pick up
Air separation unit 17.23 17.23 16.74 the chances of improving the overall efficiency of these two promising
O2 compression 1.82 1.82 1.95
technologies, an exergy analysis is also done where the points of ther-
CO2 capture unit – 26.74 10.32
Net power 213.43 178.99 201.04 modynamic inefficiencies are identified.
production

4.2. Results of exergy analysis

Table 3
Comparison of performance factors of three cases. Exergy analysis was carried out to identify the thermodynamic in-
efficiencies of both conventional IGCC and CLC integrated IGCC plants.
Performance Conventional-IGCC Conventional-IGCC IGCC-CLC Exergy is defined as the maximum work that may be achieved by
factors (without CO2 capture) (with CO2 capture)
bringing a system into equilibrium with its environment. Whenever a
Efficiency (%) 42.69 35.8 40.2 system is not in equilibrium with its environment, there exists exergy,
CO2 emissions 3802.799 1829.067 ≈0 while a system which is in equilibrium with its environment has zero
(kmol/h) exergy. Exergy analysis is carried out by using physical exergy and
CO2 capture (%) 0 94 99.97
chemical exergy. The standard enthalpy and entropy values for pure
components are shown in Table 4 [24,28]. These values are used in the
Tables A1 and A2 respectively in the Appendix A section. calculation of physical exergy. The standard values of chemical exergy
From the comparison of case 1 and case 2, it is clear that CO2 for pure components at reference state 298.15 K are shown in Table 5.
capture unit is mandatory as the amount of carbon dioxide emitting to These values are used in the calculation of chemical exergy. Tempera-
the atmosphere is more in Case 1. Due to the concerns of environmental ture, pressure, and flow rates of all the important streams in
problems, CO2 capture unit must be included in IGCC power plants. But Figs. 3 and 4 are given in Tables 6and 7 respectively. The unit wise
the CO2 capture unit reduced the overall efficiency from 42.69% to exergy efficiency values for conventional-IGCC and IGCC-CLC are given
35.8% in Case 2. As CO2 is captured using pre-combustion technique, in Tables 8 and 9 respectively.
volume of gas sent to the combustion chamber of gas turbine unit in
Case 2 is less than that of Case 1. So the amount of power produced 4.2.1. Exergy destruction rates and exergy efficiencies of different units
from gas turbine as well as steam turbine is low. In power consumption, The exergy destruction rates of different units in conventional-IGCC
there is an additional requirement in case 2 for CO2 capture unit to and IGCC-CLC are given in Table 10. It can be observed that the total
regenerate the solvent used for absorption and compress the captured exergy destruction rate is more in conventional IGCC power plant
CO2 to final storage pressure. This extra requirement of power cannot compared to the IGCC-CLC, mainly because of contribution of exergy
be avoided in other conventional CO2 capture techniques such as post destruction rates from WGS reactor (16.61 MW) and AGR (122.74 MW)
combustion and oxy-fuel combustion. in conventional IGCC. The exergy destruction rate for the ASU, Sizing,
Comparing two CO2 capture techniques, pre-combustion (Case 2) and HRSG have nearly same in both conventional IGCC and IGCC-CLC.
and chemical looping combustion (Case 3), the latter is more efficient Exergy destruction rate in the acid gas removal (AGR) is higher in the
and captures more CO2. Even after the integration of CO2 capture unit, conventional IGCC, compared to that in CLC-IGCC. This can be due to
IGCC with chemical looping combustion achieved an efficiency of the presence of WGSR unit in conventional IGCC where CO in syngas
40.20% which is very close to the efficiency of IGCC without CO2 gets converted to CO2 by the addition of steam. Therefore, the flow rate
capture. So the result is hopeful. Moreover, more CO2 can be captured of incoming stream to the AGR unit in conventional IGCC is more
as the CO2 separation in CLC-integrated IGCC is inherent. There is no
direct contact between air and fuel, fuel reactor outlet contains CO2 and Table 4
H2O. Here a pure stream of CO2 will be available after a simple con- Standard values of enthalpy and entropy at 298.15 K.
densation of water. CO2 capture rate in Case 2 is 99.97% and that in
Component Enthalpy (kJ/mol) Entropy (J/mol K)
Case 1 is 94%. So no energy would be consumed for gas separation for
separating CO2 from other gases. And also the flue gas from fuel reactor H2 0 130.59
comes at higher pressure, reduces the energy requirement for CO2 CO −110.54 197.90
compression to the final storage pressure. Also Power output from CO2 −393.51 213.68
N2 0 191.50
steam turbine is bit high in Case 3. Heat from two streams – exhaust
O2 0 205.03
from air reactor and flue gas from fuel reactor, is recovered in heat H2O −241.82 188.72
recovery steam generator unit. Since flue gas from the fuel reactor is C 0 5.69
sent directly to the HRSG section, more steam is produced in Case 3 and CH4 −74.85 186.27
more power too. Power output from steam turbine is 89.1 MW in Case 3 H2S −20.17 205.77
SO2 −296.83 248.11
whereas 48.7 MW in Case 2. So the savings in the energy requirement of S 0 31.92
CO2 capture unit and improvement in power production from steam NH3 −46.11 192.34
turbine made the CLC- integrated IGCC as the best option among all CH3OH −201.08 239.7
three cases. NIO −239.74 37.99
NI 0 29.87
As CO2 capture unit is mandatory due to the current environmental
Al2O3 −1675.27 50.92
regulations, Case 2 and Case 3 are considered for further study.

420
H. Shijaz et al. Energy Conversion and Management 151 (2017) 414–425

Table 5 Table 7
Standard values of chemical exergy at reference state at 298.15 K. Simulation results for the key flow streams in CLC-IGCC.

S. No. Component Chemical exergy (kJ/mol) Type Temperature (°C) Pressure (bar) Mass flow (kg/s)

1 CO 274.71 AIRIN 25 1 79.1

2 CO2 19.48 AIRGSTIN 25 1 450
3 CH4 831.2 CO2 185.85 110 77.5
4 H2 236.09 COALIN 25 1 30
5 H2O 9.5 COOLIN 300 40 54.65
6 N2 0.72 DRYCOAL 50 1 29.75
7 O2 3.97 EXHAUST 625.58 1.1 531.32
8 S 609.6 FINALEXU 100 1 531.32
9 SO2 313.4 FROUT 1001 20 128.69
10 H2S 812 FUELGAS 100 30 52.87
11 NI 232.7 HOTSYN 661 11 109.31
12 NIO 23 HPSTEAM 580 127 49.21
13 Al2O3 14.7 HRS2COM 80 20 128.69
IP2ST 255 40 22.01
IPSEM2GF 255 40 5.89
Table 6 IPSTM2ST 255 40 0.01
Simulation results for the key flow streams in conventional-IGCC. LPSTEAM 215 7 29.48
NI 1200 20 97.1
Type Temperature (°C) Pressure (bar) Mass flow (kg/s) N2IN 30 4.2 60.08
O2IN 30 4.2 19.01
AGRIN 120 35 66.5 QUC2STLP 250 10 12.41
AIRGSTIN 25 25 153 QUN2STHP 400 50 9.44
AIRIN 25 1 81.43 RAWGASIN 300 40 54.65
CO2 917.82 110 23.42 STOUT 45.83 0.1 122.57
CO2IN 10 1.5 23.42 SYNGASIN 50.6 41 53.14
COALIN 25 1 30
COOLIN 300 40 54.22
DRYCOAL 50 1 29.75 Table 8
EXHAUST 757.8 1.1 252.15 Unit-wise exergy efficiencies for key units in conventional-IGCC.
FINALEXU 100 1 252.15
FUELGAS 134 15 36.72 Units EF (MW) EP (MW) Efficiency (η) (%)
HOTSYN 661 11 108.44
HPSTEAM 580 127 23.88 ASU 181.06 177.42 98
IP2ST 255 40 11.36 SIZING 543.07 538.58 99.17
IPSEM2GF 255 40 5.46 GASIFICATION 2145.42 1761.81 82.12
IPSTM2ST 255 40 0.0001 QUENCHING 1845.51 1845.47 1
LPSTEAM 215 7 10.12 SCRUBBING 870.19 856.09 98.38
N2IN 30 4.2 62.42 WGSR 914.61 898 98.18
O2IN 30 4.2 19.01 AGR 997.13 874.38 87.69
QUC2STLP 250 10 12.07 CO2 CAPTURE 76.50 19.89 26
QUN2STHP 400 50 12.07 GAS TURBINE 1269.77 1138.91 89.69
RAWGASIN 300 40 54.22 HRSG 1217.18 1103.36 90.65
STEAM 255 40 4.62 STEAM TURBINE 339.22 318.77 93.97
STOUT 45.83 0.1 66.62
SYNGASIN 50.6 41 52.64
Table 9
Unit-wise exergy efficiencies for key units in IGCC-CLC.
compared to Case 3. Moreover, in Case 2, CO2 is separated in the AGR
unit after the H2S removal and H2 rich syngas is sent to the combustion Units EF (MW) EP (MW) Efficiency (η) (%)
chamber of gas turbine. CO2 separation involves absorption and solvent
ASU 173.32 172.12 99.31
regeneration in the intermediate flash tanks of three pressure levels. But SIZING 543.07 538.58 99.17
in Case 3, CO2 separation is inherent with CLC and AGR involves the GASIFICATION 2157.65 1781.43 82.56
removal of H2S only. Therefore, WGSR unit and CO2 separation in AGR QUENCHING 1781.38 1759.72 98.78
are the main sources for the noticeable difference in exergy destruction SCRUBBING 879.86 865.95 98.42
WGSR – – –
rate of AGR unit in Case 2 and Case 3.
AGR 865.95 862.77 99.63
In both the cases, it is found that the gasification system has more CLC TURBINE 20673.41 20517.8 99.24
exergy destruction rate. This could be because of the large temperature HRSG 20723.19 20611.85 99.46
difference between the combustion products and the steam and pres- CO2 CAPTURE 246.19 162.11 65.85
STEAM TURBINE 624.44 586.08 93.85
sure drops in both the water and air systems. The exergy destruction
rate in the CLC reactor system (155.61 MW) is higher than the gas
turbine combustion chamber of the conventional IGCC (130.86 MW).
units to improve plant are gasification section and CLC turbine system.
This is because of higher flow rate of synthesis gas entering CLC com-
CLC system can be improved by using thermally stable oxygen carriers.
pared to that in conventional IGCC turbine as CO converted to CO2 is
The exergy efficiencies of various units in conventional-IGCC and
removed before combustion in case of conventional IGCC with CO2
CLC-IGCC are shown in Fig. 6. It can be observed that the exergy effi-
capture. The exergy destruction rate in CO2 capture unit is more in case
ciency of CO2 capture unit in IGCC- CLC is more compared to that of the
of IGCC-CLC (84.1 MW) compared to that in the conventional IGCC
IGCC conventional. In fact, the exergy efficiency of all the units in case
(56.6 MW). This may be due to higher capture rate of CO2 leading to
of IGCC-CLC is more compared to Conventional IGCC. Hence, the CLC
higher mass flow rate of captured CO2 in IGCC-CLC in addition to
integrated IGCC plant is found to be more efficient energetically as well
compression of captured CO2 to 110 bar pressure. As the capture rate is
as exergetically. The exergy efficiency of the gasification unit in
higher, the exergy efficiency of the plant is higher. The recommended

421
H. Shijaz et al. Energy Conversion and Management 151 (2017) 414–425

Table 10 0.6 45
Comparison of unit-wise exergy destruction rates for conventional-IGCC and IGCC-CLC.
40
0.5
S.NO. Units ED (MW) for conventional ED (MW) for IGCC-
35
IGCC CLC

Syngas composition

Energy efficiency (%)

0.4 30
1 ASU 3.63 1.2
2 SIZING 4.71 4.49
25
3 GASIFICATION 383.61 376.21 H2
0.3
4 QUENCHING 0.036 21.66 CO 20
5 SCRUBBING 14.09 13.9 CO2
6 WGSR 16.61 – 0.2 H2O 15
7 AGR 122.74 3.19 Energy efficiency
8 CO2 CAPTURE 56.6 84.1 10
9 GAS/CLC TURBINE 130.86 155.61 0.1
10 HRSG 113.82 111.34 5
11 STEAM TURBINE 20.45 38.35
0.0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
1 O2/Coal
0.9
Exergy eĸĐŝeŶĐy

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 unit + O2 compression in Gasification unit + CO2 compression in CO2
ŝīereŶƚ ƵŶŝƚƐ
Fig. 6. Exergy efficiency of units in case 2 & case 3.
conventional IGCC is less compared to the IGCC-CLC.
4.3. Sensitivity analysis
Based on the exergy analysis, gasification and gas turbine units are
selected as more sensitive units. Especially CLC – integrated gas turbine
unit showed more exergy efficiency as well as exergy destruction than
conventional gas turbine unit. So the key variables of those units are
varied against performance criteria such as syngas composition, gas
turbine inlet temperature, overall efficiency etc. This section gives an
idea on dependency of those key variables on performance of the plant,
range of values in which the variables can be changed and so the
physical limitations associated with the variables.
4.3.1. Effect of gasification parameters
Gasification parameters such as oxygen to Coal, steam to coal ratios
and gasifier temperature are varied with an aim of maximizing syngas
production without a decline in overall efficiency of the plant.
Fig. 7. Effect of oxygen to coal ratio on syngas composition and overall efficiency.
power consumed.
IGCC CON
Total Power Generated (TPG) = Power generated from (Gas tur-
IGCC-CLC bine/CLC turbine + Steam turbine).
Total Power Consumed (TPC) = Power required for (air separation
capture unit).
Overall efficiency = Net power generated/energy input (heat con-
tent of coal input).
The net energy efficiency passes through a maximum with the
oxygen to coal ratio. This is due to an upsurge in the Total Power
Consumption (TPC) with an increase in oxygen to coal ratio. For in-
creasing the oxygen to coal ratio, more amount of air is required to the
ASU and beyond a point, CO2 produced will also increase. Beyond the
maximum level, energy requirements for air compression, oxygen
compression to gasification pressure and CO2 compression for trans-
portation will dominate over the power generated causing a decline in
overall energy efficiency.
4.3.1.2. Effects of steam to coal ratio on syngas composition and
efficiency. Steam to coal ratio is varied by keeping oxygen to coal
ratio at the optimum value. The variations in syngas composition and
energy efficiency are shown in Fig. 8. As shown in Fig. 8, the CO
concentration decreases with increase in steam to coal ratio. But the
concentrations of H2 and CO2 increase with increase in steam-coal ratio.
Increase in the amount of steam in the gasifier leads to weaken
combustion reaction, which finally results in the reduction of
0.6 40
35
0.5
30
Energy efficiency (%)

4.3.1.1. Effect of oxygen to coal ratio on syngas composition and overall

Syngas composition

efficiency. Oxygen to coal ratio is varied by changing the oxygen flow 0.4
25
rate from ASU to gasification unit. The variation in syngas composition
and the net efficiency are shown in Fig. 7. It can be observed that H2 0.3 20
H2
concentration decreases continuously with oxygen to coal ratio, while
CO
CO concentration increases initially to some extent. Beyond a particular 15
0.2 CO2
value, concentration of CO starts decreasing and CO2 concentration Energy efficiency
10
increases with further increase in the oxygen to coal ratio. Combustion
of H2 with O2 to form H2O results in a continuous decrease in the 0.1
5
concentration of H2. The initial increase in the concentration of CO at
lower values of oxygen to coal ratios is because of the incomplete 0.0 0
combustion of carbon present in the coal. At higher values of oxygen to 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040
coal ratio, complete combustion occurs that leads to a fall in the Steam/Coal
concentration of CO and rise in the concentration of CO2 and H2O.
Fig. 8. Effect of steam to coal ratio on syngas composition and overall efficiency.
Net Power Generated (NPG) = Total power generated − Total

422
H. Shijaz et al. Energy Conversion and Management 151 (2017) 414–425

0.6 45 2500 200

40 AR temp 100

Heat duty of air reactor (MW)

Air reactor temperature (°C)
0.5 2000 Heat duty
35

Energy efficiency (%)

0
Syngas composition

0.4 30
1500
-100
25
0.3 H2 -200
CO 20 1000
CO2
0.2 15 -300
H2O
Energy efficiency 500
10 -400
0.1
5
0 -500
0 200 400 600 800 1000
0.0 0
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 Air flow rate (kg/s)
Gasifier temperature (°C) Fig. 10. Effect of air flow rate on gas turbine inlet temperature.

Fig. 9. Effect of gasifier temperature on syngas composition and energy efficiency.

gasification temperature. The decrease in gasification temperature
prevents the reduction reaction of CO2 (Boudouard reaction) and also
leads to the favouring of forward reaction of CO reacting with H2O to
form CO2. This eventually leads to the decrease of CO composition and
the increase of CO2 concentration. Hence, the gasification slowly turns
to water gas shift reaction at higher steam-coal values. There is a slight
increase in the energy efficiency up to certain steam to coal ratio, then a
slight decrease in the efficiency can be noticed with increase in steam to
coal ratio. Increase in steam to coal ratio gives more H2 for combustion
in gas turbine section, leading to initial increase in efficiency. As further
increase in steam to coal ratio results in the reduction of CO content in
syngas (available for power production), the net energy efficiency starts
declining.
4.3.1.3. Effect of gasifier temperature on the syngas composition and energy
efficiency. Fig. 9 shows the effect of gasifier temperature on the
synthesis gas composition and overall energy efficiency. This is
studied by keeping the carbon conversion and flow rates of air, steam
and solids at constant values. It can be observed that the composition of
carbon monoxide and hydrogen in the synthesis gas increase with
increasing temperature in the gasifier, because of the endothermic
feature of the Boudouard and water gas shift reactions and the
exothermic feature of the combustion reaction. Therefore, higher
gasification temperature would enhance the calorific value as well as
the volume of syngas available for power production. This would result
in higher energy efficiency of the plant. However, the gasifier
temperature is generally limited by the mechanical stability and cost
of the gasifier construction material.
There are two air flow rates corresponding 1200 °C (curve is sym-
metric), and the higher value is selected in order to make sure the
complete oxidation of oxygen carriers.
4.3.3. Effect of oxygen carrier flow rate on fuel reactor temperature and
overall energy efficiency
As shown in Fig. 11 an increase in oxygen carrier flow rate leads to a
rise in fuel reactor temperature because the fuel reactor temperature is
directly proportional to air reactor temperature but always less than the
latter. The heat released from the exothermic reaction in air reactor is
carried by the oxygen carriers to fuel reactor. As the solid flow rate
increases, more heat is released in AR and carried away to FR by the
oxygen carriers. The oxygen carrier to fuel ratio has a positive impact
on overall efficiency. Higher oxygen carrier to fuel ratio keeps the fuel
reactor temperature high, which lead to more power from the steam
turbine.
5. Conclusions
Increasing carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere is one of the
major environmental concerns of today. More than 40% of the CO2
emissions are from fossil fuelled power plants. But the inclusion of CO2
capture unit into the power plant causes reduction in its overall thermal
efficiency. Chemical looping combustion is a novel technology that
enables the CO2 capture inclusion into the power plants without com-
promising on the efficiency of the plant. Steady state simulations of
1200 70
60
Fuel reactor temperature (°C)

1000
4.3.2. Effect of air flow rate on gas turbine inlet temperature
Energy efficiency (%)

50
Air reactor temperature is limited by the melting point of oxygen 800
carriers. The maximum temperature can be maintained for NiO is
40
1200 °C. Fig. 10 shows the variation of air reactor temperature and heat
600
duty of the air reactor with air flow rate.
30
Air reactor temperature increases with the air flow rate initially. On Temperature
further increase in the air flow rate, air reactor temperature passes 400
Energy efficiency 20
through a maximum and drop continuously thereafter. The initial in-
crease was due to the oxidation of metal oxides from Ni to NiO. It is an 200
10
exothermic process and temperature rises with an increase in the air
flow rate. But once the solids are completely oxidised, the extra amount 0 0
of air present acts as heat carriers and provides a cooling effect. This 0 2 4 6 8 10
causes a decrease in air reactor temperature. So it demands an external Oxygen carrier/Fuel
supply of heat to maintain the air reactor in isothermal condition.
Therefore, air flow rate has been optimized in such a way that, no ex- Fig. 11. Effect of oxygen carrier flow rate on fuel reactor temperature and energy effi-
ciency.
ternal heat need to be supplied for maintaining air reactor at 1200 °C.

423
H. Shijaz et al. Energy Conversion and Management 151 (2017) 414–425

IGCC without CO2 capture, IGCC with pre-combustion CO2 capture and
LC integrated IGCC technologies were carried out using Aspen plus V8.4
in this study. Conventional pre-combustion CO2 capture was compared
with advanced chemical looping combustion technology in terms of
overall energy efficiency and CO2 capture efficiency. Steam consumed
by water gas shift reaction unit, AGR unit and energy needed for CO2
compression are the main sources of the energy penalty in the case of
IGCC power plant with CO2 capture unit. The present study shows that
the net efficiency of CLC integrated IGCC power plant is 40.2% for a
CO2 capture efficiency of 99.97%, whereas the net efficiency of con-
ventional IGCC plant with pre-combustion CO2 capture is 35.8% for a
CO2 capture efficiency of 94%. CLC- integrated IGCC is more efficient
due to the inherent nature of CO2 capture and maximum heat recovery
in Heat Recovery Steam Generator unit. Almost 100% CO2 capture is
feasible in CLC- integrated IGCC plant as fuel reactor gives pure com-
bustion products and CO2 can be separated with a simple condensation
of water out. An exergy analysis has been performed to identify the
chances of improving the efficiency of the two feasible CO2 capture
unit- integrated technologies. Total exergy destruction rate was found
to be more in conventional-IGCC with pre-combustion CO2 capture
(867.156 MW) compared to the CLC integrated IGCC (813.04 MW)
because of water gas shift reactor and acid gas removal units in con-
ventional-IGCC. Gasification unit and CLC integrated gas turbine units
are found to be more sensitive units based on exergy analysis.
Sensitivity studies of the key variables in these units have been per-
formed. Higher oxygen to coal ratio can convert gasification into a
combustion reaction whereas higher steam to coal ratio can convert
gasification into water gas shift reaction. So the values of Oxygen to
coal ratio and steam to coal ratio must be optimized for maximum
syngas or H2 production. Similarly, air flow rate and oxygen carrier
flow rate in CLC- turbine section can be optimized to maximise the
overall energy efficiency of the plant.
Acknowledgements
Authors acknowledge the Science and Engineering Research Board
(SERB), Government of India for supporting this work through a
sponsored project (SB/FTP/ETA-0421/2013).

Appendix A

See Tables A1 and A2.

Table A1
Energy flows in and out of different units in conventional IGCC.

Components Energy flow (MW)

Energy in Energy out

ASU −0.018 0.338724842

SIZING −60.3913 −197.247
GASIFICATION −482.494 −360.285811
QUENCHING −360.285 −702.376522
SCRUBBING −213.874 −215.530018
WGSR −276.043 −424.284735
AGR −424.285 −367.551126
CO2 CAPTURE −206.632 −181.996183
GAS TURBINE −160.682 −349.272574
HRSG −349.273 −1136.27244
STEAM TURBINE −852.551 −906.19002

Table A2
Energy flows in and out of different units in CLC integrated IGCC.

Components Energy flow (MW)

Energy in Energy out

ASU −0.01781 0.32898955

SIZING −60.3913 −198.248
GASIFICATION −486.716 −354.749507
QUENCHING −354.619 −705.117603
SCRUBBING −211.446 −214.175093
WGSR – –
AGR −214.175 −206.96615
CLC TURBINE −907.609 −1420.33146
HRSG −1420.33 −3181.90707
CO2 CAPTURE −1002.4 −668.307045
STEAM TURBINE −1568.03 −1666.15809

References
[1] Song C. Global challenges and strategies for control, conversion and utilization of
CO2 for sustainable development involving energy, catalysis, adsorption and che-
mical processing. Catal Today 2006;115:2–32.
[2] Adanez J, Abad A, Garcia-Labiano F, Gayan P, de Diego LF. Progress in chemical-
looping combustion and reforming technologies. Prog Energy Combust Sci
2012;38:215–82.
[3] Nema P, Nema S, Roy P. An overview of global climate changing in current scenario
and mitigation action. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:2329–36.
[4] IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage; 2005 [chapter 2].
[5] Mondal MK, Balsora HK, Varshney P. Progress and trends in CO2 capture/separation

424
H. Shijaz et al.
technologies: a review. Energy 2012;46:431–41.
[6] Raghuvanshi SP, Chandra A, Raghav AK. Carbon dioxide emissions from coal based
power generation in India. Energy Convers Manage 2006;47:427–41.
[7] Descamps C, Bouallou C, Kanniche M. Efficiency of an integrated gasification
combined cycle (IGCC) power plant including CO2 removal. Energy
2008;33:874–81.
[8] Kapetaki Z, Ahn H, Brandani S. Detailed process simulation of pre-combustion IGCC
plants using coal-slurry and dry coal gasifiers. Energy Procedia 2013;37:2196–203.
[9] Majoumerda MM, De S, Assadi M, Breuhaus P. An EU initiative for future generation
of IGCC power plants using hydrogen-rich syngas: simulation results for the baseline
configuration. Appl Energy 2012;99:280–90.
[10] Meisen A, Shuai X. Research and development issues in CO2 capture. Energy
Convers Manage 1997;38:37–42.
[11] Ishida M, Jin H. CO2 recovery in a power plant with chemical looping combustion.
Energy Convers Manage 1997;38:187–92.
[12] Mattisson T, Garcia-Labiano F, Kronberger B, Lyngfelt A, Adanez J, Hofbauer H.
Chemical-looping combustion using syngas as fuel. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control
2007;1:158–69.
[13] Sorgenfrei M, Tsatsaronis G. Design and evaluation of an IGCC power plant using
iron-based syngas chemical-looping (SCL) combustion. Appl Energy
2014;113:1958–64.
[14] Berguerand N, Lyngfelt A. Design and operation of a 10 kWth chemical-looping
combustor for solid fuels-testing with South African coal. Fuel 2008;87:2713–26.
[15] Su M, Zhao H, Ma J. Computational fluid dynamics simulation for chemical looping
combustion of coal in a dual circulation fluidized bed. Energy Convers Manage
2015;105:1–12.
[16] Harichandan AB, Shamim T. CFD analysis of bubble hydrodynamics in a fuel re-
actor for a hydrogen-fueled chemical looping combustion system. Energy Convers
Manage 2014;86:1010–22.
[17] Brandvoll O, Bolland O. Inherent CO2 capture using chemical looping combustion
425
Energy Conversion and Management 151 (2017) 414–425
in a natural gas-fired power cycle. J Eng Gas Turbines Power 2004;126:316–21.
[18] Aghaie M, Mehrpooya M, Pourfayaz F. Introducing an integrated chemical looping
hydrogen production, inherent carbon capture and solid oxide fuel cell biomass
fueled power plant process configuration. Energy Convers Manage
2016;124:141–54.
[19] Gnanapragasam N, Reddy B, Rosen M. Reducing CO2 emissions for an IGCC power
generation system: effect of variations in gasifier and system operating conditions.
Energy Convers Manage 2009;50:1915–23.
[20] Álvaro AJ, Paniagua IL, Fernández CG, Martín JR, Carlier RN. Simulation of an
integrated gasification combined cycle with chemical-looping combustion and
carbon dioxide sequestration. Energy Convers Manage 2015;104:170–9.
[21] Kaushik SC, Siva Reddy V, Tyagi SK. Energy and exergy analyses of thermal power
plants: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:1857–72.
[22] Bilgen S, Kaygusuz K. The calculation of the chemical exergies of coal-based fuels
by using the higher heating values. Appl Energy 2008;85:776–85.
[23] Erlach B, Schmidt M, Tsatsaronis G. Comparison of carbon capture IGCC with pre-
combustion decarbonisation and with chemical-looping combustion. Energy
2011;36:3804–15.
[24] Yerrayya A, Suresh PV. Syngas fueled chemical looping combustion (CLC) power
plant - exergy analysis. J Ind Pollut Control 2016;32(1):390–6.
[25] Chandra A, Chandra H. Impact of an imported coal on Indian thermal power plants.
J Sci Ind Res 2004;63:156–62.
[26] Hochgesand G. Rectisol and purisol efficient acid gas removal for high pressure
hydrogen and syngas production. Ind Eng Chem 1970; 62(7): 37–43.
[27] Tuon-Van N. System analysis of chemical and carbonate looping processes in IGCC
power plants for CO2 separation. MS thesis work submitted in Department of
Energy and Environment Division of Energy Technology, Chalmers University of
Technology, Goteborg, Sweden.
[28] Smith JM, Van Ness HC, Abbott MM. Introduction to Chemical Engineering
Thermodynamics. 7th ed.; 2005.