Coal Gasification

XII
To convert from

To

league (statute) light year

liter

micron

meter (m) meter (m)

cubic meter (rn") meter (m)

meter (m)

meter (m)

meter (m)

newton/square meter (N/m2) newton/square meter eN/m') ampere/meter (A/m)

newton (N)

kilogram (kg)

kilogram (kg)

cubic meter (m 3) newton/square meter ( 1m2) cubic meter (m')

kilogram (kg)

cubic meter (m")

cubic meter (m-)

newton second/square meter (N . s/m2) newton (N)

kilogram (kg)

kilogram (kg)

newton (N)

cubic meter (m-)

cubic meter (m-)

meter (m)

coulomb/kilogram (cjkg)

radian (rad)

square meter (m")

kilogram (kg)

meter (m)

square meter/second (m2/s) kilogram (kg)

kilogram (kg)

kilogram (kg)

newton/square meter 1m2)

meter (m)

mil

mile (U.S. nautical) mile (U.S .. statute) Illll.libar

millimeter mercury oersted

ounce force (avoirdupois) ounce mass (avoirdupois) ounce mass (troy)

ounce (U.S. fluid)

pascal

peck (U.S.) pennyweight

pint (U.S. dry) pint (U.S. liquid) poise

pound force (avoirdupois) pound mass (avoirdupois) pound mass (troy) poundal

quart (U.S. dry) quart (U.S. liquid) rod

roentgen

second (angle) section

slug

span

stoke

ton (long) ton (metric)

ton (short, 2000 pounds) torr

yard

Conversion to SI Units

Multiply by

4.83 X 103 9.46 X 10" 0.001

LO x 10-0 2.54 x W- 0 1.852 X 103 L609 x 10' 100.0

1.333 X 10' 79.58

0.218

2.835 x 10-' 3.11 X 10-' 2.96 x 10- 5 1.0

8.81 x 10- J 1.555 X 10-' 5 .. 506 x 10-"

4.732 X 10-4
0.10
4.448
0.4536
0 . .373
0.138
1.10 x 10-3
9.46 X 10-4
5.03 2.579 X 10-4 4.85 X 10-6 2.59 x 10" 14.59

0.229

1.0 x 10-4 1.016 X t03 1.0 X 103 9.072 X 10' 1.333 X 101 0.914

Coal, Ca'rbonizatio'nand Ga!sifi,cation ('Koppers)

I ntroducti,on

The Koppers- Totzek" gasification process (Fig. 1) was first introduced into the industrial world in the United States in 1948 at the Bureau of Mines Coal-to-Oil Demonstration Plant at Louisiana, Missouri. Since that time it has had a reputation as the only current, commercially proven, entrained-type gasification process. It is used in some 13 plants throughout Europe, Asia and Africa. There are no gasification plants in the United States. Feeds ranging from coke oven gas, residium lignites, and bituminous coals have been and are being gasified to produce a gas feedstock predominantly for ammonia. Due to the nature of the process, any rank of coal can be converted into synthesis gas, and there is a total usage of the solids feed. There is no concern for coal properties such as coking, friability or ash fusion temperature since the feed is pulverized to 70 to 90% through 200 mesh, dried to 2 to 8% moisture, and in this state the solid particle is rapidly and readily gasified. The rapid conversion of the particle at high temperature results in the decomposition and crackingof volatile matter so that the resultant products of K-T gasification are gas and slag. High gasification temperature (2730°F) results in a high-temperature gas exiting the gasifier. This heat is recovered in the form of high-pressure steam in a waste beat boiler located at the gasifier outlet. Therefore, up to 90% ofthe heat input into the gasifier is recovered in the gas and steam.

Shortages of natural gas and oil, along with public pressure on the prote.ction of the en vironmen t, has forced American energy users to seek clean, low-sulfur substitute fuels so as to guarantee continued operations or future growth. Gasification of high-sulfur solid or liquid fuels by the commercially proven K-T gasification process offers a pollution-free means of producing a 300 Btu/ft3 synthesis gas. The gas has combustion characteristics which permit it to be readily substituted for natural gas in industrial fuel applications without expensive retrofitting costs or loss in combustion efficiency. It can be catalytically upgraded to a heating value of960 Btu/It? to provide a gas comparable to and interchangeable with natural gas. The gas is an excellent base for the catalytic production of chemicals such as ammonia and methanol. Removal of carbon dioxide from the synthesis gas results in a reduction gas rich in carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The K-T synthesis gas can also be converted to liquid hydrocarbons by the use of the well-known Fischer-Tropsch technology.

In this age of serious concern toward the protection ofthe environment, it is worthy to note that, in the United States, the K-T gasification process is the first gasification process to be evaluated for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Esso Research and Engineering Company, Linden, New Jersey, under

*Koppers is the family name of Dr . Heinrich Koppers, founder of Heinrich Koppers Gm b+I, Essen, Germany. Totzek is the family name of Dr. Friedrich TOlZek, employed by Heinrich Koppers and inventor of the Koppers-Totzek process.

1

2

Coat Carbonization and Gasification (Koppers)

I 1 ~~ MDlO "
'" c ~I '"
~
~ '" ~I
~ c
,;; ",::; "-, ~
0 ~ I
." ~
0 ~ I
'"
"
>-
1i
<3
__ T_ a laM
u
~
~
0
c.
~
c
:c
E
0
(J
~M ~Ol

f
b ..-

Coal, Carbonization and Gasification (Koppers)

3

contract to the .S. Environmental Protection Agency, began the evaluation of the K-T process in early i973. The completed report, titled Evaluation of Pollution Control in Fossil Fuel Conversion Processes, Gasification; Section 1:

Koppers-Tot zek Process. January 1974, has been issued and is available upon request through the Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, orth Carolina 27711. Of particular interest are the following excerpts taken from the report:

This process can be used to make synthesis gas. reducing gas, or fuel gas, and was studied first for several reasons : (1) more complete information is available than on ome other process; this specific design does not include proprietary cleanup processes; and there are a number of commercial plants ill operation; (2) it is a simple and relatively clean process ill. that it does not produce tar, oil, or phenols (minor amounts of cyanide, ammonia, etc. are produced); (3) the process developer was cooperative in supplying requested information.

Low Btu gas, such as that from the Koppers-Totzek gasifier, would be expected to give lower NOx due to lower flame temperature. (This refers to comparison with natural gas and coal firing.)

Although EP A has reviewed and approved the report for publication, the approval is qualified as follows; "Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Agency, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use." On the other hand, this report must be considered a base for the position that regulatory agencies may take, since it indicates what is attainable with present technology.

Process Description

The K-T gasification process employs the partial oxidation of a carbonaceous feed in suspension with oxygen and steam to produce a medium Btu gas which can be readily desulfurized. The product gas is high in carbon monoxide and hydrogen with a negligible amount of methane. The gross heating value of the desulfurized product gas is about 300 Btu/It". The process does Dot produce tar> oil, or phenols. By-products are elemental sulfur and a granulated slag.

The process offers flexibility not available in existing nonsuspension systems. The feed can be a variety of materials, e.g., all ranks of coal, petroleum coke, char, and/or liquid hydrocarbons. In the K-T gasification of coal, feed size is not a limiting factor, and therefore the entire mine output is usable. Furthermore, caking coals can be handled without pretreatment.

The K-T gasification process for producing a synthesis gas consists of four major steps:

1. Feed preparation and gasifier feeding

2. Gasification

4

Coal. Carbonization and Gasification (Koppers)

3. Heat recovery and gas cleaning

4. HzS removal and sulfur recovery

Feed Preparation and Gasifier Feeding

The feed preparation facility is designed to reduce a solid particle to a size consistency of 70 to 90% through 2'00 mesh. This is achieved by a primary crushing of the run-of-mine coal to a % x 0 in. size with a final size reduction in a pulverizing mill. Generally, the primary crushing is performed at the mine site. The coal does not have to be washed and high moisture and high (40:?o) ash contents are not objectionable from a process standpoint. A K- T plant in 'Europe uses, on a regular basis, a lignite feed with an ash content of 40/0- There are no process problems; however, one must justify economics in using such a high ash material. Since the coal is dried in a processing step external to the gasifier, there are also no processing problems in gasifying high moisture coals. However, here too there are economic considerations.

Depending upon rank the coal is dried to between 2 and 8% moisture and pulverized to 70 to 9'0% minus 200 mesh (Fig. 2). Roller- or ball-type windswept pulverizing millsare used and the choice depends on capacity; that is, roller up to 15'0 tons coal/per hour and ball from 15'0 to 250 tons. Pulverizers are designed to use 800 to 900°F combustion gases for the drying medium so that the coal particle temperature never exceeds 180°F. At this temperature there is no devolatilization or chemical reaction of the coal particles and as a result the evaporated coal moisture, after particle removal, can be discharged as vapor to the atmosphere without detrimental effects to air quality. The pulverized coal is conveyed with nitrogen from storage to the gasifier service bins (Fig. 2). In the pulverization system and thereafter the finely divided carbon (coal coke, etc.) particles are kept under an inert atmosphere to eliminate explosion hazards. Controls regulate the intermittent feeding of coal from the service bins to the feed bins, which are connected to twin variable-speed coal screw feeders that operate at a low speed (Fig. 3). The pulverized coal is continuously discharged from each screw into a mixing nozzle where it is entrained in a stream of oxygen and low-pressure steam. The mixture is then delivered through a transfer pipe to the burner head of the gasifier. Moderate temperature and high burner velocity in the burner pipe prevent the reaction of the coal and the oxygen prior to entry into the gasification zone.

Gasification

Coat Carbonization and Gasificati·on (Koppers)

5

----- ----0-.

~

A two-headed gasifier, capable of gasifying over 400 tons of coal per day, is shown in Fig. 4. The oxygen, steam, and coal react at a slight positive pressure' in the refractory-lined steel-shell gasifier. Coal, oxygen, and steam are brought together in opposing burner heads spaced 18'0" apart. Four-beaded gasifiers, capable of gasifying over 800 tons of coal per day, employ burner heads 9'0D apart. These larger units resemble intersecting ellipsoids having a major axis of approximately 25 ft and a minor axis of 13 ft. The gasifier is lined with a

FIG. 3. Coal crew feeder.

monolithic refractory lining 2 in. thick. The average life of the lining is normally 2 to 3 years. . . , C b .

Gasification of the coal is almost complete and lHl>tantane.ous. !r on

conversion is a function of the reactivity of the coal, approaching l'~O% for hcrnites. Exothermic reactions produce a flame tenlp~rature of approxImately 350QoF. Endothermic reactions. occurring in the gasl~er between carbon and steam and radiation to refractory walls, substantlally reduce t~e flame

f 3S00°F to an equilibrium temperature of _700 F. Low-

temperature rom

~===+-

BOILER FEED WAlER

Coal, Carbonization and Gasification ( Koppers)

pressure process steam for the gasifier reaction is produced in the gasifier jacket from the heat pa sing through the refractory lining.

Ash in the coal feed is liquefied at the high reaction temperature.

Approximately 50 to 70% of the molten slag drops out of the gasifier into a slag quench tank (Fig. 5) and is recovered for disposal as a granular solid. The remainder of the slag and most of the unreacted carbon are entrained in the gas exiting the gasifier. Water sprays located at the gasifier outlet quench the gas to drop the temperature below the ash fusion temperature to prevent slag particles from adhering to the tubes of the waste beat boiler mounted atop the gasifier. Ash fusion characteristics can be adjusted by the addition of flux to the coal feed. Generally, flux addition is not required. In existing operating plants, only three use feeds requiring flux. Sand, limestone, and iron oxide have been used as flux materials.

Table 1 shows the typical gasification data for lignite, Eastern coal, petroleum coke, and 0.6 fuel oil feedstock. A heat balance across the gasifier, based on Eastern coal, is shown in Table 2. A material balance for producing high Btu pipeline gas which is interchangeable with natural gas, is shown in Fig. 11.

7

Gas Cooling and Cleaning

The raw gas from the gasifier passes through the waste heat boiler where highpressure steam, up to 1500 Ih/in.2gauge, is produced .. After leaving the waste heat boiler, the gas at 350°F is cleaned and cooled in a water scrubber system (Fig. 5). The system consists of a washer cooler for removing the largest particle: 90~~ of tot a.), followed by two series-connected Theisen disintegrators where more than 990/0 of the remaining particles are removed. The entrained solids in the gas are thus reduced to 0.005 gr/scf. The gas then passes into a demister (separator) and into a low-pressure fan. A precipitator is used only when K-T gas is processed in catalytic units for chemical production.

Particulate laden water from the gas cleaning and cooling system is piped to a clarifier. Sludge from the clarifier is pumped either to a filter or to the plant disposal area. Clarified water is cooled in a cooling tower and recirculated lu the washer cooler and Theisen disintegrators. Evaporation, windage, and blowdown water losses at the cooling tower, plus moisture in the clarifier solids and slag, necessitate the addition of a small quantity of makeup water to this sy tern. If water is at a premium air cooling may be used for certain applications and the cooling towers can be reduced in size to provide only the final trim in water temperature.

The cool, clean gas leaving the gas cleaning system contains sulfur compounds which must be removed to meet gas specifications. The type of system chosen depends upon the end uses of the product gas. For low pressures (up to 150 Ib/in.2gauge) and industrial fuel gas applications, there are the chemical reaction processes such as the carbonate or amine systems (Fig. 6). ]n this application the sulfur removal is based on the permissible sulfur emissions requirement for the air basin.in which the plant is located. At present there are local, state and federal levels which vary between an upper limit of 1.2 Ib of sulfur dioxide per million Btu of fuel combusted to a lower limit of O.16Ib. The

BOILER FEED WATfR

FIG. 4. K-T gasifier.

Coat Carbonization and Gasification (Koppers)

9

Coal, Carbonization and Gasificati,on (Koppers)

8

more selective as regards HzS and CO2 physical absorption processes, such as Rectisol,Purisol, and Selexol, are used when the synthesis gas is used as feed to catalytic processing for chemicals such as ammonia, methanol or liquid hydrocarbons via Fischer-Tropsch ; or for upgrading gas to pipeline quality (960 Btu/fe) via CO shift and methanation, These catalytic conversion processes require sulfur levels of 0.1 ppm v which are achieved in the physical absorption scheme. Further sulfur purification, if necessary, and if backup is needed, can be achieved in hot zinc oxide fixed-bed systems.

Acid gases, hydrogen sulfide, and carbon dioxide, removed in the desulfurization plant, are sent to a Claus unit in a H2S concentration of 14 vo1.% minimum. Actually it is normally 30%. The thermal requirement for the Claus unit is provided by combusting some of the clean, desulfurized fuel gas. High

TABLE l' K-T Gasifier Data for Various Fuels

Green

Petroleum o. 6

Coke Fuel Oil

Lignite Coal

Eastern Coal

Type of Fuel

Gasifier feed

Dried feed to gasifier analysis, wt.~~:

C H

58.2 67.9 88.0 85.9
4.3 4.3 4.5 11.0
1.1 1.3 1.4 0.4
1.5 3.0 4.3 2.6
14.2 3.9 1.0 0.0
12.7 17.6 0.2 0.1
8.0 2.0 0.6 0.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
10,050 12,360 15,690 19,422
0.731 0.819 0.950 1,074
281 838 1,182 875
457 554 629 770
2,140 2,783 3598 3,795
56.87 52.70 52.22 47.21
10.00 10.00 10.00 4.50
31.30 35.10 35.40 47.07
1.18 1.13 1.10 0.61
0.60 1.01 1.20 0.59
0.05 0.06 0.08 0.02
100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
54,835 64,850 77.500 100,590
289 290 291 308
78.9 76.1 7L9 79.8 s

o

Ash Moisture

.s

Gross heating value of dried feed Btu/lb Oxygen. 98% purity, tons/ton dried feed Process steam, Ib/ton dried feed

Ga ifier products

Jacket steam, Ib/ton dried feed High-pressure steam, Ibfton dried feed, at 900°F (900 lb/in. 2 gauge

Raw gas analysis, vol.%, dry:

CO CO2 Hz

'2 + argon HzS

COS

Dry gas make. scf/ton dried feed

Gas gross heating value, Btu/scf, dry Heating value of gas/heating value feed

(gross basis), %

10


TABLE 2 K-T Gasifier Heat Balance, Eastern Coal (2% moisture a

Btu/lb of Coal Feed

Heat Input, above 60°F

Calorific value of coal

Sensible heat in coal at 160cF Sensible heat in oxygen at HO°F Total heal in steam at 250"F

12,360 29 26 468

Total

12,883 Heat OU/pUl, above 6IJO F

Heat in molten slag and ash Sensible heat in unburned carbon Calorific value of unburned carbon Calorific value of gas

Sensible beat, dry gas

Total heat water vapor in gas Total heat gasifier jacket steam Gasifier heal loss

Total

141 36 491 9A20 1,838 673 270 14

12,883

95,94 0.23 0.20 3,63

100.00

1,0.9 0..28 3.81

73,12 14.27 522 2.10 0.11

100.00

"Gas. exit temperature = 2730"F. Reference state = liquid water.

purity sulfur, amounting to 93% of the sulfur in the gas, is recovered from the Claus unit. Where strict environmental regulations prevail, the tail gas leaving the Claus unit may be processed through a tail gas cleanup unit for 99 + % overall recovery of sulfur. The use of a Claus unit results in a high purity ulfur as opposed to sulfur recovered from a Stretford or similar chemical-type processes where the sulfur is contaminated with the salts eontained in the absorption solution. The choice of the process is also dependent upon the desired purity of the product gas and the desired selectivity with respect to the

concentrations of carbon dioxide and sulfides,

This process description covers tbe production of clean, desulfurized K-T

synthesis gas, Processing steps required for conversion of this gas to power chemicals or high Btu (pipeline) gas are described in the following section,


... ----"fr---!IiI I I I I I I I I I

11

K-T Gas Uses

The use 0 f K _ T intermediate gas as a fuel in steam and/or power genera lion and as a retrofit for natural gas or fuel oil poses no problems. Although the bearing value of K-T gas is about one-third that of natural gas its combustion characteristics are better as regards overall thermal efficiency, flammability

12.

Coal. Ca.rbonization and Gasification (Koppers.)

limits, and Ox levels in combustion gases. Tables 3 and 4 compare steam boiler performance when fired with Midwestern coal, 1 0.6 fuel oil, natural gas and K-T gas. The data show that the ",'eight of combustion products from K-T gas is about equal to that from natural gas or oil, Therefore, substitution ofK- T gas does not derate the boiler since the draft loss and heat release pattern would not change. Some derating of a coal fired unit would be expected since the weight of combustion gas from coal is about 11% greater than from oil or gas. Frendberg [1], in a paper discussing the effect of gas beating value on boiler efficiency, notes that efficiency increases as heating value decreases from 1000 to 300 Btu/It"; it then decreases rapidly. Figure 7 indicates this relationship. Additional information on the effect of fuel retrofitting of steam boilers can be found in Refs. 2 and 3.

Figures 8 and 9 indicate flammability limits and NO", levels for natural gas and K-T intermediate gas. The wide flammability limits of K-T gas, 3850cF upper and 16000r lower, permit the premixing of excess air prior to combustion. Thus the combustion flame temperature can be controlled within these limits. Since Ox formation increases with an increase in temperature, KT gas is ideal for combustion systems where environmental limits on NO" levels are imposed. Figure 9 shows the superiority of K-T gas over natural gas regarding Ox formation. Control of6ame temperature is important in combined cycle power generation technology. At the present time, due to metallurgy limitations, the maximum temperature of combustion gases to the gas turbine is 1950°F. With natural gas, stage firing and/or air addition after

TABLE. 3 Overall Steam Boiler Performances Based on Firing with Typical Overall Levels of Excess Air

Fuel Composition

o. 6 Fuel Oil atural Gas

Coal
Wt.~~
C 70.5
H 5.0
L3
S ')-
z.o
a 7.5
Ash 10.1
H2a 3.1 K-T Gas

Wt.% VoL% VoL%
C 87.8 CH4 83.0 ca 50.7
H 11.0 C]H6 16.0 CO2 7.8
0.2 Cal 0.5 H] 34.5
S 0.5 2 0.5 N2 + Ar 12
0 0.5 --- H2.S + COS 0.1
Ash il 100.0 H2a 5.7
H2a il
100.0
100.0
18,500
1,128 277
5 10 15
793 792 653
847 835 840 100.0

Gross heating value, Btu/lb 12,809

Btu/scf

Typical % 0 f excess air used 1 ~

Lb air used/Mlvl gross Btu" 867

Lb combustion gas/MM gross Btu 937

'AlI" supplied at 77°F dry bulb, 60cf wet bulb.


13

TABLE 4 ~oil.er Heat Balance for Representative Fuels (reference states: 1 atm 7rF
liquid water '
No.6 atural
Coal Fuel ail Gas K-T Gas
Heat in, Btujlb fuel
Gross heating value 12,809 18,500 23.204 5,326
Sensible heat of fuel 0 0 0 10
Sensible heat of air 0 0 0 0
Latent heat in fuel 0 0 0 56
Latent heat in air 130 164 206 39
Totals 12,939 18.664 23,410 5,431
Heat out, Btu, b fuel
Sensible heat in exit gas at 350cF 826 1,091 .1,422 316
Latent heat in flue gas 698 1,325 2,668 474
Calorific value of unburned fuel 102 0 0 0
Sensible heat of ash and
unburned fuel 91 0 0 0
Heat losses and heat transferred
to steam 11,222 16,248 19,320 4.641
Totals 12,939 18,664 23,410 5,431
Overall boiler thermal efficiency at
3% loss 85.9 85 .. 2 80.8 84.5
Composition of Combustion Gas, 1'0'-%
ca2 14.37 13.55 9.33 19.73
H2a 8.23 11.84 18.88 15.03
Nl 74.49 73.65 70.89 63..04
°2 2.72 0.93 0.90 2.17
SOl 0.19 0.03 0.00 0.03
Totals 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Theoretical dewpoint, OF 109 121 139 129 ~ombustion is now the practice for temperature control in gas turbine use. This IS. necessary due to the narrow flammability limits of natural gas. This procedure merely cools the high-temperature combustion gases, and as a result the 0", I.evels are higher than those possible with K- T gas. A similar condition :~~!~;;t ill the future when metallurgy will permit gas turbine temperatures

In October 1974 the .StanfordResearch Institute (SRI) issued a report on the production ~f electric power by low Btu gas/combined cycle systems [4]. Various conversion processes were investigated for supplying (1) gas for fuel use and (2) gas for 500 MW combined cycle power generation. Lurzi Winkler and Koppers-Totzek, current commercially proven coal gasification processes, were compared as well as second generation processes. '

P,ercent

-

70L-----~----~----~--~800~--~1~OOO~

o 200 400 600

Gas fuel Btu per cu. ft.

IFIG.7. full load boiler unit 'efficiency VS fuel gas heating value [1].

4400

4200

________ THEORETICAL AIR ~I'

LL / I'

o // I

______ LOWER FLAMMABILITY LIMIT FOR NATURAL GAS

______ FIRING, TEMP. OF ADVANCED GENERATION GAS TURBINES

____ FIRING TEMP. OF PRESENT GE.NERATION GAS TURBINES

LOWER FLAMMABILITY ---------LIMIT FOR K·T GAS

LI8.--MOLES .AIIR @ 600°F PER MILLION NET BTU OF FUEL

RANGE: THEORETICAL AIR TO LOWER 'LIMIT OF FLAMMABILITY OF EACH GAS

FIG. 8. Equilibrium flame temperature vs air used for combustion


THEORETICAL AlA FOR NATURAL GAS

K-T GAS

LEAN FLAMMABILITY

LIM IT FOR NATURAL GAS

~------------ CORRESPONDS TO FIRING TEMP. OF ADVANCED GENERATION GAS TURBINES

15

THEORETICAL AIR FOR

K·T G,AS

- - - - - - CORRESPONDS TO FIRIN·G TEMP. OF PRESENT GENERATION GAS TURBINES

LEAN' FLAMMABll'ITY LIMIT FOR

'K-T GAS

LB.--MOLE AIR PER MILLION NET BTU OF FUEL INPUT

RANGE: THEORETICAL AIR TO LEAN LIMIT OF FLAMMABILITY

FIG. 9. Equilibrium formation of nitric oxide ( ro) vs air used for combustion for natural gas and K-T gas.

Comparative data for the above-mentioned commercially proven processes indicates that the K-T process is lower than Lurgi in the per kilowatt investment and in revenue requirement for the oxygen-blown case, and is a stand-off with Lurgi air blown. It is to be noted that product gas delivery pressure for K-T is 2081b/inhbs vs 1971b/inhbs for Lurgi. This indicates that in this instance the K-T process does not suffer a penalty for low-pressure gasification. The SRI report indicates a stand-off for oxygen blown between K-T and Lurgi in a 5 billion Btu/h fuel gas application. Winkler air blown is higher than Lurgi or KT. Figure 10 indicates the arrangement of a K - T gasification plant in combination with a combined gas and steam turbine cycle power generating system. A single four-headed gasifier produces sufficient gas for conversion into 50 to 55 MW of power in such a combined cycle.

16


c

-0 .a

.2


In addition to its use as a fuel gas, the K-T gas can be enriched to 95% CO plus Hz by removal of CO2 and can be usedas a reducing gas in the reduction of either ferrous or nonferrous ores. The desulfurized reducing gas can be compressed ifdesired, and supplied at elevated temperatures, e .. g., 1700GF by heat exchange with the hot gasifier gas prior to its entry into tbe waste beat boiler.

Other end uses for K-T gas which require high pressure H2S removal include process hydrogen production, ammonia and methanol synthesis, liquid hydrocarbons and synthetic natural gas (S IG), also referred to as pipeline gas. For each of these processes the particulate matter in the gas is fu.rther reduced in low-pressure electrostatic precipitators to approximately 0.0001 gr/scf (dry basis). The clean gas is then compressed to high pressure, and the removal of H2S is performed in a physical absorbent-type system. The composition of the gas is adjusted to the desired ratio of H1ICO by passing all or a portion of the gas over a CO shift catalyst. The exothermic reaction of carbon monoxide and steam to produce carbon dioxide and hydrogen:

occurs at 650 to 800"F, and at a pressure of approximately 450 to 750 IbJin.2gauge. Carbon dioxide is removed from the shifted gas by an additional a bsorption type unit.

Process hydrogen is produced by a CO shift, the degree being dependent upon the hydrogen purity. ormally, 96% hydrogen is acceptable. Higher purity requires additional CO shift stages followed by en and CO2 removal.

In ammonia synthesis, the K-T gas is shifted to hydrogen, carbon dioxide is removed in a physical absorption-type system, and residual quantities of carbon monoxide and argon are removed in a nitrogen wash leaving essentially an Hz! 2 mixture. Iitrogen from the air separation plant is introduced into the gas to produce a 3: 1 molal ratio of hydrogen to nitrogen. The gas is then compressed to about 3150 Ib/in.2gauge and catalytically converted to anhydrous ammonia:

Carbon dioxide recovered from the purification of the synthesis gas, can be reacted with ammonia to produce urea:

Practically all ammonia plants in the United States are based on natural gas feed. Scarcity of natura] gas demands a synthesis gas from coal. There are those in our society who are promoting the conversion of coal to pipeline gas and then reforming the gas for ammonia feed. As shown in Table 5, tbis is inefficient when compared to the use of an intermediate Btu gas as produced in the gasifier.

Methanol can be produced from K- T syngas by shifting a portion of the gas, recombining it with the unshifted gas, then removing a portion of the CO2

17

18


TABLE 5 Btu Requirement per Ton of Ammonia (basis: gas supplied to ammonia plant battery limits at 500 Ib/in.2gauge)

Synthesis gas required, MM Btu/ton NH3 Fuel requirements:

Reforming Utility support Tail gas credit

atural Gas Pi peline Gas K-T Gas
18.5" 18.5a 23.6a
9.7 9.7
10.1 10.1 8.8
-1.8 -1.8 -1.3
18.0 18.0 7.5
36.5 36.5 31.1
50 55 60 51
73.0 66.4 60.8 61.0 et fuel required

Total feedstock required

Gasification process efficiency" %b Coal requirement, MM Btu/ton NU3

"Based on 97% reforming of methane; 94.5% conversion of H~ to Nfl3•

"The data indicate that pipeline gas plant overall process efficiency would have to reach 60% [or a Btu requirement comparable to K· T gas. Current reported pipeline gas plant efficiencies are in the 50 to 55% range so that pipeline based ammonia plants would require 10 to 20% more coal input than K-T, and would require considerably more plant investment.

in an acid gas absorption system to achieve the proper H2J(CO + 1.5002) ratio of 2.05:1. The resulting gas is compressed to 1400 Ibjin.2gauge and catalytically converted to crude methanol. Distillation of the crude product to remove impurities yields a commercial fuel-grade methanol of 98% purity. Additional distillation produces a chemical-grade methanol product.

Combination K- T plants designed to produce both medium Btu gas and methanol offer a means for power generation stations and other industrial fuel-consuming facilities to conveniently operate at base and peak loadings. Medium Btu gas would be employed as the base load fuel. Methanol, produced on a continuous basis, would be stored as a liquid during base operating periods and then withdrawn for use during peak operating periods. This type of operation results in maintaining uninterrupted operation of the gasifiers and insures an instant supply of fuel when required. A recent shortterm test 00 turbines by United Aircraft and Amax Inc., using methanol, has shown excellent results {5].

Data in Table 6 on methanol parallels data for ammonia shown in Table 5, and indicates that in this instance also pipeline gas should not be the feedstock if we are energy conservation conscious.

Synthesis natural gas (SNG) production requires shifting the K- T syngas to achieve approximately a 3.05: 1 ratio of H2/CO. After removal of CO2, the gas is catalytically merhanated by

at temperatures of 580 to 800oy, and 450 to 750 Ibjin.2gauge. The methanated product is cooled to condense the water and the resulting gas has the following composition.

Coal, Carbonization and Gasifkation (Koppers)

19

Component CH4

H2

CO CO2

N2

Vol_% 93.78 2.75 0.10 0.40 2.97

Total 100.00

It has a gross heating value of956 Btujscf, and it can be compressed to 900 to 1000 Ib/in.2gauge if required for distribution into a pipeline gas system (Fig. 11).

The above data are based on the use of99.5% purity oxygen. For all other applications, 98% purity is used .. The higher purity oxygen is needed in the pipeline gas production to meet the current pipeline gas specification of a total of 5 vol.% of inerts, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. The lower purity is acceptable for all other synthesis gas applications. The K-T Process can and has operated at lower purity oxygen (90%)' however, in the United States there is no economic incentives to do so. Oxygen plant investment and operating costs that are offered today by oxygen companies do not reflect any savings in this regard.

Figure 12 indicates the quantity of each of the various products and byproducts obtainable from K- T utility gas and/or synthesis gas produced from the gasification of a single ton of eastern coal containing 2.0% moisture. Approximately 9.7 lb of high purity elemental sulfur and 240 .. 2Ib of slag and unreacted carbon (dry basis) are produced as by-products. It is to be noted that the values shown for each of the products are based on only that specific product being produced from a ton of coa1.

TABlE 6 Btu Requirement per Ton of Pure Methanol (basis: gas supplied to methanol plant battery limits at 500 lb/in2gauge)

I atural gas'

Pipeline Gas"

K-T Gas

Synthesis gas required, MM Btu/ton methanol Fuel requirements:

Reforming Urility support T ail gas credit

26.0b.c

13.3 0.0 -9.9

13.3 0.0 -9.9

0.0 0.8 -1.9

et fuel required

Total feedstock required Gasification process efficiency, %

Coal requirement, MM Btu/ton methanol

3.4 29.4

3.4 29.4 55 53.5

- 1.1 23.8 51 46.7

50 58.8

60 49.0

"Does [lot employ CO2 addition from external source. bBased on 95% reforming of methane.

"Based on 95% conversion of CO and CO~ to methanol within synthesis loop.

A verage gas costs for 300 Btu gas ($ per million Btu). based on gasifying eastern coal in various plant sizes, are shown in Fig. 14. Costs are based on Fig. 13

RAW EASTERN COAL

STEAM 15 psig

AIR

Coat Carbonization andG asification (Koppers)

0.419T/T

Economics of the K-T Process

0.807 TIT

Since 1973, Koppers-Pittsburgh has prepared numerous feasibility studies for clients interested in the K- T gasification process for the production of clean gaseous fuel and a synthesis gas feed for the production of ammonia, methanol, and hydrogen. These studies were based on a battery limits concept with delivery of % x 0 in. coal to a bin within the battery limits; the client was responsible for facilities to receive and transport the coal to the battery limits. The plant location was assumed to be on a clear level site, and all utilities were brought to the plant limits. Within the battery limits the facility was complete, with the client providing site preparation and all buildings such as office, laboratory, maintenance, and personnel service facilities. Included in these studies were capital cost estimates for the battery limits plant. Costs for offsites were not included since the scope of these is best established by the client. Therefore, an adjustment for these costs to the estimated cost data reported here wi.1l be necessary to reach a final product cost.

In determining the cost of clean, desulfurized intermediate (290 to 300 Btu/ft ") K-T fuel gas, we have used the Federal Power Commission, Synthetic Gas-Coal Task Force Utility Financing [6] procedures shown in Tables 7 and 8.. The cost figures reported are average over the project life, and therefore the cost over the early years will be higher with a continued cost reduction in the following years. Costing methods for a private enterprise vary with the individual interests and generally are based on a discounted cash flow (DCF) procedure. In this case the gas cost is constant over the life of the project and consequently it is higher than the average gas cost shown under Utility Financing. The six gasifier utility financing costs shown in this report would increase about 6% under the discounted cash flow financing method.

, , ,64,635 SCF IT

N2 143 SCF/T---___,,1 DESULFU;.ZATION f-----a- 3,179 SCF/T 161,599SCFfT

e

o 39,247SCF/T

N21060SCF/T------t;1 C02 RE~MOVAL ~0- 25,243 SCF/T

o

"

PIPEUINE GAS 15,064 SCF/T

LOCATION 0 @ e I 0 @ e
COMPONENT
CO 52.95 1.01 55.56 0.04 0.10
CO2 10.00 72.50 6.75 61.72 95.73 0.40
H2 35.30 - 36.97 1.07 0.02 2.75
0.68 4.49 , 0.72 1.14 4.20 2.97
N2 1.01 2.0.77 - - - -
H2S 0.06 1-23 - - - -
cos ~ 93.78
CH4 - -- - _M..ll
TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
GROSS HEATI'NG VA'LUE: '956 .. 4 BTU/SCF FIG. 11.. K-T coal gasification process material flow sheet for pipeline gas production.

Capital Cost of 300 Btu Gas Pla,nts

MEDIUM BTU GAS HHV=291 BTU/SCF {Dry Basis 1

71,219 SCF

Figure 13 has been prepared to show approximate capital costs for plants of various capacities to produce 300 Btu clean, desulfurized utility gas or synthesis gas delivered at 2 Ib/in.2gauge from an Eastern coal having an as-received heating value of 13 ,425 Btu/lb. The estimated capital costs are installed costs for battery limits plants and include an oxygen plant. Costs are not included for land or off-site facilities such as coal stockpiling and reclaiming equipment, general maintenance shops, offices, laboratories and personnel service buildings. The daily requirements of coal are shown as well as the number of fourheaded gasifiers needed for various daily heat requirements.

Estimated capital costs are based on mid-1974 price levels and have not been adjusted for escalation.

ELECTRIC POWER COMBINED CYCLE

2,238 KWH

ADDITIONAL PROCESSING

SLAG 8.

U REACTED CARBON

240.2 LBS.

SULFUR 9.7 LBS

3,021 LBS.

1-- __ HYDROGEN 64,215 SCF (96%.)

1-- __ SNG(942%CH,V 17,049 SCF HHV=961 BTLVSCF

1-- __ METHANOL 1,718 LBS

98% 1260.3 GALS.]

1-- __ ANHYDROUS 1,712 LBS.

LlQ. NH5

Average Gas Cost

COAL COMPOSITION WT %
C 762
H 50
N 1.3
S 0.7
0 66
ASH B.2
MOISTURE 2.0
100.0 FIG .. 12. Products obtainable from K-T gas.

21

22

Coal, Ca,rboni.zation and Gasification (Koppers)

TABLE 7 Average Gas Cost Equation, Utility Financing Method"

Basis:

20- yr project Ii fe

5,,/jyr straight line depreciation on total capital requirement, excluding working

capital

48"10 federal income tax rate

Definition of terms:

C = total capital requirement, MM $b W = working capital, MM $

N = total net operating cost in first year, MM $/yr G = annual gas production, trillion Btu/yr

d = fraction debt

i = interest on debt, ,,/Jyr r = return on equity, %/yr

p = return on rate base, "/Jyr Equation for return on rate base : p = (d)i + (1 - d)r

General gas cost equation:

Average gas cost $(MM Btu

aN + 0.05 C - W) + O.OO5[p + ~(1 - d)r](C + W)

G

Values of the parameter a:

Plant Startup

Completion Data Value of a

Operating Cost Approach

Without escalation during project life

With escalation during project life

All years 1975

1980 and beyond

LOOOO 1.3726 1.3435

aDesCl"iplion ofGas Cost Calculation Methods Being Used by the Syntheric Gas-Coal Task Force of the FPC National Gas SUrl'ey. H. M .. Siegel, T. Kalina, and H. A. Marshall, for presentanon to Federal Power Commission, Washington, D.C, June 12, 1972.

bSee Table 8.

capital costs. Each project, however, requires a detailed stu.d_Y to develop accurate capital and operating costs for related specific conditions. Indirect costs may then be applied in accordance with procedures of a given company to determine gas production costs.

The graph reflects the effect of scale on gas costs. With small plants, ~as costs will be comparatively high because operating and capital costs are. high relative to gas production. With plants requiring more than about five gaslfier~, gas costs do not drop significantly with an increase in capacity. The.reason IS that the additional equipment and labor are proportionally less than III a small

plant. Some savings are effected in multiple strings and in areas such as =' handling and preparation and general facilities with an increase III plant size.

Coal!. Carbonization and Gasification (Koppers]

23

For a daily heat requirement of67 billion Btu and six four-headed gasifiers, the average gas cost per million Btu for K-T gas produced from Eastern coal would be about $1.52 for $1O/ton coal, 51.79 for $15/ton coal, and $2.02 for $20/ton coal. An update to mid-I97S indicates that with $10 coal the gas cost per million Btu increases to £1.80,. at $15iton coal it is $2.05: and at $20/ton coal the gas cost becomes $2.30. These Eastern coal costs are in the range of 37 to 75¢/mi1lion Btu on an as-received basis. Since coal costs represent a substantial portion of the gas costs, any sizeable change in coal costs results in a significant change in gas costs.

Figure 15 shows the effect ofcoal costs on gas costs for an Eastern coal and a lignite. This cost data relates to specific conditions on the chart. It can be used to get order-of-magnitude costs for most other coals: however, more precise gas costs require individual study since ash, moisture, and oxygen contents do affect the gas cost. These coals have the composition shown in Table 9.

TABtE 8 Basis for Calculating Total Capital Requirement"

Total plant investment

All on-sites plant sections All utilities and off-sites

(Including fresh water treating, cooling towers, power generation and distribution, steam generation, pollution control facilities, site preparation,

offices, shops, control houses, etc.)

Contractor's overhead and profit Engineering and. design costs

xxx XXX

XXX XXX

Subtotal plant investment

Project contingency (15% of subtotal plant investment) Development contingency" (7% of subtotal plant investment)

XXX XXX XXX

Total plant investment Interest during construction

IIntere t rate x total plant investment x 1.875 yr average period Startup costs (20% of total gross operating cost)"

Working capital

Sum of: (a) Raw materials inventory of 60 d at full rate

(b) aterials and supplies at 0.9% of total plant investment (c) let receivables at £4 of annual gas revenue at $l.OOjMM Btu

XXX

XXX XXX

XXX XXX

XXX

Total. capital requirement

XXX

'All items in parentheses refer 10 particular bases used by tbe Synthetic Gas-Coal Task Force. b 01 required for processes already developed.

<Based on capitalization of 40% of the full-rate gross operating cots during a 6-montb startup period. (Assumes that 60% of the costs during the startup period are covered by revenue from gas deli veries.)

TOTAL PLANT INVESTMENT, MILLIONS OF DOLLARS

250

200

PRODUCT GAS- 300 BTU/SCF AT 2.0 PSIG(DRYBASlS) FEED-BITUMINOUS COAL:

GHV = 13.425 BTUILB

(4i; MOISTURE-AS RECEIVED)

25


GAS COST,

$ PER MILLION BTU

3.50 ~------------~-

3.00

Six (6) Gasifier Plant Product Gas - 300 BTlJ/SOF @ 2.0 psig

~~----------~----------.-----------~

o 2961 5935 8902

COAL REQUlREMENT, TONS PER DAY

150

100

50

o

5 10

NUMBER OF FOUR·HEADED GASIFIERS

1.50

f o

2961 5935

COALREOUIREMENT, TONS PER DAY

2.50

2.00

15

1.00 -t-,--.-....,.......,...----.--.----.___,.--.--.--.--.~....----l

20

-l

40 60 80 100 120140 160 Coal Cost, Cenls Per Million BTUS

o 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

TOTAL GAS HEATING VALUE, BILLION BTUS PER DAY

'fI,G. 13. K.T gasification prDces, total plant investment.

GAS COST,

S PEH MILLION BTU

3.50

PRODUCT GAS- 300 BTUISCi' AT 2.0 PSIG(DRYBASIS) FEED- BITUMINOUS COAL:

GHV= 13.425 BTUILB

(4Z MOISTURE - AS RECEIVED)

6902

,-1

10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Coal Cost. s Ton, Eastem Coal, Lower Kittanning Seam HHV - 13,275 BTU/LB .. As Received

3.00

2.50

coal<;>$20/Ton

2 ... 00

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 2.0

Coal Cost, $ Ton, lignite, Circle, Monlana' HHV . 6721 BTU/LB, As Received

BASES:

S. Interes, Rate on Debt: 9!;iiQ

6. Rate om Aelurn on Equity: 15oJ..1a

7. Federal locome T'axRate: 48~1~

coal@S15/Ton

Coal",S10/Ton

o

5 10

NUMBER OF FOUR·HEADED GASIFlERS

t. Feedstock: Bit.uminous Coal

2. Plant LiI@: 20 '(ears

3. Depredation: Straight liJ1e

4. Capl1al Structure: 7Sfi.!o Deb1 25'l,'(l E'quily

FIG. 15.

K _ T ga ification process coal cost vs average gas cost, FPC utility financing.

f-

o 20 40 '60 80 100 120 140 160

TOTAL GAS HEATING VALUE, BILllO'N BTUS PER DAY

BASES:

1. feedstock: Situminou'S Coal

2. Plant Llte; 20 Years

3. Depreciation: Slra;ight Line

4. capi1al Structure: 15t1i~ Oebl 2S~ Equ,1y

5. Interest Aa1e on Debt. 9~/D

6. Rate or Return on Equity: 1'5~

7. Federa' tnceme Tao.: Rate: 481:l~

15

TABLE 9 Coal Data for Figure 15
Eastern Coal,
Lower Kittaning Seam Montana Lignite
As Received MAF As Received MAF
(Wt.%) (Wt.%) (Wt./~) (Wt.%)
C 74.54 84.69 41.96 71.80
H 4.93 5.60 2.72 4.65
L23 1.40 0.60 1.03
S 0.70 0.&0 0.52 0.89
0 6.48 7.36 12.63 21.61
Ash 7.99 6.71
H2O 4.00 0.00 34.85
Cl 0.13 0.15 0.01 0.02
Totals 100.DO 100.'00 100.00 JOO.OO
HHV, Btu/lb 13,274 15,0&2 6.721 11,500 FIG. 14. K-T gasificatjon process average gas cost, fPC utility financing.

330 d/yr

Total yearly costs Tons NH3/330 dlyr Selling price, S/ton NHJ Federal income tax, M $ Net return, M s

Net return, Percent of plant investment Percent of sales

Basis: 20- yr project life

48% federal income tax rate 100% debt

9% interest (20 yr avs= 6%)

26



Tables 11, 12, and 13, based on the conditions shown in Table 10, indicate the estimated costs for producing ammonia, methanol, and hydrogen when the K-T system is used [or the gasification of coal. Cost data are based on early 1974 prices. As indicated earlier estimated costs are on a battery limits basis and all utilities are purchased. The biggest utility cost is power for synthesis gas compression and in this report it is charged in at 1¢lkW. power requirements could be reduced with the use of steam turbine drives; however, this would require low cost low sulfur coal for in-plant coal-fired steam generation. With high sulfur coal, one could use gasification to supply environmentally acoeptable fuel gas to a steam generator. Each of these alternatives involves many variables, requires special considerations, and therefore the altemenves

are not induded in this discussion.

Estimated capital costs as of February 1975 show a 20% increase over the

1974 costs u ed in Tables 11, 12, and 13. The adjustment in the selling price results in ammonia increase from $102 to $115/ton, methanol increase from 30.6 to 34.7¢/gal, and hydrogen increase from $1.475 to $1.66/M scf. With $15 coal, the costs increase to $125jton for ammonia, to 38¢/gal for methanol, and

to $1.87/M scf for hydrogen.

TABLE 10 Cost Parameters for Tables 11.12, and 13

Costs of Chemical Products

Operating period Plant capacity; A.mmonia Methanol

Hydrog.en

Project life (n)' Taxes and iIllSuranoe Interest (i)· Corporate charges Gross return Federal income tax Debt

Working capita!

Startup costs

Interest during eonstruction Coal costs for all cases

TABLE 11 Estimated Anhydrous Ammonia Cost Koppers-Totzek Coal Gasification (basis: 330 d/yr; plant capacity: 2100 tons/d, 693,000 tons/yt)"

'NO! included in cost calculations are the Iollowina:

Startup COSIS, M $ ~ 4,800

Interest during construction

(l.875 yr at 9%), M S 20,756

TotaJ. M $ 25.556

These costs, if included in plant investment, would add $4.35/lon to the ammonia selling price.

Plant investment Working capital

Total investment Direct operating costs

Raw materials. chemicals, catalysts, and utilities ; includes sulfur credit

Labor and Supplies

Operating and maintenance; includes supervision and general overhead.

Total direct costs Indirect costs

Depreciation, taxes, insurance, and interest; plant inve tment basis.

Total indirect costs

Total cost plant level

Corporate charges, 10% plant level cost Gross return, 20% of investment

2100 tons/d ; 693,000 tons/yr

2100 tonsjd; 693,000 lOns/. r, 634.9 M gal/d ; 209,525

M galfyr

\00 x 106 sefId 20 yr

3.5% of plant investment

9%; 20-yr average equals 6.0% 10% of plant level cost

20% of plant investment

48% of gross return

100%

60 d inventory of raw material;

net recei .ables £ .. of annual revenue; materials and supplies at 0.9% of plant

investment

20% of total net operating cost 1.875 yr at 9% of plant investment

$8.00/ton

i(I+0" 'Based on capital recovery [actor = ---I + if - 1

M$

SjTon NH3

~~ Cost/ Ton

123,000 5,329

128,329

185.00
28.25 27.7
6.52 6.4
34.77 34.1 19,578

4,518

24096

17,835 25.73 25.2
41,931 60.50 59.3
4,193 6.05 5.9
24,600 35.50 34.8
70,724 102.05 100.0
693,000
102.05
11,808
12,792
lOA
18.1 27

29



28

Estimated 96% Purity Hydrogen Cost Koppers-Totzek Coal Gasification (basis: 330 d/yr; plant capacity: 100 x 106 scf/d)"

TABLE 13

Estimated Commercial Methanol Costs Koppers-Totzek Coal Gasification (basis: 330 d/yr; plant capacity: 2JOO tons/d, 693,000 ton fyr,

209,525 Mgal/yr ]"

TABLE 12

% Cost/ Mscf

$/Mscf

M$

% Cost/

¢/Gal Ton

MS

84725 3795


118,820 3,276


2,570

88,520


Raw materials, chemicals, catalysts, and utilities; includes sulfur credit

Labor and su pplies

Operating and maintenance; includes supervision and general overhead

58.0
7.2 23.5
2.1 6.9
9.3 30.4 122,096


Ra w materials, chemicals, catalysts, and utilities:

includes sulfur credit

Labor and Supplies

Operating and maintenance ; includes supervision and general overhead

26.03

0.384

J2,660

15,166

8.07

0.119

3,914

4,481

34.10

0.503

16,574


Depreciation, taxes, insurance, and interest; plant investment basis


19,647


Depreciation, taxes, insurance, and interest: plant

investment basis


12,285 0.372 25.22
28,859 0.&75 59.32
2,886 0.087 5.90
16,945 0.513 34.7&
48,690 1.475 lOO.OO
33,000
1.475
8,134
8,815
10.4
18.0 17,229 8.2 26.8
36,876 t 7.5 57.2
3,688 1.8 5.9
23764 11.3 36.9
64,328 30.6 100.0
209,525
30.6
11,407
12,357
lOA
19.2 Total cost plant level

Corporate charges, 10% plant level costs Gross return, 20% of investment

Total cost plant level

Corporate charges 10% plant level cost Gross return, 20% of investment

Total yearly costs MMscf/330 d/yr

Selling price, $fMsd Federal income tax, M $ Net return, M $

Net return, Percent of plant investment Percent of sales

Basis: 20-yr project life

48% federal income tax rate 100% debt ..

9% interest (20 yr av = 6%}

Total yearly costs Mgal/330 d/yr

Setting price, ¢/gal federal income tax, M 5>

et return, M $

et return, Percent of plant investment Percent of sales

Basis: 20-yr project life

48% federal income tax rate

100% debt

9% interest (20 yr av = 6%)

e :01 included in cost calculations are the followinz .

Startup costs, M $ ".

Interest during construction

(1.875 yr at 9%), M S

3,350

ot included in cost calculations are the following:

Startup costs, M $

Interest during construction u.sts yr at 9%), M s

3,900

14,297

20,000

Total, M s 17 647

These costs, if included in plant investment, would add 8¢/Mft3 to the selling price of hydrogen.

Total. M S 23,900

These costs, if included in plant investment, would add l.6¢/gal to the. selling price. of methanol.

30


EnvironmentaIP·o·sture

Environmentatly objectionable gaseDuS matter from any plant includes pa~ticulate matter, sulfur compounds, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and oxides

of nitrogen. Water-contaminating substances include oil and suc~ senous taste-offending compounds as phenols and pyridines. So.urce re~ulatlons have been promulgated by federal and state agencies w~ch wrll perrrut the national ambient air standards to be met, in accordance with the Clean Air Act. The ultimate goal for water is zero discharge by 1985.

Contr~ol of the environment in a fuel conversion facility depends to a great

degree upon the controllability and simplicity of proces~ operati?ns. Th~ 25-yr K-T record of commercial operati.on shows a consistency in continuous production at 90/~ of the OD-stream design figure. This .relia~ce requires controllability. The "simple and clean process," as descnbed 1? U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report, yields slag and a synthesls gas composed primarily of carbon dioxide carbon monoxide, ~nd hyd~oge~. The sulfur contained in the feed material is converted during gasdicatlOn to hydrogen sulfide and carbonyl sulfide. These sulfur cOI?pounds can be removed to regulatory environmental limits from the ga~ with commerc13llyproven processes and converted to elemental sulfur sUltabl.e fo~ sale to tbe chemical industry. The slag as produced is granulated and, since It has passed through the molten state in the gasifier, contains little or no dust or leachab~e material. The slag will be suitable for road aggregate, landfill, or for use III cinder hlocks. The trace amounts of ammonia, cyanide, etc. in the raw gas are removed during gas cleaning and disposed of by combustion in the Cla.us sulfur unit. Th~ clean gas can be burned in conventional power-generatmg equipment and the combustion temperature can be controlled so that

combustion sases are acceptably low in Ox·

Table 14 to shows the gas analyses at the various processing stages and

indicates the possible contaminants and their concentration. _ .

The reduction in the particulate matter from 12 to 0.005 gr/sc.f 1D a gas occurs in a gas cooling and cleaning system where the gas is intimately contacted with recirculated water. In the process the water-soluble ammoma, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen cyanide, and some hydrogen sulfide ar~ absorbed. A bleed stream from the recirculated water system is continuously discharged to a stripper where the gaseous components are stripped by vapor rising from a steam reboiler Gaseous NH3, S02' and HC flow to the Claus umt and are combusted while the stripped water is cooled and returned to the stripper watercirculating system. Excess stripped water is bled to the boiler feedw~ter system

v here it is treated and used in the generation of steam at the gasifiers. . .

The particulate matter entrained slag) in the water. ~fter g~s cleaning is removed in adarifier.lfwater is not at a premium, the particulate msturry form can be pumped to a disposal area outside the plant. With water scarcity, the slurry would ·be filtered, water returned to the scru?bers, = the filte~ cake placed in loadout bins for truck or railroad car disposal. Since partIculate matter is slagged material there should be no leachable contamin~nts, ~d disposal should pose no environmental problems. The water-reclTculatmg


TABLE 14 Gas Analyses

Component

co CO2 CH4 Hz N2 H2S COS HCN NH3 HiO Ar 502

o

Particulates. g;:jscf

Vol-/~
To Compression and
Gasifier Outlet Acid Gas Removal Product Gas
37.36 49.50 53.07
7.13 9.44 10.12
0.08 0.11 0.13
25.17 33.35 35.76
0.30 0.40 0.43
0.23 0.30 3 ppm v
178 ppmv 235 ppmv 1.5 ppmv
288 ppm\' 300ppmv lppmv
0 . .17 0.22 lppmv
29.19 6.20 160 ppmv
0.32 0.42 0.45
22pprnv 15 ppmv O.sppmv
7 ppmv 7ppmv 3 ppmv
12 0.005 0.005 31

system is pollution clean with the side-stream treatment arranzement, The cooling of the recirculating water can be on a direct basis in a cooling tower, if this is acceptable environmentally, or on an indirect basis with air or water exchangers.

T~ble 15 indicates water compositions at the various gas cooling and cleaning steps at the Kutahya, Turkey and Modderfontein, South Africa, plants. In each case the data are from plant record : Turkey data in 1972 and Modderfontein data in June 1975. The data are offered to indicate what orderof-magnitude concentrations are possible and they do identify possible contaminants. It is to be noted that the most objectionable contaminants. phenols, tars, oils, and pyridines, are missing. .

As shown in Table 15, hydrogen sulfide is not detectable in the water and thus the gas leaving the gas cleaning system contains most of the hydrogen sulfide and carbonyl sulfide. There are various acid gas removal processes with the capability of reducing the sulfur content in the gas to 0.1 ppmv. The pr?ccsses are based on absorption in a solution and subsequent stripping of the aCl? gases, H2S, and CO2 from the solution. The physical absorption processes, which operate at pressures of 300 to 400 lb/in.Pgauge, exhibit the greatest selectivity regarding hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide removal. Since no chemical reactions occur, these processes do not form stable compounds such as thiosulfates and thiocyanates. Some chemical reaction processes such as carbonate and amine, which form the aforementioned stable compounds, can be used but will require periodic dumping of the solution in order to maintain removal efficiency or for regeneration. Dumped solution will require treatment to meet permissible discharge limitations. The choice of process is dependent

32

Coal. Carbonization and Gasific.ation (Koppers)

N

q"'! "'! oo~"-C~

"7

\ I

0. I \ I \ C

\0 V

\ \

o

:;

o

..

""'

i. o

Coal. Carbon ization and Gasification (Koppers)

upon economics, environmental control, purity of product gas, and desired acid gas selectivity. A plan t can be designed to reduoe sui fur in the product gas to 0.1 ppmv control the H2S level in carbon dioxide to 10 ppmv or less, and the liquid effluent to zero pollutants.

The acid gas stream, containing a minimum of 14 vo1.% H2S, is catalytically converted to elemental molten sulfur in a Claus unit. The tail gases exiting the Claus unit contain S02 and can be treated to catalytically reduce the S02 to H2S. Scrubbing with an amine solution absorbs the HzS, and subsequent stripping yields an HIS stream which is recycled to the Claus unit. This combination results in overall sulfur recovery of 99 + %.

Modified carbonate solution systems such as Stretford and Thylox remove the hydrogen sulfide by absorption and then the solution is oxidized by an air stream. The sulfur is recovered as elemental in a froth which is filtered to yield a filter cake. The cake can be steam autoclaved to yield a crystal1ine sulfur product. Since the cake contains entrained solution the contaminants in the solution appear in the crystalline sulfur product.

Gases containing carbon monoxide and hydrogen, such as coke oven gas, producer gas, water gas, and blast furnace gas, have been used as industrial fuels for many years. American manufacturers of modern steam boilers and gas turbines foresee no major problems in adapting furnaces and combustors to utilize the K-T utility gas, which displays excellent combustion characteristics resulting in boiler or gas turbine performances equivalent to, and in some ways better than, those for natural gas or other utility ga es produced from alternate coal gasification processes.

Recently attention from environmental groups has been focused on the control of oxides of nitrogen from combustion sources. Formation of these oxides is influenced by combustion temperature; for instance, a 200°F increase in temperature can more than triple the rate of NO x formation. The K - T utility gas offers important properties not available in natural gas insofar as design of NO" control systems are concerned. In order to sustain combustion at the burner, the fuel-air mixture must be within the explosive limits, which is an important consideration in the design of premix burners commonly used in gas turbines. Figure 8 indicates the upper and lower flammability limits and air requirements of natural gas and those for K-T utility gas. As can be seen, K-T gas has a wider flammability range and therefore a greater quantity of excess air can be used without snuffing the flame than is the case with natural gas. The lower theoretical flame temperature of natural gas is about 2710CF and therefore, when firing temperatures are to be controUed,it is the practice to use dilution holes (or alternate aerodynamic methods) to add more excess air between the burner and the discharge point of the combustion gases. These dilution holes are placed as close to the burner as possible to minimize the time during which the gas is exposed to high temperature without extinguishing the flame. The K- T utility gas has such a low lean explosive limit that at the lower limit about five times the excess air quantity may be added at the burner, thus resulting in a flame temperature of about 1600°F, which is still above the autoignition temperature ofthe gas. Hence, for firing temperatures in the range of 1600 to 1950°F, current gas turbine blade temperature limits all of the required excess air can be added directly at the burner in the case of the K-T gas,

33

30


Environmental Posture

Environmentally objectionable gaseous matter from any plant includes pa~ticulate matter, sulfur compounds, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and oxides of nitrogen. Water-contaminating substances include oil and suc~ serIOUS taste-offending compounds as phenols and pyridines. Source re~ulatlOns .hav~ been promulgated by federal and state agencies wh!ch will pernut t~1e national ambient air standards to be met, in accordance with the Clean Air Act. The ultimate zoal for water is zero discharge by 1985.

Control of the environment in a fuel conversion facility depends to a great degree upon the controllability and simplicity of proces~ operati~ns. The 25-yr K-T record of commercial operation shows a consistency 10 contmu?us production at 90~~ of the on-stream design figure. This. relia~ce requires controllability. The 'simple and clean process," as described I~ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report, yields slag and a synthesis gas composed primarily of carbon dioxide carbon monoxide, and hyd~ogen. The sulfur contained in the feed material is converted during gasification to hydrogen sulfide and carbonyl sulfide. These sulfur cor_npounds ca~ be removed to regulatory environmental limits from the gas WIth commerciallyproven processes and converted to elemental sulfur suitable for sale to th~ chemical industry. The slag as produced is granulated and Since It has passed through the molten state in the gasifier, contains little or no dust or leachab~e material. The slag will be suitable for road aggregate, landfill, or for use III cinder blocks. The trace amounts of ammonia cyanide, etc. in the raw gas are removed during gas cleaning and disposed of by combustion in the Claus sulfur unit. The clean gas can be burned in conventional power-generatmg equipment, and the combustion temperature can be controlled so that combustion oases are acceptably low in 0".

Table 1/ bows the gas analyses at the various processing stages and

indicates the pos-sible contaminants and their concentration. .

The reduction in the particulate matter from 12 to 0.005 grlscf In a gas occurs in a gas cooling and cleaning system where the gas is intimately contacted with recirculated water. In the process the water-soluble ammonia, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen cyanide and some hydrogen sulfide are absorbed. A bleed stream from the recirculated water system is continuously discharged to a stripper where the gaseous components are stripped by vapor risi~g from a steam reboiler , Gaseous NH3, S02, and HC flow to the Claus urnt and are combusted while the stripped water is cooled and returned to the stripper watercirculating system. Excess stripped water is bled to the boiler feedw~ter system where it is treated and used in the generation of steam at the gasifiers. . .

The particulate matter (entrained slag) in the water ~fter g~s cleaning IS removed in a Clarifier. If water is not at a premium, the partlculate m slurry form can be pumped to a disposal area outside the plant. With water scarcity the slurry would 'be filtered, water returned to the scrubbers, an~ the filte.f cake placed in loadout bins for truck or railroad car disposal. Since partIculate matter is stagged material, there should be no leachable contamin~nts a.nd disposal should pose no environmental problems. The water-recuculatlDg


31

TABLE 14 Gas Analyses

Vol.%
To Compression and
Component Gasifier Outlet Acid Gas Removal Product Gas
CO 37.36 49.50 53.07
CO2 7.13 9.44 10.12
CH4 0.08 0.11 0.13
H2 25.17 33.35 35.76
2 0.30 0.40 0.43
H2S 0.23 0.30 3 ppmv
COS 178 ppmv 235 ppmv 1.5 ppmv
HeN 288 ppmv 300 ppmv I ppmv
1 H3 0.17 0.22 ] ppmv
H2O 29.19 6.20 160 ppm v
AI 0.32 0.42 0.45
S02 22 ppmv 15 ppm 0.5 ppmv
0 7 pprnv 7ppmv 3 pprnv
Particulates, gr/scf 12 0.005 0.005 system is pollution clean with the side-stream treatment arrangement. The cooling of the recirculating water can be on a direct basis in a coolinz tower. if

e .

this is acceptable environmentally, or on an indirect basis with air or water exchangers.

Table 15 indicates water compositions at the various gas cooling and cleaning steps at the Kutahya, Turkey, and Modderfontein, South Africa. plants. In each case the data are from plant records: T urkey data in 1972 and Modderfontein data in June 19 5. The data are offered to indicate what orderof-magnitude concentrations are po sible and they do identify possible. contaminants. It is to be noted that the most objectionable contaminants, phenols, tars, oils, and pyridines, are missing.

As shown in Table 15, hydrogen sulfide is not detectable in the water, and thus the gas leaving the gas cleaning system contains most of the hydrogen sulfide and carbonyl sulfide. There are various acid gas removal processes with the capability of reducing the sulfur content in the gas to 0.1 ppmv. The processes are based on absorption in a solution and subsequent stripping of the acid gases, H2S, and CO2 from the solution. The physical absorption processes which operate at pressures of 300 to 400 lb/in.Fgauge, exhibit the greatest selectivity regarding hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide removal. Since no chemical reactions occur, these processes do not form stable compounds such as thiosulfates and thiocyanates, Some chemical reaction processes such as carbonate and amine, which form the aforementioned stable compounds, can be used but will require periodic dumping of the solution in order to maintain removal efficiency or for regeneration. Dumped solution will require treatment to meet permissible discharge limitations. The choice of process is dependent

33


Coal. Carbonization and Gasification ,(Koppers)

32

upon economics, environmental control purity of product gas and desired acid gas selectivity. A plant can be designed to reduce sulfur in the product gas to 0.1 ppmv, control the HzS level in carbon dioxide to 10 ppmv or less, and the liquid effluent to zero pollutants.

The acid gas stream containing a minimum of 14 vol.% H2S is catalytically converted to elemental molten sulfur in a Claus unit. The tail gases exiting the Claus unit contain SOz and can be treated to catalytically reduce the S02 to H2S. Scrubbing with an amine solution absorbs the H2S, and subsequent stripping yields an H1S stream which is recycled to the Claus unit. This combination results in overall sulfur recovery of 99 + %.

Modified carbonate solution systems such as Stretford and Thylox remove the hydrogen sulfide by absorption and then the solution is oxidized by ao air stream. The sulfur is recovered as elemental in a froth which is filtered to yield a filter cake. The cake can be steam autoclaved to yield a crystalline sulfur product. Since the cake contains entrained solution, the contaminants in the solution appear in the crystalline sulfur product.

Gases containing carbon monoxide and hydrogen such as coke oven gas, producer gas, water gas, and blast furnace gas have been used as industrial fuels for many years. American manufacturers of modern steam boilers and gas turbines foresee no major problems in adapting furnaces and combustors to utilize the K-T utility gas, which displays excellent combustion characteristics resulting in boiler or gas turbine performances equivalent to, and in some ways better than, those for natural gas or other utility gases produced from alternate coal gasification processes.

Recently attention from environmental groups has been focused on the control of oxides of nitrogen from combustion sources .. Formation of these oxides is influenced by combustion temperature; for instance, a 200"F increase in temperature can more than triple the rate of Ox formation. The K-T utility gas offers important properties not available in natural gas insofar as design of NO", control systems are concerned. In order to sustain combustion at the burner, the fuel-air mixture must be within the explosive limits, which is an important consideration in the design ofpremix burners commonly used in gas turbines. Figure 8 indicates the upper and lower flammability limits and air requirements of natural gas and those for K-T utility gas. As can be seen, K- T gas has a wider flammability range and therefore a greater quantity of excess air can be used without snuffing the flame than is the case with natural gas. The lower theoretical flame temperature of natural gas is about 2710°F and therefore, when firing temperatures are to be controlled, it is the practice to use dilution holes (or alternate aerodynamic methods) to add more excess air between the burner and the discharge point of the combustion gases. These dilution holes are placed as dose to the burner as possible to minimize the time during which the gas isexposed to high temperature without extinguishing the flame. The K-T utility gas bas such a low lean explosive limit that at the lower limit about five times the excess air quantity may be added at the burner, thus resulting in a flame temperature of about 1600°F, which is still above the autoignition temperature of the gas. Hence, for firing temperatures in the range of 1600 to 1950°F,. current gas turbine blade temperature limits, an of the required excess air can be added directly at the burner in the case of the K-T gas

0\ I I I I 0

'-D V

;; I I I I

(':l,

8

r:n >-.

.;:

g "'8 ]-5

I:i

~8

o» ,_

o c,

c.. o

~

Coal, Carbonization and Gasification {Koppers}

34

Coat, Carbonization and Gasification (Koppers)

and no "peak" temperature is experienced. As noted in Figs. 8 and 9, the capability of controlling flame temperature over the wide flammability range of K- T gas gives one the necessary tools for NO" controls within the desired environmental limits.

Gasification plants require an emergency supply of coal. To minimize air pollution due to coal dust this coal supply will be placed in "dead storage." The term "dead storage" means that this quantity of coal \1,1111 be held in a compacted and sealed pile not susceptible to dusting during wind activity. The coal storage pile will be prepared by layering coal in 12-in. depths and compacting each layer to a bulk density of about 70 lb/ft:'. The height ofthe pile will be set at about 25 It, and the length and width will be fixed by the tonnage to be stored. To monitor spontaneous combustion thermocouples will be inserted throughout the pile. The outer surface of the pile will be sprayed with an organic polymer crusting agent to prevent dusting or rain erosion. Crusting also prevents rainwater penetration of coal particles, and thus water runoff will have little or no contaminants such as those found in mine water. In addition, the coal pile will be located on a waterproof base to prevent water seepage into the ground. Thus all runoff water will be contained and used in the process. Under this arrangement the daily in-and-out requirements of coal transfers will be performed in totally enclosed equipment, and coal from 'dead storage' will be taken only in an emergency when the normal supply of coal is interrupted.

For this discussion it is assumed that coal will be delivered to the plant by rail (Fig. 16). Barge and slurry pipeline are the other methods for coal transport to the plant from the mine. To economically deliver the large daily tonnages of coal required by gasification plants, unit trains, hauling 100 to 125 net ton capacity cars, will be used. Loading facilities at the mine and unloading facilities at the plant will be designed to accommodate a train delivering coal on a regular schedule thereby eliminating the need oflarge active storage facilities with their attendant pollution problems. Tracks at the mine and the plant will be designed with loops to reverse the train direction at each end without switching.

Mine facilities will include : a loop spur capable of holding an entire train while it is being loaded; coal handling crushing, and storage systems for delivering a 2 x 0 in. product; an overtrack tipple designed to allow floodloading of the cars without stopping the train; and a pant-leg chute to transfer coal flow from one car to the next with a minimum of spillage between cars. Special fiat bottomed cars with' flip-top" covers can be provided to exclude, during transit, the elements and' to prevent wind-blown loss of coal dust and the resultant air pollution.

At the plant site, a track loop capable of holding an entire train while it is being unloaded will be provided. The coal will be dumped by a rotary car dumper into a double compartment track hopper which is completely housed, and an automatic car positioner will be provided that will be capable of moving the entire loaded train, including the locomotive, as a unit. The car dumper car positioner, and crusher will be housed in a structure that will have dustcollecting equipment to control particulate emission to the atmosphere at acceptable limits. Sound absorbent panels to control noise level will be used where practical and effective. Cars with lids will automatically open for

~
]
"0
"
~
"
."
.,
C.
>-
~
g'
.Q
0
I- 35

/'

'" o

U

36

Coat Carbonization and Gasificati.on (Koppers)

dumping and will automatically dose before leaving the structure. The cars will be emptied and shifted at about 25 to 28 cars/h. and at this rate a complete train load of 12,000 tons of coal can be processed in less than 5 h.

Under normal operating conditions coal will be conveyed from the track hopper directly to two rows of concrete vertical, cylindrical, cone bottomed, closed storage bins, each row containing about a day's supply of coal. Coal will be delivered to each row of bins by covered conveyors. A house will be provided over the top of each row of bins. Each bin and the house itself will be connected to a dust-collecting system to control dust emission and to negate the possibility of fires or explosions. In addition, a vacuum-cleaning system win be provided in these houses.

All conveyors will be completely enclosed in galleries, and ail conveyor junction towers will have junction houses to completely enclose the coal transfer points. Each junction house will have a dust-collection system. Where required water-sprinkler systems will be provided for fire protection.

The coal preparation facilities start with surge bins which are fed by a totally enclosed belt-conveying system originating at the concrete coal storage day bins. Coal from a surge bin is delivered to a pulverizing, classifying, and drying system in which the coal is pulverized to 70 to 90% minus 200 mesh and dried to 2 to 8% moisture. Flue gas at 8ooT, produced by the combustion of clean process gas, is used as the drying medium. The flue gas intimately contacts the wet coal in a fluidized or entrained operation and drives off the moisture. At these conditions the coal temperature does not exceed 180cF, and as a result there are no chemical reactions or devolatilization of the coal. Thus the flue gas and water vapor will not be contaminated and can be discharged to the atmosphere as pollution-free after separation from the dried and pulverized coal. Particulate matter in the di charged gases will be controlled to acceptable limits by the use of cyclones, bag filters, or precipitator. Condensation control ofthe water vapor from stack could be by the introduction of combustion gases from other parts of the plant, or by use of tall stacks to dissipate the vapors.

The conveyors and chutes feeding the surge bins will be enclosed, along with the weigh belt feeders and chutes feeding the pulverizer. These housings will be connected to a dust collecting system. The product bins will be connected to a common bag-type dust collector, and individual dust collectors vented back to the product bins via the pneumatic conveying system lines will be provided for each service bunker. The feed systems delivering dust from the pulverized bag filters to the surge bins will be enclosed and vented back to the dust collectors. The entire coal preparation facility, starting with the pulverized mill surge bins and including the product bins, will be housed in a building constructed of sound absorbent panels, where practical, to reduce the noise level. Where possible, operating equipment will be designed with noise suppre sion features. The building ventilating system will discharge through an additional bag filter to control dust leaving the building. A vacuum-cleaning system will be provided for the facility to further insure clean working conditions for the operators.

Since the entire coal preparation facility is enclosed in an essentially dusttight building the only exit for dust to the atmosphere will ~~ the building ventilating dust collector. Particulates entering tbis collector will be minimal because of the equipment dust coUectors within the building. Thus the par-

Coal. Carboni.zationand Gasification (Koppers)

37

tic~late emission to the atmosphere from co I ..

designated dust loadine:..· a preparatIOn wIll not exceed the

SimpliCity, controll;bility, and reliabilit of .

factors in the operation of a cl . y the K-T process are Important

. ean envrronmentall t bl . .

plant. As reponed in the pollution evalua . y accep a e gasificatiOn

SIgned to meet current environmental COd~~n report K-T plants can be de-

Features of the K- T Process Versatility

The process is capable of continuous 0 erati f '.

of feedstocks, including all ranks of SO~ anon or t?e ~asIficatlOn of a variety feedstocks of hizh ash (400/ h b d fuels and liquid hydrocarbons. Solid

• <:> I" 0 as een Oasified) a d high if

enVIronmentally acceptable'. .. '" . n 0 su ur contents not

III present energy plants b .

process. Total mined coal can b '.5 d .0 ,can e used III the K- T

. e oas] e since solid f, d' I .

consistency of 70 to 90% through 200 ~e.sh. ee IS pu venzed to a size

Flexibility

The changeover from solid to li id fuels i

heads. At Oulu, Finland such ~~ha~: s Illvol~es only a cbange of the burner back to coal Multiple feed b . ""deover was made from coal to oil and

. . 1'. Ulners an variabld ~

turn-down to 60~ of design '. T e ~pee screw feeders permit

shutdown, and full zas prod c~~aclty. he pro.cess IS capable of instantaneous by. '" uc IOn IS resumed III about 45 min from hot stand-

Simplicity of Construction and Ease of Operation

TI1e only m~ving parts at the gasifier are low-· .

pumps for lIquid feedstock and d . h slPeed screw feeders for solids or

th . . nve at t e sag removal s t C

e gasifiers is achieved primarily' b '" - ~ s em. ontrol of

Iv mamtalOm<> CO co t . .

c ean gas at a reasonabl co t id '" 2 ncen rauon In the

be visually monitored Ga'sI'fins andt. anI predetermmed value. Slag fluidity may

. . ers ISP ay good dy .

produces gas, slag and elemental sulfur.~ narruc response. The process

Low Maintenance

~implicity, a minimum of movin" arts d .

little maintenance between sch d"'IPd ,an low-pressure operation result in

Th . . e u e annual shutdo C boi .

e .gaslfieris lined with a Iirhi . W1l.S lor Oller lllspection.

mono It IC cast able ref t hi .

plants, lasts as long as 5 yr with ami . r~c ory w ch. III some

ab~ut 2 to 3 yr. Maintenance costs s:: ~: patching. The a,:,erage .Iife is gasification systems. lower than ill high-pressure

38

Coal, Carboni.zati,on and Gasification (Koppers)


39

High Capacity

. ..' f coat feed rates up to 860 tons/d. or for a

A four-beaded gasifier IS designed or d or about 12.5 billion Btu.

. 43 MM scf of gas per ay, . d

Production of about. d the addition of more hea s

. . ld . a larger screw an

Hizher capacities wou requrre b . ical problems: bowever, a

~. h ld pose no mec am . .

to the gasifier. These s au . would be needed to e tablish the capacIty

tborough study and test program

limit.

in the near future (1976-1978) when these units are placed on-stream. The plants in India will use four-headed gasifiers. There will be three operating gasifiers in each plant. 0 spare is provided. These plants will increase the number ofK-T plants in Europe, Asia, and Africa to 16 and the gasifiers to 48. Of the 6000 tid of ammonia produced worldwide from coal, 5200 tor 86% is by the K-T gasification route.

The first larger than laboratory- ize K-T unit was installed by Heinrich Koppers and Koppers Company, Inc., in 1948 at the nited States Bureau of Mines Coal-to-Oil Demonstration Plant in Louisiana, Missouri. The single two-headed gasifier produced, from Illinois, Sewickley Seam, and other United States coals, a synthesis gas feed for the Fischer-Tropsch unit. The successful operation of this 36 ton/d coal gasification unit led to the aforementioned first commercial plant in Finland. The advent in the United States at that time of inexpensive mid-East oil, as well as the availability of natural gas, relegated gasification in the United States to an inactive status until the recent energy shortage.

The K -T gasification process employs the partial oxidation in a hot chamber of a finely divided carbonaceous liquid or solid particle entrained in oxygen and steam. The reaction temperature at burner discharge is 3300 to 35000F and the operating pressure is slightly above atmospheric. Residence time of the particle in the gasifier is less than a second; thus the particle is gasified almost instantaneously and completely. As a result, the only products are a synthesis gas and slag. There are no condensates such as tars or oils. Sulfur in the feed is converted to hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and carbonyl sulfide (COS) in a volumetric ratio of 85 to 90% H2S and 15 to 10% COS_ These sulfur compounds are converted to molten sulfur in a Claus unit. Carbon conversion is a function of reactivity and approaches 100% for lignites, 90 to 95% for bituminous coals, and 80 to 85% for petroleum coke and anthracite coals, Partial oxidation results in a crude synthesis gas of the following composition:

Safety and Efficiency .

)0 of safe operation. The on-stream time ~r

The K-T process has over - yr . 1· e of the product aas IS

. . . 90<>1 The heatma va u . -

availability is better than 10"fi' I of-the feedstock. Add. itional energy

70 80<>/ofthecalon e vatue . 1-01

equivalent to . to 10 ..' . 1 . ibl heat amounts to about 10 to ) ID

d as steam from the availab e sensu e recovere

of the calorific value of the coal.

Environmental posture

. .. . d b - Esso Researcb and Engineering for the U.$.

The process h.as been evaluate 'j I d ot produce serious wa.ter pol-

P ti on Agency toes n -

Environmental rotec 1 '" . Trace amounts of ammorua.

. h I tars and tar bases. ra

lutants such as Oils, p eno s, '. t can be readilv stripped out and

id - th zas eleanmg wa er - d

and hvdrogen. cyam em. . e '" - - lfid (H S) and carbonyl sulfi e

J . t d to hydroO"en SUm e 2 .

combusted. Sulfur IS conver e .. be ;moved from the gas in commeKlally

COS). These s~lfur compounds ~covered as elemental sulfur.

proven absorptlOn processes an

Summary

Components Vol_%
CO 52.70
CO2 10.00
H2 35.10
N2 .1_13
H1S L01
COS 0_06
Total 100_00 . d I r li uids o<lsification prooess has been

The Koppers-To. tzek (K-T solids an.H,o. ~h Ko"'ppers GmbH (now Kr .. upp-

.. - 1950 when emnc . d

in commercIal use since d·fi. for Tippi Oy at Oulu, Fmlan .

Koppers)* installed three two-heade gas\~r~oal to provide synthesis gas for

The gasification plant began operation ~1. versatility as to the type of

. ad . and demonstratmg a aI

ammonia pr uctwn, .il and is noW back to co

. . d f normc reasons to 0 f

feedstock, was sWltche.. or eco . 9 _ h d d oasl·fi.ers) the most recent 0

13 I t {3 two- eace ",' . .

Ouly was followed by . pan s. E' I sives and Chemical Industnes In

which was commissioned for Af~ca~o~K ~frica- This latest plant, built by December 1974 at M. odderfontem - f ility and has six two-headed R·T

_ . '. 1000 tid ammonia ac 1 - - bfCC

Hemnch Koppers. IS a . f ed An additional 2700 t 0 f ammoma. trom t ed

gasifiers operatmg ?n a c?al e . h Korba and Ramagundam wil] be add

900 tId K-T plants III India at Talc et, '

K rs-Pinsbur gh is the licensee for or

. th \i'censor of the K-T process. oppe

*Krupp-Koppers IS e

United States and Canada.

The gross heating value is 290 Btu/It", and gas composition does not vary significantly regardless of the type of solid feed. With liquid hydrocarbon feed, the OO-H2 ratio is about 1 (Table 1) and the heating value of the gas is around 300 Btu/ft ' dry. A single four-headed gasifier produces about 43 MM sefid (dry) of 290 Btu gas which is equivalent to 12.5 x 109 Btu gross per day. In addition to gas, the process produces high-pressure steam when hot (1900 to 2200°F) gases exiting the gasifier are cooled to 350°F in a waste heat boiler that sits atop the gasifier. The quantity of solid feed per gasifier is dependent upon

4.


Coal. Carbonization and Gasification (lurgi)

40

Fuels, Presented at the Pacific Coast Elect i . .' .

Operating Conference S. an Francisco C rr . f. c MAsso.Cl .atJon Engineering and

3. J F. K d d J " a I orma, . arch 1974

.. ' arno yan . F. Farnsworth Gas from the K - . ,

and Power Generation Presented t th Ind oppers-Totzek Processfor Steam

University, October 1974. a e ndustnal Fuels Conference, Purdue

4. Electric Power from High Sulfur Fuels b Lo

Volume I, October 1974; Volume II De:em w-B1U ~aslCombined Cycle Systems,

Menlo Park, California. ' ber 1974, Stanford Research Institute,

5. Energy 1!-esotll"ces Report, 3 17), 169 (1975).

6. H. M. Siegel, T. Kalina, and H. A. Marshall Descrimi .

Methods Being Used by the Svnth ti G C'/ rtptton oj Gas Cost Calculation

S . e tc as- oa Task Force of th. FPC N

. urvey, Presented to Federal Power C .. '. e ational Gas ornnnssron Washington, D.C., June 12,1972.

the rank of the coal; however, quantities up to 850 tons/d can be processed provided that the above gas production is not exceeded. At the present time the gasifier capacity is related to the capacity of the coal screw feeders and the gas VOlume limitation of the present configuration of the gasifier. The future capacity capability of a K-T gasifier is dependent upon the mechanical aspects of screw design for a higher solids throughput and the addition of more heads to the gasifier. These are not considered to be difficult to achieve; however, they must be tried to determine any other limitation that might arise.

As shown in Fig. 1, the gas can be catalytically converted to pipeline gas, ammonia, methanol, hydrogen and liquid hydrocarbons. It is an excellent fuel for combined cycle power generation since it can be substituted for natural gas or fuel oil without sacrificing plant capacity or a clean environment.

Since gasification plants are capital sensitive, the cost of gas is dependent upon plant size. F or the K -T system, the gas cost levels off at a six four-headed gasifier plant so that gas cost decreases slightly for larger capacity plants. This is illustrated in Fig. 15 where intermediate Btu low-pressure desulfurized fuel gas cost in a six gasifier plant is shown as Sl2.02/MM Btu with $20/ton coal. For a 12 gasifier plant the gas cost drops to $1.97 and, con ersely, in a single gasifier plant the gas cost rises to $3.25. All cost figures are based on mid-1974

cost data.

The K-T gasification process is versatile, high capacity, flexible safe, and

easy to operate. Cold gas efficiency ,ex.pressed as the ratio of gross calorific value in gas to the gross calorific value in feed, reaches 70 to 75%, and total recoverable energy from the feed in gas and in bigh- and low-pressure steam is

in the range of 85 to 90%.

Of particular interest from an environmental standpoint is that the process

has been examined by Esso in a pollution study (EPA-650/2-74-009a January 1974, Evaluation of Pollution Control in Fossil Fuel Conversion processes~ Gas~fication; Section 1: Koppers-Totzek Process, by E. M. Magee, C. E. Iahnig, and H. Shaw) for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and found to be a "simple and relatlvely clean process in that it does not produce tar, oil or phenols (minor amounts of cyanide, ammonia, etc., are produced)."

The writer gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Koppers Company, Inc., Chemical Project Section personneL Special thanks to Messrs .. 1". F. Farnsworth, H. F. Leonard, R. W. Wbii'eacre III, J. F. Kamody, M. Hess and R. Wintrell all ofKoppers.Ouf thanks also to Heinrich-Koppers (now KruppKoppers) personnel, especially Herr E. Goeke and A. Linke, for plant operating data and historical background on plants designed and built by

Heinrich-Koppers.

D. MICHAEL MITSAK

Coal, Carbonization and Gasification (Lurgi)

lurgi Pressure Gasification

Lurgi pressure gasification of coal is an aut . . .

bed, dry ash process which tili ' . othermic, countercurrent, fixed

. . u I lZes mixtures of steam and . IT

all, or steam and oxygen-enriched air as .. ' oXY.o.en, steam and

advantages of any countercurrent fix d b d the 'figaSlfymg medium. Inherent

, e e gasr er are [1]:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5 ..

M.aximum heat economy

High carbon conversion R~la.tjvely low solids carry-over Minimum loss of un gasified fuel M'

. axunum recovery of valuable liquid 11 dr b

' Y rocan ons

!he elevated pressure operation of the

additional advantages [2]: Lurgi unit offers the following

1. 2. 3.

High .

capacity per unit of reactor volume.

~e~uced downstream compression requirements

e uced cost of downstream gas cooling .'.

to smaller vessels and im ~ d h. .:" purificatlOn, and synthe.sis due

, provec eat and m t ~

pressure. ass ransrer at the elevated

Higher heating value of the gasifier rod . . ., .

favors methane formation Th' 1 P duct as equilibrium at pressure

anation requirements whe~ ISda s~ re uces downstream shift and meth-

u pro ucmg substitute natural gas.

References

1. A. Frendberg power Generatioll-Clean Fuels Today, Power Genera60n Di1,iS1(1IId1 Babcock and Wilcox Company, EPRI Special Report, April 1974.

2. B. W. Henry and H. B. Burbach, New Steam Generator Designs/or Burning

41

42

Coal. Carbonization and Gasification {Lurgi)

Coal. Carbonization and Gasification (Lurgi)

43

1. Lower gas velocities further minimize fines carry-over even with smaller coal particles.

2. Higher mass space velocity resulting from increased gas density allows

processing of less reactive coals in same reactor volume.

3. Exothermic hydrogenation reactions are favored, resulting in some reduction of oxygen requirements per unit of thermal capacity.

4. Direct hydrogenation of carbon reduces the quantity of carbon gasified

with steam.

5. The yield and quality of by-products is improved.

Crude gos

Still further advantages of the combination of pressure and fixed-bed operation are [21 :

Cool

Scrubbing liquor

Recent and current development work with Lurgi gasifiers is aimed at overcoming the two heretofore generaU accepted disadvantages of fixed-bed

gasifiers i.e.,

(3) Gos producer _-

1. Caking coals such as those found in the Eastern United States could not be reliably gasified without pretreatment to render them nonagglomerating or without modifying the mechanical design or operating conditions of the

gasifier.

2. Acceptable ranges of coal feed particle size and particle size distribution

were limited.

Preheating ond drying Oevolatilizolion (carbonization)

(5) Scrubber

Gasification

Recent tests in a modified Lurgi gasifier at the Westfield Works of Scottish Gas Board near Edinburgh, scotland have demonstrated the pability to gasify the caking coals and have generated operating data gasifying run-of-mine coal feeds including fines t3, 41- Further Westfield are now underway including testing of a modified LUIgi gasifier for a sl<Lgg~U operation [5]. The slagging operation, in which the ash is discharged in a lll'LJIl'~di. state, will reduce the specific steam requirement of the gasifier and S15' [D1hCiant1il increase its unit capacity. ThiswiH be of particular advantage when "'~''''J -u'. those coals which have a relatively high steam consumption in the dry mode. This high steam consumption is typical for coals having a low reaeti

and a low ash melting point.

Lurgi Pressure Gasifier

Ash bed

(4) Ash lock chamber

The Lurgi pressure gasifier, Fig. 1., is a oountercurrent "moving" frKed reactor wherein coal is successively preheated, dried, devolatilized ized), and then gasified with steam. Heat necessary for gasification is, co pnf>Tal-

by oxidation of carbon in a narrow combustion zone at the bottom oftbe Combustion oxygen and gasification steam are introduced and

Ash

FIG.. 1.

Lurgi pressure gasifier system.

Coal. Carbonization and Gasification (lurg.i)

Figure 1 also illustrates the key control devices of the L . ifi .

system whi h . . unn gas. catton

rc are operated either mechanically or bydraulicall;

i~) I C~a: Lock Valve Closures. These hydraulically operated valves isolate

e oc . rom the coal bunker above it and from the reactor below it.

(b). Coal Distributor A h~draulica.1ly or mechanically operated rotarv d~vI~e t~ough which coal is mtroduced into the reactor to achieve an eve~ distribution of coal across the reactor cross-section. To accommodate cakinz coals, blades are mounted. on the distributor which rotates within the fuel bedo These. blades not only agitate the bed, thereby preventing agglomeration o· breaking up agglomerates, but also work in such a way as to c~nstantl mo/ char from below upwards into the caking zone The mixine of this y 1 d

~7e::~' the caking coal reduces its caking t~ndency lhr~ugh di1~~?": ~r

~c~ ~rateh fJ A hydraulically or m~chanically operated revolving device which . x rae s as rom the reactor and discharges it into the ash lock chamber Slots 1(0 the grate serve as feed and distribution channels for the gasification ·a<Jent

mixture of steam and oxygen). ~ 0

(d) Ash Lock Valve Closures. These hydraulicallv operated I . 1

the ash 1 k f . <:; va yes ISO ate

e as oc rom the reactor above it and the ash handlin . t b 1

g sys em e ow.

Gasification of Coal

45

44


through slots in the rotary ash grate. Incoming steam and oxygen also serve to cool the outgoing ash. Operating at a pressure of 20 to 30 atm and an average gasification reaction temperature ranging from 700 to 850°C (1290 to 1S60°F), this unit is classified as a medium-pressure. low-temperature coal gasifier. The temperature in the combustion zone is about 1200°C (2200°Fl. The reactor is a double-walled vessel. The inner wall is constructed of a corrosion- and erosionresistant material and is designed for low-pressure differential. The outer wall, constructed of normal steel. contains the pressure and forms a water jacket wherein the generation of steam maintains the inner wall relatively cool, thereby obviating the need for refractory lining. A low-pressure differential across the inner liner is assured by the unrestricted pipe connecting the steam space at the top of the water jacket with the steam-oxygen inlet to tbe bottom of the internal reactor vessel, The five main vessels which make up the Lurgi gasifier system are pictured in Fig. 1.

(1) Coal Bunker. An atmospheric pressure vessel which normally contains approximately 3 h supply of coal.

(2) Coal Lock Chamber. A pressure vessel through which coal is introduced from the atmospheric pressure coal bunker into the pressurized gas producer. Under full load operation. coal supply in the lock is equivalent to about 15 min operation. The lock operation is, therefore, cyclic at this interval. The coal lock is normally pressurized with downstream gases but can also be operated with an inert gas such as nitrogen or a low value by-product gas such as carbon dioxide. When downstream coal gas is used, gas vented from the lock prior to coal filling from the bunker is compressed and reinjected to the process for recovery. Following suitable dust removal, the nitrogen or carbon dioxide could be vented to the atmosphere. Coal lock operation in a modern Lurgi plant is automated by a system of instrumentation and controls.

(3) Gas Producer. A water-jacketed pressure reactor wherein the coal is preheated, dried, and carbonized, and the resulting char is gasified. Char combustion for heat generation is also accomplished within this vessel. Residence time in the reactor is approximately Y2 to 1 h depending upon the reactivity of the coal. Coal enters at the top of the reactor. Oxygen and steam are introduced through the grate near the bottom. Crude gas leaves the reactor near the top and ash is continually discharged at the bottom.

(4) Ash Lock Chamber. A pressure vessel in which the nearly carbo ash is collected. The ash lock chamber is periodically isolated from the and vented. The ash is then discharged to an ash handling system for

(5) Scrubber. A vessel, close-coupled to the reactor where the hot raw leaving the reactor are intensively washed with water to remove dust ,..." r- t1l'If'!'''' The gases are also cooled and saturated with water at this point. Sensible heat

the gas is thereby transformed into latent heat of steam which is sul recovered in the waste heat boiler which follows.

Process Basis

d The basic reacti?n of gasification is steam reforming of carbon and hyrocar~ons con tamed in coal. .These reforming reactions produce carbon monOXIde and hydrogen according to the generalized equation:

CmH1n + mHzO = mCa + (m + n)Hz - Heat

E.g.:

(1 )

C + H20(g) = CO + Hz CH4 + H20 g) = CO + 3H2 C2H6 + 2HzO(g) = 2CO + 5Hz

- 56,480 Btu at 25°C

- 88,680 Btu at 25°C

-149,390 Btu at 25"C

(2) (3 ) (4)

Other coal gasification reactions are the hydrogasmcation of carbon:

+ 32,200 Btu at 25°C

(5)

and the carbon/carbon dioxide reaction:

c+ CO2 =2CO

+ 74,190 Btu at 25°C

(6)

Also occurrinz in steam ificati f .

b gasi cation 0 coal are Interactions of the pro-

46

Coal, Carbonization and Gasifi.cation {Lurgi)

47

Coal, Carbonization and Gasification (lurgi)

duced gases; water gas shift:

CO + HP(g) = CO2 + H2

bustion, and steam for gasification, enter the gasifier through slots in the rotary grate and flow upward through the ash bed. The ash bed helps to distribute the mixture evenly over the entire cross section of the gasifier. The oxygen is completely consumed in a narrow combustion zone above the ash bed where it reacts with the carbon contained in down-moving char. The hot gas leaving the combustion zone consists essentially of CO2 + H20. This hot mixture provides the heat and the reactants for gasification. Upon leaving the combustion zone, the gas is typically at a temperature of about 1200°e. 2200CF). As gasification progresses sensible heat is being converted to latent beat and gas temperature falls to the so-called final reaction temperature where the gasification rates become negligible. This temperature depends upon the reactivity ofthe coal and . aries between 650"C (1200°F) for lignite and 850°C (156OCF) for coke. Simultaneous with the endothermic formation of CO and Hz according to Reactions (2) through (4), a small amount of H2 is formed according to Reaction (7) and methane is formed by Reactions (5) and (8). As methane formation, shift conversion, and the carbon/carbon dioxide reaction are exothermic, the net combustion heat requirement is reduced. This results in a somewhat lower oxygen consumption.

Gases leaving the gasification zone are still at relatively high temperatures (730 to 930~C) (1350 to 1700CF). A significant portion ofthe sensible heat of the gas is recovered in carbonizing, drying, and preheating the coal as it moves downward into the gasification zone. The gas outlet temperature from the reactor vessel is therefore relatively low. It varies between 300°C 570°F) for a lignite with a high moisture content and 650°C (1200°F) for coals with a low reactivity and low moisture content.

With final reference to Fig. I and now starting at tbe top of the reactor, the coal is subjected to the following processing steps. Incoming ambient temperature coal is preheated and dryed by effluent gases. As the coal gravitates downward and its temperature rises, most of the volatile components are stripped from it and eventually recovered as valuable by-products. Then, beginning at a temperature of 600°C (1110°F) to 750°C (1380°F) devolatilization is accompanied by gasification of tbe resulting char. The interaction between devolatilization and gasification is a determining factor for the kinetics of the gasification process as a whole. The minimum residence time of a coal grain for good performance of the reactions at the desired temperature level of 700"C (1290°F) to 900°C (1650°F) is about Y2 to 1 h, depending on the reactivity of the coal. Unreacted carbon is finally burned from the ash in the combustion zone and a nearly carbon-free dry ash is discharged by the rotary grate. Gasifier operation is controlled by regulating the How rate of gasification agent. The coal flow adjusts itself to the consumption and is supplied from the storage volume in the reactor. This principle compensates for unavoidable variations in the coal properties.

+ 17 700 Btu at 25cC

(7)

and methanation:

CO + 3H2 = CH4 + HP

. 1 d the oasification agents to the

to raise the coa an e- •

Most ofthe heat necessary id heat for the endothernnc

. t res and to proY! e .

required reaction te~pera u 1.. bustion of carbon accordmg to

reforming reactions IS proVlded by t re com

+ 169 280 Btu at 25°C (9

+ 88 680 Btu at 250C

(8)

+47,545 Btu at 2YC

(10)

C + t02 = CO

. eat re uired can be reduced by the promotion

The quantity of co~bustlon h. i d (8) within the gasifier. The

of exothermic ReactIons (5), (6) (), anfi omotes these reactions and

ti of a fixed-bed gasler pr ··t .

countercurrent opera Ion ... f the coal fuel value. Incommg coa IS

results in a very efficient utI.hzah.onl· .~l· d by relatively low temperature gases

. d . d t allydevo atl1ze f h

preheated, d~e , an pa~ 1. . Utilization of the sensible heat 0 t e

before entenng the gaslfic~tl0n zon:. the quantity of heat which must be

gasification products in this way r.e uces . . '. the quantity of hizh value

. f r bon' It also mllllmlZes ~

supplied by oxidailOn 0 ca , . I di \'lquids which enter tho e

h dr carbons mc un2: .. ,

methane. and other . yo .. d be. artiaUy c~nverted to CO and H~ bytbe

gasificatIon zone where they ~oul ~ b estimated that apprOXimately endothermic reforming reactions. It a. Sf een a Lurgi zasifier resu.lts f.rom

. 1 de "as rom .' 0' z:::

50',%: of the methane 111 t ae cru e --00 '. formed by Reactions (5) and (8).

o •. . f th oal The other) % IS .. T1..:~

devolatlllZatlon ottne c .. . t rs the aasificatlon zone. U~

... f 1 contmucs as It en e e f

Dev~La:1hzat1on 0 coa h drocarbon hquids. Essentially 90% o.

maXllDlzes the recovery of . Y . 1" I heat in the zas and liq

ti ·1 heat in the feed coal leaves as poten ta e

poten ia "".

products of gasificatIOn. tili ti in an overall sche.me would be

ffi· y of energy u 123 ion 1 . . • .

The best e cienc . . '" f l If total aasificatlOn IS

d d li d products as uei. . e

use of the as-pro uce iqui . f d in a separate pressurized .

.. d t an be re orme

these liqUId. pro uc s c . dditi aI CO + H? synthesis gas, (Texaco or

oxidation unrt to produce a iuon -

partial oxidation)... . _ wise conversion, i.e., devolatilization

The overall effiCiency of this :>tage; . ng (partial oxidation) of the

the gasifier, then h. ig.h temp.erature rehoHDl. lete re'orming of coal. in a

~ ... t than t e comp I' ~ •

in an external unit, IS grea er . the stepv.ri.se processing obViates

high-temperature isothermal stePd SlllC~ucts to the high temperatures ~orl1l1f'"

need to raise all coal reactants an pro .

for complete reforming.

Process Control Variables

Description of Gasification

.' ·0. and starting at the bottom of th~ reactor.

ReferrIng again to FIe' 1 r d as follows. Oxygen reqUired for

gasification process proceeds upw ar

The two primary process control variables in operation of the Lurgi dry-ash gasifier are the oxygen rate and the steam-to-oxygen ratio.

48

Coal. Carboni.zation and G asificatjon (LUfgi)

Oxygen Rate

Gas production is set by the oxygen rate. Reaction of oxygen with char in the combustion zone produces the heat necessary to sup~ort the steam-carbon reaction of gasification. This, therefore, becomes the prunary p~ocess control. By regulating the oxygen flow, the gasification rate can be vanedJrom 10 t~ 100% of the reactor capacity. Oxygen rates are Inversel_y pr~portlOnal to th coal reacti ity which is a measure of the necessary gasification temperatu:e:

Oxygen rates are normally expressed as a volumetnc rano to the dry crude gas

. dt tion rate (nm3jnm3 or scf/scf) Reported ratios vary from about 0.125

pro uc Ion r . ... I· .... II f d· the

for high volatile subbituminous coals and Iignires typtca y oun . in .

western United States to nearly 0.20 for the low reactivity Eastern coals such as Pittsburgh '0. 8 [6].

Steam-to-Oxygen Ratio

Although steam is a primary reactant in the g~sification of co.al, t~e steam r~te to a Lurgi dry-ash coal gasifier is not determllled. by t~e gasification ma.tenal balance. Excess steam above that required for gasification must be supplied to

I Hi9hL'

reactivity , fuel

Coat Ca'rbonization and Gasification (lurgi)

49

\.1 low I

" react ivity

\ fuel

\

\

\

\

\

\ \ \

Enter ing clinkering conditions

\

Gasification zone'

\

\

\

\

\

\ , ,

\

,

\ ,

- - F ~om~u~li~n_!~n~ - - -j- _-_- ~ -

- - -- =..v- - *~ASh zone

Grote~~ ~~~~ ~~ __ _J~I~. -} t- __ ~~:- __ ~~~-::

level""- 1000 1200 1400 16001800 2000 2200

PIG. 2.

Temp of__'

Temperature distribution when gasifying fuels of differing reactivities in a fixed under identical conditions [51.

~

:>

~

~ 2000+----------r---------++- __ ~--_1--------~

0.

E .e

Sintering

E ffecf on mox.imum temperature of holvinn the rote of supply of steam and oxyqen

1800 -,I,.--------+-------+-----~--+--------__i 6

7

8

10

Steam oxygen ratio (mols/mol)

FIG. 3. Effect of the steam-oxygen ratio and gasification rate on maximum temperature observed in a fuel bed at 300 Ib/in2gauge [5).

limit temperatures in the fuel bed to a level below that at which the ash will fuse and clinker. The steam-to-oxygen ratio, therefore, becomes primarily a function of the fusion properties of the ash. Steam moderates bed temperatures primarily through its endothermic reaction with carbon. Since this reaction is much slower than the reaction of oxygen with the fuel, there is a rapid rise in temperature as oxygen is consumed in a relatively narrow combustion zone. Then, as team decomposition begins, it limits the rise to a maximum which is determined by the ratio of steam-to-oxygen and by the reactivity of the coal. The gasification reaction continues after the oxygen is consumed. At this point the temperature falls rapidly at first, then continues downward to temperatures at which the reaction rate, and the corresponding temperature drop, is relatively slow, The temperature profiles in the gasifier for fuels of high and low reactivity are illustrated in Fig. 2 [51-

Depending Upon ash fusion properties the steam-to-oxygen ratio can vary from 6 .. 0 to 10.0 mol/mol. While approximations can be made oftbe minimum steam/oxygen ratio at which a given coal can be efficiently gasified, an accurate determination can only be made by a full-scale trial. The other alternative is to build enough spare capacity into the plant and trim the steam-ta-oxygen ratio during performance optimization. Figure 3 illustrates the effect of the steam-tooxygen ratio upon the maximum observed temperature [5].

50

Coal. Carbon,zationand Gasification (Lurgi)

Sloggmg Clinkering Non-clinkering

80 ronqe rnnqe
range
I
Carbon monoxide
60
0 HYdrOgen~
:>
""
LJ
~
0 1
-+-
c: 40
.9
-
II>
0
c.
E
0
U
<Jl
0
~ 20 ,

~Methane
0 10
0 2 4 6 8
5ieom oxyg.en ratio (mols/mol)
FIG. 4. The influence of the steam~o)(ygen ratio on gas composition [5}. Coal. Carbonization and Gasification (Lurgi)

sefId of 950 Btu/scf pipeline quality gas from Western subbituminous coal required 24 gasifiers of 3..7 m internal diameter. (Twenty-four operating units _ total units installed = 28.) In this operation the oxygen-to-dry crude gas ratio was 0 .. 136 mel/mol, the steam to-oxygen ratio was 6 . .74 mol/mol, and the resultant dry crude gas production per gasifier unit was 1.71 MMscf/h. This represents a superficial · v elocity of approximately 0.5 It/sec based upon hot wet gas leaving the producer. Based upon operations at Sasolburg, South Africa, Lurgi has projected that a single gasifier can produce almost 2 MMscf/h of crude gas [4].

Production of Fuel Gas or Synthesis Gas

TheLurgi gasifier produces a raw gas which contains high concentrations of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, methane, and carbon dioxide. It also contains unconverted phenols, tar, oil, naphtha, and by-products of gasification such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. Succeeding and supporting steps in a coal gasification complex are designed to remove by-products and impurities, and where necessary to adjust the hydrogen-to-carbon oxides ratio to that required for production of the desired end product(s),

Six possible primary products of coal gasification are:

51

Gasifier Capacity

The output of a fixed-bed gasifier is ultimately determined by the rate a~hwb: dry product zases and undecomposed steam can be passed through t.e . without exce~sive carryover of coal. A higher product gas producuon~ therefore possible when tbe sum of moisture in the coal and undecompo

t t i low The undecomposed steam is in turn, related. to the oXYgcl

steam con en IS· ..' l"t d ast

rate and the steam-to-oxygen ratio as detenm~ed by coa reacuvi Y ~es

fusion properties, respectively. Gene~ally the~, blghes~ ~as produc~on ra r_ be achieved for coals having low rnotsture, high reacuvuv, and hi~h as~h''''nJ'f:llln temperatures. Among other variables which will influence the gasIfier. ·1 are dry gas composition, tempe.rat~re ~nd pressure at the top o! the f~~ coal particle si£e,particie size dlstnbuhon, and percent fin~s. WIth aU 0: variables coming into play, it is difficult to define a generahzed correlatIon

gasifier capacity... .' 1 290

A recently designed plant for the productlon of approximate Y

Figure 4 shows the influence of the steam-to-oxygen ratio upon the product gas composition [5].

I. Medium Btu "town gas" (400 to 500 Btu/set)

2. Substitute natural gas (SNG) (950 to 1000 Btu/set)

3. Anhydrous ammonia

4_ Methanol 5. 6.

Medium Btu (400 to 450 Btu/scf) industrial or utility fuel gas Liquid hydrocarbons via Fischer-Tropsch

Coproduct plants which produce, for example, ammonia and substitute natural gas (S G) or methanol and S G, are also possible. The six products listed above, however, are of primary interest and they serve to illustrate the processes which make up a coal gasification complex. Common to all are:

1. Coal gasification including raw gas scrubbing 2_ Gas liquor separation and by-product recovery 3. Gas purification

Crude gas shift conversion is required when producing town gas, SNG ammonia, or methanol. In all cases, the basic processes are supported by the following ancillary units:

1. Coal preparation

2. Feed water treating

3. Steam production

52

Coal. Carbonization and Gaslfication (lurgi)

4. Oxygen production

5. Ash handling

6. Effluent water treatment

7. Sulfur recovery

Coal Gasification and Raw Gas Scrubbing

"Raw gas scrubbing" are those operations necessary to remove dust and the heavier liquid hydrocarbons from the raw gas. The gasification and raw gas scrubbing system is pictured in Fig. 5. Hot gases exiting the gasifier are intensively washed with a circulating stream of impure water commonly referred to as gas liquor. This cools the gas and removes the dust and most of the tar. The tar-containing liquor provides an excellent medium for dust removal. Sensible heat given up is transformed into latent heat as the gas becomes saturated with water. The temperature exiting the scrubber is such that the saturated gas and gas liquor leaving the scrubber transfers the heat from the raw gas to the waste heat boiler where the heat is recovered as a low- to mediumpressure steam (typically about 100 Ihjin.,lgauge). As the gases are cooled in the waste heat boiler, water of saturation is condensed, resulting in a net production of liquor. This liquor, containing dust and condensed tar and oil, is continuously discharged to the gas liquor separation area for recovery of byproducts. The temperature of the cooled gases is set by the downstream processing scheme. In cases where crude gas shift COD version is to be included, this temperature is held relatively high (350 to 400°F) to hold water of saturation as a reactant in the shift conversion process.

Gas Liquor Separation and By-product 'Recovery

As the coal gas is cooled first by quenching and indirect cooling in the raw gas scru bbing step described above, and la ter in a gas cooling section following shift conversion, steam, tar, and oil are condensed. The resulting hydrocarboncon taminated water, common! y referred to as gas liquor, is collected and sent to the gas liquor separation area. Upon further cooling and settling in specially designed separators, most of the hydrocarbon liquids are recovered as byproducts i.e., coal tar and oil. After further cooling and filtering, the resulting liquor or aqueous phase is dephenolized in the Lurgi Phenosolvan process by extraction with an organic solvent (butyl acetate or isopropyl ether). The phenol-free liquor is then processed for removal and recovery of ammonia using the Chemie Linz- Lurgi process (eLL process . Arrangement the gas liquor processing and by-product recovery steps is pictured in Fig.

Crude Gas Shift Conversion

The crude gas shift process, Fig. 7, produces hydrogen by the catalytic water shift reaction, i.e.,

+ 17700 Btu at 25"'C

Coal, Carbonization and Gasification (turgi)

o o <>

t:>

'" N

iii

E

e

'"

~

'" " Q.

o

Q

0 s
<>
'" u,
·r m
;;0
~
'"
c-
.J c en 0> .>, >< o

an
"
.c
.c
:J
G
'"
'"
C':O
en
'"
<;
....
"'0
'"
:0::
.e
~
o
C
':i;
'"
""
'"
0
u
.f?
:::l
.....J
&:ti
T ci
iii i:i:
'" 53

Coal. Carbonization and Gasification (LUfgi)

54

• .
,0::: I- .... I-
>- u u u
«0::: '"'" '" :::> :::> :::>
I-
z~ ~, z '" '" '"
~ 0 0 0
..J00 0::: 0::: 0:::
u::'u w w Q. c, c,
u:ow ..J 0::: ,D::
«c:: u I- cl ...J «
,.. (5 I-
u Z
W g '""
0::: l:
Q.
\ _.I a:
Ow
;;.~
if I-
~I-W
CE:Z:...J
lU'~~:
>30
8o,lJ,I
LlJOOCJ::
c:: 0:::

~

...J« -0::: 0«

a. 11.1

'"

I \

Coat Carbonization and Gasification (Lurgi)

'"

'iii E

0.0

'"

~'~

~ o

---

~~ U

.. --C 0 1.L(I]~

55

z
0-'
-w
",VI
Z'"
CfUJ
x>
.... 0:::
>- W
a: ii:
....
8 C!> U;
!: «
w <!>
0::: 0: VI 0
0 0 '" I-
:::> w
l- o u OJ
'" :; 0 J
« 0::: u
<!> :0, III '" Q.. , >-
'" 0 .... « Ul u
z « 0:1 VI 0::: '<.:I' « III
Q CI 'LL <: OJ C!> cz:
J ~
'" >-, 0: ~ :0 ,0:
Z 0 5
~ 0::: 0, III 0 «
0: :::> 0::: 0::: l-
X i! (3 .... I- u,
W :; ii: «
U; w
« :I:
C> Gas from coal gasification contains a high concentration of CO2- It also contains sulfur as H2S, COS, and CS2;, plus H3, HCN, cyclic hydrocarbon compounds which are potential gum formers, and otber impurities. Before use as fuel gas or further processing to produce other end products, these contaminants must be removed by a suitable gas purification process. The degree of purity required will depend upon the downstream use.

For on-site use as industrial fuel gas or in an on-site combined-cycle power plant a modified hot-potassium carbonate wash which selectively removes the H1S is recommended. This has a particular advantage in the combined-cycle case as it minimizes the removal of CO2, thereby maximizing the mass flow and attendant power recovery in the gas turbine.

Where high purity is required-c-as in producing gas for SNG, arrlIDOflJla,111 methanol, or Fischer-Tropsch synthesis-e-the Lurgi Rectisol process is used-

The Rectisol process, Fig. 8, is based on the capability of cold methanol absorb all gas impurities, thus achieving the complete purification of gases in single process unit. As the absorption capacity of methanol increases decreasing temperature, temperatures well below ooe are used,

Rectisol purification of gases from coal gasification is accomplished - three steps. A prewash step first removes gas naphtha, unsaturated drocarbons, and other impurities of higher boiling point. The following steps remove H2S organic sulfur, and CO2- The extent of CO2 removal can

w "-z

I?~

1--:;) OJ "'0 N<-> <I:

56


The quantity of hydrogen to be produced is set by the hydrogen-To-carbon monoxide ratio required in the subsequent process, e.g.,

3/1 2/1

Z II>
Q <I:
l- e>
<I: z
z 0
<I: in
:I:
I-- Z
'" it
~ x
0 '"
I-
'"
<I: I
C>
Z
<I:
'"
_J
<->
I
r Process Substitute natural gas Methanol

Theoretical H CO ratio

For ammonia or hydrogen production, or in producing town gas, the maximum shift practical would be achieved. This normally represents a residual COcontent of about 5%_

It is normally not necessary to add steam to the feed as the medium temperature (350 to 400CC) gases from the gasification waste heat boiler already contain sufficient water of saturation. It may in fact, be desirable to cool these gases even further in a lower steam pressure waste heat boiler in the feed section of shift conversion as shown in Fig. 7 _ A circulating-type waste heat boiler at this location also affords a further cleaning of the gas. The catalyst used in crude gas shift is not affected by impurities such as sulfur compounds and carbonization products such as tar, oil, and naphtha. These components are hydrogenated in the reactor beds, The sulfur compounds are thereby converted to H2S which makes the subsequent sulfur removal and recovery easier. The quality of hydrocarbon liquid products is improved in shift conversion through hydrogen saturation and sulfur removal.

Gas Purification

58


adjusted to the requirements of the intended use. The extremely high purity of the gas from the Rectisol purification makes it suitable for any type of synthesis, induding those such as methanation which employ very sensitive

catalysts.

Regeneration of rich methanol is accomplished by a combination of

depressurizing and distillation. The off-gases from the various stages of flashing and from the regeneration column have to be desulfurized before releasing them to the atmosphere. Various processes are a ailable for this purpose (the Claus process for .off-gases rich in H2S and the Stretford process for off-gases containing rather low concentrations of H2S).

Economics of Uti'lity and Industrial Applications of Coal Gasification

Two of the possible coal gasificati.on applicati.ons, pipeline gas and ammonia, and their approximate economics are presented below.

Pipeline Gas

The major steps required for the pr.oducti.on of pipeline gas from coal via Lurgi gasification are shown in Fig .. 9.

Run-of-mine coal is crushed and screened in the coal pr,eparation area

which produces two coal fractions. Coarse coal, generally in a size range of 1/4 to 1 % in. is fed to the gasifiers. The - V4 in. coal fines are used for boiler fuel in the steam and power plant. The raw coal gas pr.oduced in gasification is treated to produce a methanati.on synthesis gas by the steps described above, i.e.

Scrubbing and cooling Shift conversion

Gas purification

The shift conversion unit is designed to attain a hydrogen-to-carbon m.onoxide ratio of s.omething greater than the theoretical 3 to 1 ratio required Ior methanation. The Rectisol gas purification system removes most of the carbon dioxide and essentially all of the sulfur compounds and heavier hydrocarbons. The resulting clean synthesis gas is then pr.ocessed over a reduced nickel catalyst to produce methane acc.ording to the foll.owing

exothermic reactions:

co + 3H2 = CH4 + HzO(g) + 88,680 Btu at 25°C (8)

4H2 + CO2 = CH4 + 2H20(g) + 70,975 Btu at 25°C (il)

The process equipment arrangement of methanation is shown in Fig. 10.

This scheme empl.oys a hot gas recycle to m.oderate the temperature rise which


~

u .... ~-----'

~

'3 co

2

'" <ii

@

.0 11. I,.,

~ .: zo ~~8

I

1

59

t ,i;"
;; c .;~
• .~~ ~
l:'E ~m
-'" ~
EE" 0"0
~ ~ ~~ ,0
"'2~ '"
'" '"
0: I
, I a '" "
x: ·0 -c
i 0 ~
0 ~
~ 8 if. E
.,
_j , -

T

:2

! I ~ II-----....J

I--- __ :!..~_~.J!

T

g

g

"

I,

o '"

.....-____jt

o <r'

8

E o .::

z-

ai ci ,LL

60

'" <I

" I-

u ::J

g

0: a.

Coal. Carbonization and Gasificetion (Lurgi)

Coat Carbonizat:ion and Gas.ificati.on (lurg.i)

r=U. w~

-,'"

u'" ,..W

u.1Z uJ 'CL.

.., o::::;_

--' 0

u u

>-

u

w

_0:

results from the highly exothermic reactions. Heat released is used to generate 600 Ih/in.2gauge steam which is used in the coal gasification section. In the scheme shown, the methanation reactions are accomplished in two stages in series. The bulk of the reaction takes place in the recycle methanation reactors. Final reaction to where essentially all CO and H2 are consumed takes place in the clean-up methanation reactor where a more favorable equilibrium exists due to lower temperatures and a lower water content. Methanation is controlled to react nearly all of the CO and hydrogen and produce a gas having a HHV of 950 to 975 Btu/scf. This gas meets all specifications for pipeline gas. Gas leaving methanation is finaliy compressed and dehydrated before introduction into the pipeline system.

Table 1 summarizes the overall material balance for a Lurgi coal gasification plant to produce 290 MMscf/d of pipeline gas from subbituminous coal of the following proximate analysis:

w ,_

<t

~

..,

<> z o u

c:i

...

Moisture Ash

Volatile matter Fixed carbon

and having ash fusion temperatures as follows:

Weight % 21.4 8.0 28.3 42.3

Initial Softening Fluid

C F (reducing atmospheres 2275

2440

2500

The higher heating value of the as-received coal is 8920 Btu/lb.

Table 2 summarizes the total direct plant investment costs for this 290

TABLE 1 Overall Material Balance, 290 MMscf/d Pipeline Gas from Coal

Feeds

Coal to gasifiers at 8920 Btu/lb Coal to steam plant

Water (process and utility)

Products

Pipeline gas at HHV = 950 Btu/scf Hydrocarbon liquids at 5.586 MMBtujbbl Crude pheaols

Ammonia

Sulfur

Effluents

Ash at 5% carbon

Sulfur in vents Particulate to atmosphere

21,585 tons/d 3,720 tons/d 5,500 gal/min

290 MMscf/d

&,260 bbl/d 680 bblfd 155 tons/d

125 long tons/d

2,130 tons/d 4 tons/d

Nil

61

62

CoaL Carbonization and Gasification (lurgi)

1 . Th e costs include contract engineerMMscf/d pipeline gas-fro:-~~~l P ant~nd ;:ate taxes. They also include a 20% ing overhead and fe.e, an a lcen:~s allow for errors and omissions in the contingency on estimated cost~. . d i T ble 2 do not include the cost of the estimating tecblllque. The ~osts . I~te ill. at' .. to attain an annual production mine. Capital costs for a stuP-rol mill~ o~e~: ~~pnport this plant would be about

f the 8 25miUion tons of coa require _

o '. . . .·d-l97) dollars.

$150 MM. An costs are expressed ill ID1 ..... sas lant Coal feed

Table 3 lists the annual operating costs for the plpehne 0 P ..

. h d t $7 "·O/ton By-product credits are taken as follows.

IS c arge a .- . .

Hydrocarbon liquids Phenols

Ammonia

Sulfur

$8fbbl $15/bbl $l00/ton $20/long ton

TA B LE 2 Total Direct Plant Investment Costs, 290 M M sefid Pipeline Gas from CoaJ (mid-I97S dollars)

$MM

170 .. 62 34.59 79.42 43.S& 13.65 58.92

ProcesS plants Coal gasification

Crud; gas shi ft + gas cooling

Gas purification

Methanation .

Pipeline gas compression + dehydration

Gas liquor separation and by-product recovery

400.7&

Subtotal process plants

Utility plants .... ssion

Air compression. oxygen production + oxygen compte .

Refrigeration

Wate~ treating + steam generation

Recycle water treating + co~l_ing water systems Fuel gas + miscellaneous utility systems

114.18 24.70 97.10 31.27

&.57

276.42

Subtotal utility plants

Offsites and general facilities .

Coal preparati.on + storage + ash bandling Raw water supply + fire water system

Relief fiare, sewers, etc. . .

Electrical distribution + general yard ?r~mg Site improvements + general plant huildings Product storage + loading

Subtotal offsites + general facilities Initial catalysts + chemicals

---

Total direct plant investment cost


TABLE 3 Annual Operating Costs," 290 MMscf/d Pipeline Gas from Coal (mid-1975 dollars)

$MM

(1) Feed coal at $7.s0/ton

(2) Catalysts and chemicals (3) Raw water at $0.30/Mgal

(4) Electric power at S.OI5/kWh (generated in plant) (5) Process operating labor, 250 at S .50/b

(6) Maintenance labor at 1.s~~ (total plant investment) (7) Supervision at 15% of (5) + (6)

(8) General and administrative at 6O~o of (5) + (6 + (7) (9) Operating supplies at 30% of (5)

(10) Maintenance supplies at 1.5~'o (total plant investment). (11) Local taxes at 2.7% .0 f total plant investment

62.630 5.2&0 0.784

3.900 12,074 2.396 11.022 Ll70 12.074 21.733

Total gross operating costs By-product credits"

[33.063 (31.112)

et annual operating costs

101.951

'Based upon 330 operating days per year.

Ammonia

The main process steps to produce ammonia from coal using the Lurgi pressure gasifier are shown in Fig. 1 L The gasification, raw gas scrubbing, and byproducts recovery steps are the same as in the pipeline gas plant. The shift conversion step is designed to react nearly all of tbe CO in producing H2 through reaction with H20. The Rectisol purification removes essentially all of the CO2, sulfur, and other impurities. Final purification by liquid nitrogen wash removes methane and the residual carbon monoxide. It is in this step that the nitrogen necessary for ammonia production is introduced. .itrogen comes from the air separation plant which also produces oxygen for the coal gasification step. The nitrogen is compressed prior to introduction to the nitrogen wash cold box. Expansion of the nitrogen provides the refrigeration necessary in the cryogenic liquid nitrogen wash. Product gas leaving this final purification is the stoichiometric 3 hydrogen plus 1 nitrogen ammonia synthesis gas, This is then reacted in a conventional ammonia reactor to produce anhydrous ammonia.

The other streams are also separated in the liquid nitrogen wash. A methane fraction containing over 90% methane is steam reformed to produce a CO + H2 synthesis gas which is then processed through shift con version and the gas purification steps, resulting in additional ammonia synthesis gas. A purge stream from the liquid nitrogen wash contains most of the CO and the ethane/ethylene fraction. This stream is introduced into a plant fuel gas system together with gases vented from the coal lock in the gasification area .. This plant fuel gas is consumed in the steam-reforming of the methane fraction.

49.72 12.&2 7.22 28.&4 15.71 5.11

119.42 8.32

804.94

63

64

Coal. Carbonization and Gasification (lurg.i)

.l

O __ ~---I

u

-.- _=j

I--- --

-

'I

J

·EO

g

Eo

o J::;

g E E <:

....

......

Coat Carbonization and Gasification (lurgi)

TABLE 4 Overall Material Balance, 1200 tons/d Ammonia from Coal

Feeds

Coal to gasifiers at 8920 Btu/lb Coal to steam plant

Water (process + utility)

Products

Anhydrous ammonia

Fuel oil + naphtha at 5.22 MMBtufbbl Crude phenols

Sulfur

Effluents

Ash at 5% carbon Sulfur in vents

2000 tons/d 750 tons/d 4400 gal/min

1.200 tons/d 400 bbl/d 60 bbljd 44 tons/d

231 tons/d

Less than 0.5 ton/d

TABLE 5 Total Direct Plant Investment Costs, 1200 tons/d Ammonia from Coal (mid-197S dollars)

$MM

Process plants Coal gasification

Crude gas shift conversion + gas cooling Gas puri:fi.ca tion

Nitrogen wash

Methane reforming, shift conversion, gas cooling, + methanation Ammonia synthesis + storage

Gas liquor separation and by-product recovery

Subtotal process plants Utility plants

Air compression, oxygen production, oxygen compression,

+ nitrogen compression Refrigeration

Water treating + steam generation

Recycle water treating + cooling water systems Fuel gas + miscellaneous utility systems

90.37

Subtotal utility plants

Offsites + general facilities

Coal preparation, torage, + ash handling Raw water supply + fire water system Relief, flare, sewers, etc.

Electrical distribution + general yard piping Site improvenents + general plant buildings By-product storage + loading

40.22

Subtotal offsites + general facilities Initial catalysts + chemicals

Total direct plant investment cost

149.28

65

14.62 5.01 10.26 2.70 15.27 36.73 5.78

12.36 3.19 19.91 3.43 1.33

5.09 2.30 1.33

5.17 2.76 0.44

17.09 1.60

C I C· arbonization and Gasification (Lurgi) oar.

Coal, Carbonization and Gasification (McDoweU-WeUman)

67

(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

(10) (11 )

Feed coal at $7. SO/ton Catalysts and chemicals

Raw water at $0.30jMgal Electric power at $.015JkWb

Process operating labor at $7.50fh .

.. lab-or at 1 5°/ (total plant III vestment)

lamtenance . 10

Super ision at 15% of (5) + (6) 0- 6 + (7)

General and administrative at 60% of ()) +

o atinz supplies at 30% of (5) )

p~r - ,. li t 1 5°1 rrotal plant investment

Mamtenance sUPP les a . 10 ~ .

I - at 27°/ (total plant 10 estment)

Loca taxe a . 10

6.806 0.396 0.627 0.891 0.858 2.239 0.464 2.137 0.257 2.239 4.030

3. Woodall-Duckham Ltd. Trials of American Coals in a Lurgi Gasifier at Westfield, Scm/and (ERDA Research and Development Report o. 105), 1974.

4. P. F. H. Rudolph" Processing a/American Coals in a Lurgi Gasifier, 6th Synthetic Pipeline Gas Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, October 28-30, 1974.

5. D. Hebden, High Pressure Gasification under Slogging Conditions, 7th Synthetic Pipeline Gas Symposium, Chicago, Illinois October 27-29 1975.

6. P. F. H. Rudolph, Processing of American Coals in a Lurgi Gasifier, 6th Synthetic Pipeline Gas Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, October 28-30 1974.

7. Final Report, The Supply-Technical Advisory Task Porce=-Synthetic Gas, Coal, Prepared For Supply, Technical Advisory Committee, National Gas Survey, Federal Power Commission, April 1973.

. C sts' 1700 tons/d Ammonia from Coal (roid-1975

TABlE 6 AnnualOperatIng 0 . -

dollars)

CARL I. SOPCISAK PAUL RUDOLPH

$MM

et annual operating costs

Total gross operating costs By-product credits·

20.944 (1.643)

19.301

Coal, Carbonization and Gasifi·cation (McDowell-Wellman (Gal,usha»

'Based upon 330 operating days per year.

d i ification plus the plant fuel gas, satisfies

F'nD' "of the coal tar recovere in gas ,

1. e .' t

the refonmng heat r. equ. lIem. en. ..... teri 1 balance and cost data for a

.. 6 nt pertment rna ena .

Tables 4 th~oug~J . prese [oduce 1200 tons/d of anhydrous a~om~

Lurgi coal gaSIficatIOn plant to Pl.' that used in the plpelme gas

from a subbituminous coal of the same ana ysis as '

plant described above. . ... osts for pipeline gas and for ammo~ia

Elements of the annual operatmg c t [rom the direct operatmg

. d f th plant mvestmen s or

which are derive rom .. e . _. d in a Federal power Com-

endahons oontame . .'

costs are based upon recoIDIll f m situation to situation and from

mission report (7]. These m. ay vary IO. t· made here to calculate the

F thermore no anemp IS· .

company to co~pany .. ur .' can best be made by those interested ~

cost of pr_oductlOn. T~s. calculation lin LUIgi coal gasification t? theIr investioatlDg the feaSIblhty of app Y g . ti of such thin"'s as mteresl

'" •• • <1 h ir own determma 10n . '"

Parti.cular Sit. uanon, usm". t. e. kin 'tal and the annu. al charges

. t p costs wor g cap} . , .

durin" constructlon, star -u . ' I .. ~ tments and annual operatmg

"'. . ed The direct pant mvesu .

on the capItal requir . . . b . f the cost of production

li t d should ·provide a suffiCIent asis or

costs S e .. .

calculation for any given SItuatIOn.

Introduction

C I UtT- tionpp 948-951-

1. H. H. Lmwy, CJremislT'y ofr COal Ull_111·~aar!·on' pp. 950 957-958.

2. H. H. Lowry, Chemistry ~ oa l.~· , • ,

This article introduces tbe McDowell-Wellman (Galusha) Coal Gasification Process and explains the favorable economic considerations of production of low Btu gas from coal. The process is ideally suited for commercial and industrial organizations who have difficulty in obtaining natural gas for their gaseous fuel needs ..

The gas-making process employs one of the better known chemical reactions: that of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen reacting in a controlled atmosphere. The process, once started, sustains itself and remains extremely well balanced. Historically, the fixed-bed gas. producer ran on noncaking coal or coke, which insured continuous operation without dogging. With the continuing energy reevaluation and the increasing price of select coals, it is obvious that a gas producer is needed which is capable of utilizing the poorer grades of coal. The McDowell-Wellman (Galusha) Gas Producer equipped with an automatic intermittent agitator is one good solution.

The agitator-type McDowell-Wellman (Galusha) Gas Producer is an excellent way to alleviate problems arising from a shortage of gaseous fuel. The cost of gas produced by this. unit is presently competitive with the cost of natural gas, and the unit is more economical to use than many other available sources of energy. The low initial capital cost of the producer, its compactness of design, ease of operation, small quantity of maintenance, and applicability to most low cost, high ash fuels combine to consistently underscore the favorable economics.

References

The ProcesS

68

C + O2 = CO2 + 174,500 Btu C + 102 == CO + 51,900 Btu CO2 + C = 2CO ~ 70700 Btu

9/,7

100.0

Coal. Carbonization and Gasification (McDowell-WeHman)

Coal. Carbonization and Gasification (McDowell-Wellman)

69

less steam per pound of carbon bei d

burn forming CO Equ ti . (8)emg ecomposed and allows some carbon to

, ~ 2' a Ion more nearly represents the actual reaction:

3C + O2 + 2H20 = CO2 + 2CO + 2H2 + 68,800 Btu

The gas-producing process employed by the McDowell-Wellman (Galusha) Gas Producer is similar to the chemical reaction utilized in any fixed-bed type

producer.

The gas is produced by the controlled continuous partial oxidation of an

incandescent solid fuel in an atmosphere of air, Stearn or carbon dioxide may be added to control the combustion. The product generated thus contains CO and H2 as its principal combustible components. An appreciable percentage, by volume of substances such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen, iHuminants, and impurities comprise the remainder of the total product. The initial combination of oxygen with carbon makes carbon dioxide and produces, theoretically, the heat of reaction. Further contact of these gases with carbon at the elevated temperatures encountered within the producer continues the reaction, which absorbs heat and forms carbon monoxide. Typical chemical combinations of

carbon with oxygen give the following result:

~:e COt~POfsihtion of the gas thus produced will be as shown in Table 1

era 100 tenet calorific value of the" f .. ..

the carbon bur d i .. bas ormed to the calorific value of

. . ne IS approximately 0,85.

In this chemical analysi f h . '

burning coal which' d~S °h t e process, the volatile matter involved with the

e IS ISC arzed as a 10 ' th '

considered. When the coal fed t~ the rod SS, ,lD, ~ produ~d gas IS not

gases, tars, and steam are liberated u o~ he~~~: IS nch III ~olatlle matter, then the incandescent bed Methane (CHP) d h 0 and react mdependently above

• . 4. .an et ylene (C H ill b f

and because of their hiaber cal ifi . I ., 2 4 ay. e ound thus,

01.1 on ' c va ues when co dto l

carbon monoxide" win increase the heatine 1 mpare to hydrogen or

equations pertaining to these reactions are ~ va ue of the producer gas. The

CH4 + 202 = CO2 + 2H20 + 382000 Btu C2H4 + 302 = 2C02 + 2H20 + 600,000 Btu

(9) (10)

1) (2) (3)

The first two equations are exothermic and the third equation IS endothermic,

The introduction of steam into the producer, along with combustion air,

reduces the producer temperature and utilizes the heat of combustion to liberate hydrogen from the steam, thereby increasing the calorific value of the gas produced. The following chemical equations explain this:

CH4 = C + 2H2 - 40.,000 Btu CH4 + H;P= CO + 3H2 - 92,800 Btu CH4 + 2H20 = CO2 + 4H2 ~ 75,000 Btu

The methane reaction, Eq. (13), proceeds with additional methane:

CH4 + CO2 = 2CO + 2H2 - 110,700 Btu

2H20 + C = CO2 + 2H2 - 35,000 Btu H20 + C == CO + Hz. ~ 52,850 Btu 2H2 + O2 = 2HzO + 209,500 Btu

(4) (5) (6)

The preceding reactions are limited de di

producer and the amount of 01 til pen mg on the temperature of the

val e matter present 10 tbe fed coal.

TABLE 1

By adding Eq, (2) to Eq, (5):

Cu bic Feet per Pound of Carbon

(7)

Percent by Volume

itrogen is present in the combustion air but does not enter the chemical reaction, As shown by Eq. (7), very Iittle heat is required to sustain the reaction. If a 100% efficient process is assumed, a gas mixture of CO, J:i2' and til is obtained. The resultant calorific value of the mixture will be 188 Btu/scf,

Equation (7) is theoretical and cannot be precisely obtained in the gas> producer, The inherent inefficiences of all devices require that additional be added to maintain the producer at the required temperature, which results

CO2 (carbon dioxide) 00 (carbon monoxide) H (hydrogen)

N (nitrogen)

10,6 21.1 21.1 39.9

11,4 22.8 22.8 43,0

Total

(8)

(11) (12) (13)

(14

70

Coat Carbonization and Gasification (McDowell-Wellman)

The Technology of the McDowell-Wellman (Galusha)1 Process

The McDowell-Wellman (Galusha) Gas Producer employing the basic process just described, transforms a wide variety of coal and other solid fuels into gas. The feed to the gas producer is usually coal, screened using relatively open screens, with a lump size varying between 2 and 0 in. Run-of-mine coal may also be purchased for use, but a suitable crushing and screening system should be utilized to provide a homogeneous feed to the producer oflump size less than 2

JD.

Ample coal storage bins are provided as part of the producer. A twocompartment coal bin on the top of the gas generator provides enough coal storage for one 8-h shift. The upper compartment serves as a storage bin while the lower compartment functions as a sealed continuous coal feed system to the gas generator. Segmental gates separate the compartments, and similar gates isolate the force-feed pipes to the gas generator from the lower compartment,

providing the seal.

Coal from the gas-tight lower bin flows through the feed pipes to fill the

retort. A simple interlocking mechanism between gates prevents loss of gas while feeding fuel into the fuel pipes and retort. There are no other moving parts in the fuel feed system. The fuel feed system, simple in design and operation, contributes greatly to the efficiency of the gas producer.

The gas-producing retort is made of 1 in. thick steel plate, and requires no

brick lining, thus eliminating the initial cost of such lining and greatly lowering

maintenance and renewal costs.

The retort is completely water jacketed, and the beat absorbed into the

jacket cooling water generates water vapor at about 180aF in the amounts required for making gas. Thus the producer itself makes available all steam

required to assist production.

F or combustion air the McDowell-Wellman (Galusha) Gas Producer use

air supplied by a blower or turbocompressor. This air acquires water vapor on its way to the fire bed by passing over the steaming water at the top of the cooling jacket. The correct amount of water vapor is added by regulating the circulating rate of the jacket cooling water such that it is maintained at the desired temperature. A thermostat controls the water supply valve. Approximately 35 to 50 ft3 of air and O.31b of steam, from the water jacket vapors are

required for each pound of coal gasified.

The McDowell-Wellman (Galusha) Ga Producer can also function on

independently supplied oxygen and carbon dioxide. In this case the jacket cooling water is taken from an outside cooling water source and the saturation pipe is connected to the supply sources. The composition of the gas ohanges and the net calorific value is higher than the gas produced with steam and air· The typical quality of the gas produced from calcined petroleum coke, using oxygen and carbon dioxide as just discussed, is given in Table 2.

Depending on the type of feed. each pound of coal norm any produce' [rolll 65 to 90 scf of producer gas with a calorific value of from 135 to 150 Btll,lscL At the discharge point, the generated gas contains approximately 21 Btu/scfof

Coal. Carbonization and Gasification (McDowell-Wellman)

71

TABLE 2

Gas

Percentage bv Volume

CO CO2 O2 H]

1 2

94,0 3.9 0.0 1.5 0,6

sensible heat Wh . . b· .

. en usmg itummous coals th 0

from the producer is near lO000F ,e gas temperature at the exit

T?e burnt ash from the producer is dro .' ...

rotating grates. The zrates are d I ci pped out of the retort through

and fiat, with no perforations ~~ eo. circular heavy steel plate rings, solid overlapping so that ash cannot ey are set one above the other, with edges

~, ., escape vertical! bv i If Th

the. plates .. pushes the a h ho . 11.. . Y . Y rtsetr. . e ecc .t en. tricity of

nzonta y allowing It t f II h

between the stepped plates The ash i ci· h . ~ 0 a t rough the space cone. . as IS .ISC arged with no buildup into the ash

The entire gas producer assembl is : .

ground level to allow a truck - , il . ~ mounted. sufficiently high abo e

. . or ra car to be pI d b I

discharze sate. If desi.red th . d ace e ow thea .sh cone

= ~ e gas pro ucer can be . t d . .

for a pneumatic or hydraulic ash r 1 moun e only high enough area. emova system leading to a suitable storage

. Because some bituminous coals have a tendenc

clinkers, a mechanical agitator i d . Y to cake, coke, or form

agi:ator is a slowly revolving ho~o~~:1 a~:s~lr the. coal bed constant~y. The maintains a uniform coal bed all .. .. Its action retards channeling and

, uowmg maximum produ cti f . f

g~s. The agitator arm and its vertical drive shaft ,I.,: on 0 satis act~ry with weanne parts protected b.' .. are", ater-cooled steel tubing

. <:> Y wear-resistant castin Th '

revolved at varvinz speed. sand 't· 1 . g.s.e arm can be

_ C ,IS pane of actIon· ithin th

changed as desired for differin . I. r, W1· . ~ coal bed may be

If desired. the gas from thg c.oa dS and producer operating rates ..

, .. . e pro ucer can be . d·

separator where most of the fl . h d pipe into a cyclone dust

removed. Further gas cleanin~ :s u.an coal dust carried in the gas steam is inclusions can be U;stalled at th q l~me~t to, remove tars, .sulfur and other gas will lose sen ible heat as it e user s hdlscretlon, as regu., lations require. The

, ,. passes trough the cI .

cleamng method which utilizes ad' • eanmg process, so a gas

achieve a higher efficiency for' thn r~covlel rs this heat toss should be chosen to

. ... e avera svstern

For general information Table'" . > . •. •

producers of different sizes f~rcr .)1 gives t~e nominal capacities of gas

Table 4 . . genera categories and sizes of coal feed

e gives the analyses of varia fu 1 ..

McDowell-Wellman (Galusha) G P USd ue gases for companson with the . ' as £0 ucer

Table 5 gives the the tical calori .

lusha) Gas -P d. ore IC ca orific values of McDowell-Wellman (Ga-

ro ucer gas as developed ith bitr .

producer. W1 rtummous coal feed to the

72

c;
~
.;.,
><
0
-5
'~
(;
V
2,
0
o
N
.,;;
s:
"~
'3
'I)
on
cd
'"
....
:>
.S
'~
'"
,~
'0
cd
~
s.
---
til
cd
::c
E
<II
~
'"
,
"::1
..s
'"JJ
....
..,
u
;:I
"0
0
...
c,
VJ
td
0
!':l
s:
<fl
;:I
-;
0
C
t'<l
.§
V
~
<>
3-
0
0
u
~
0
'"
.~
'u
oe
0.
ed
U
ea
8 ~
~
r.,..., '"
0 ~
7-
M
uJ
_.I.
!Xl
«
~ 73

Coal, Carbonization and Gasification (McDoWell-Wellman)

Coal, Carbonization and G T .

aSI tcatton (McDowell-Wellman)

o o c> r--

.,.,

2~~g2~

c;
,_ t- o t- -a '" '" 0 '"'" -0 C ~ 0
;:I N '<!' '<!' 0 00 0' N -0 .,., <rl 0
0 - N N t- O' 00 '"'"
;I: B I <:'i
.... ·n ~t~
<J ed
0., ...
<n -:8
"0 C c;
C . ..r; <:'i '¢ 0 0 0 0
;:I ~
0 o- 'D C""l 0 0 0
c, I 'D 00 0 -0 0
~::: N
B cd ~ t- V) '¢ r- V) 0 <'I 00 00 r- '<!' '¢
~ ~ S r-: '0: ~ ~ '0: '0: - ~ '" V)
N ....-i r-- N cr- 0- M C""l 0 00 00
0 -c .-. - t<"> r'> '" r- t-
-0 .... -0 (;
.... ii ~ ....
<!.l 0 ""
o '" 0) -o 0; _ -e ~
.g .., '0 E. 00 ~ ~ ~ z", C N '0 c ~ ::::0 C c b -
N' "Ci!, oj e "0])
0 U'i c:: ee N N C""l '<!' -0 '¢ ~ u; ~ ell I 1 l
c:: 6 ::.c '" cO - 0. '" 0. td
00
'"
.:><:
0
o
-o u
.~ t;;l)
.... c ~ c
1:'5 s d e '> Gi~
.., 0 -0
0 Ul oe ~ .,.. "u. 0
;:I 0 o
~ s ~ " ~ e -e
'" -
... "" "0 .<:: ;. c
Ct o.o..c <> ~ <':I
0 ~ .~
... C d en c:
"tl u i "'"
.., .:><: ,9 u 00 '-< ;:I .g
c oe 'u ~ .~. 1- S 0
0)
.c u C Q
~. ~ "" u ,_ ~ 2 'E. o
.... , <::: :> oz:.
u -:e -"= ";1 ~ -0 ;:I .~
'~ - 0 ro
'~ c cd 3: ,-, ;n']
o:i CJI P- en
« p6 74

Coal. Carbonization and Gasification ( McDowell-Wellman)

TABLE '5 Total Heat of Bituminous Producer Gas

"Calorific value" or heat of combustion of 1 flo of producer gas

Constituents of producer gas by volumetric analysis

Gross Btu et Btu
Per In producer Per In producer
ft3 gas f13 gas
321.8 80.45 321.8 80.45
1012.8 22.99 911.8 20.69
1853 16.12 1740 15.14
325 47.09 275 39.85 Name of gas Symbol 0/
/0
Carbon monoxide CO 25.00
Methane CH .. 2.27
IlIuminants .87
Hydrogen H2 14..49
Carbon dioxide COl 4.69
itrogen 2 52.68 Total; These figures are generally used

Heat of combustion in tar

assumed

166.65 156.12
\5.00 1350
1.81.65 169.63
20.21 20.21
------
201.86 189.84 Total available heat of combustion per ft3 of gas Sensible heal in gas at 1200°F at producer exit above

60°F

Total heat in producer gas

Table 6 lists the comparati e theoretical analyses of the products of combustion of various gase .

A D.escription of tb.e Equipment and .,ts Operation

A detailed description of the design fabrication, or construction of the producer is not included here. The particular features of the equipment which directly influence the producer operation are briefly explained.

Fuel Handling and Feed Preparation Equipment

In any coal gasification plant,. the handling and preparation of coal is the firSt step of operation. As mentioned earlier, this producer can take feed in a variety of sizes and screen cuts. Much of the coal commercially available is suitable for producer feed without further treatment. Fine particles, described

Coal, Carbonization and Gasification (McDowell-Wellman)

c:. o

-~

~ 0..

8

8

o V)

r-

75

C"'1 0 0
'--' 0 r-
0 &: (5 ~ <'-I ~ ~
Z V) <""
r- r- til
."J:: ;:;
'--' 0 ~
.", '" en c V) OJ)
~ c:: C"'1 c
E ~ -..0
CJ b: -0 N 00 0\ c::
'- ;:; > N -..0 ~
CJ co N
U
;:;
"'0
0 .., ':0 00
... -"! N v-,
e, c c:: c:: N
U 0\ OJ) v-i 6
- r-- N
'"
g
.= r-. C"'1 0 N
~. - N '-D ~
q ..0 00 '"
;:; r- t--
is
~ c ~
~ \0 M
~ ::lO :<l 0-. N 00 '0
·u :::; 00 f""l r-
es ~ til 0 r- 0
- ro
..c u CJ
0 .a
c: '-< ~ 0\
< p... r-
-e '" "': -..0 00 r-<>
::I r- 0\ e-i 0\
0 r-
"'"
'"
I~ .., .~
.... ~ c ~ V)
~ "" c:: .....
~.~ \0 ~
~ ...... co ci .,..,
-;z, v::: ...... - r--
a ;:;. 'V
~ '" <> ..... 0 r-
0. 0
>- '" .e- ~ V') .~
0 0 r-- c-..i 0\ -:
.:: N -..0 0
~
~. ~ ~ OJ)
c::::: - '"
0 c, '0 c:: "': t;
0 9 _, '\0 N
,0: r- r-<>
~ ..,
c 0 00 N 00
C s ~ ~
::: ~ ~
::I M ""
~ r-
'- , ~
OJ '" :::> "'0 r-- .,..,
-; ~, .0 ~ f"'l "': 0\ 0
0 ~ -.i N
~ e '\0 0\ r-:
2- -..0
OJ '" 8 0> 0 r-- .,..,
::I ~ 0 -"! "" ~ c::
~ 0 .J:: 0 r- r-- V') ~
~ o \0
N The a.ctu. al conversion of the f d I·

th e coa uno prod .

e producer. The zasifier provid . ucer gas occurs in this section. of

• to· les process he t

tune, a~d the proper conditions for the 0 . a, necessary contact or residence

the desired gas quality. the maxi gaseous and solid reactants. To achieve

h . .. . . .. aXIIDum rate and th .'

c. a~nelmg .through the asb and fuel bed 0; ... ne ~.eqUlred pressure without

gasifier design must balance all f developing hot spots or voids the

Th .. actors . ,

e McDowell-Wellman (Galusha) Gas P . d .

TO ucer gasifier chamber is a

coat Carbonization and Gasification

(McDowell- WeUman)

Coal. Carbonization and Gasification (McDowen-weuman)

76

as particles less than half the size of the lower screen limits of the feed, may comprise 10 or 15% of the producer feed, and in some cases coals with as high as 25 to 30% fines have been fed into McDowell-Wellman (Galusha) Gas

Producers without adverse channeling effects in the bed.

A general coal specification, given in Table 7, indicates the range of coal

tolerable:in the McDowell-Wellman (Galusha) Gas Producer.

To explain the first item in Table 7, the free moisture in coal normally

creates problems in the feeding system of coal gas producers. In the McDoweU- Wellman (Galusha) Gasification Process, the inclusion of moisture in the feed creates no problems. However freezing weather or low temperatures can make a moist coal lump together and obstruct the flow the feed pipes, and the valves. There are provisions made in the design to break such

lumps, if encountered.

The coal-handling equipment near the gas producer must include unload-

ing, storage, reclaiming, transporting, and feeding arrangements. If the gas producer is situated at a mine, or is receiving run-of-mine coal the feed preparation should also include primary and secondary crushing, screening, washing, drying, classifying and removal of small pieces of iron or other foreign materiaL The prepared coal is transported to the storage bins near the

feed point of the producer for eventual gasification.

A belt conveyor or centrifugal discharge..:type bucket elevator is normally

used for transportation and handling of sized coal. The conveyor or elevator receives the coal from a grating-protected hopper at grade level and feeds the

coal bin on the top of the gas lock feed bin.

The lcDowel1-Wellman (Galusha) Gas Producer (agitator-type) is gen-

erally as shown in the section view of Fig. L The producer assemblY includes coal storage and feeding bins, gasifier section, ash disposal equipment, and

control and instrumentation equipment.

lower feed bin Th .

.' ese two pipes branch into fo .. "

Near the fe.ed system a small pi] ?ur pipes for better distribution

. Ipe runs verticall th . .

passage of the agitator assembly co . .. . y .. rough the bins to allow

supporting the side-buns count un. ~~rwelght cable, guarded at the top and

Th ~ h e erwer gilt '

rouo the f ~ .

. e center 0 the lower coal bi .

maintenance pipe accommodatin th . ill there IS an elliptical vertical

ho~es and gland assembly. The lo!er ~ agIt~lor shaft water inlet and outlet relief assembly, a series of braces a m~:~ b~n also~as an ~xtended explosion

The two coal bins are supported bv 0 e, and inspection ports.

producer outer shell Th . Y four angle legs bolted to the

... ese supportmg legs al D .... .. . gas

coal valve dnve assembly and the asita s~ orm part of the support for the

e agitator drive assembly.

Coor.ng Water Ove~llow

ZONES 7.DRYI.NG

6 PREHEAT

5 DISTILLATION

4 SECONDARY REDUCTION 3 PRIMARY REDUCTION

2 COMBUSTION

1 ASH

FIG .. 1. S h .

c emauc of the McDowell-Wellman (Galusha) G P .

. as reducer.

Coal Storage and Feeding Bins

For a typical 10 it diameter atmospheric gas producer the upper storage bin bas a capacity of approximately 12 tons of coal. The bin supplies the bottom feed bin through tWO disk valves, driven with an electric motor. The coal then passes through two additional di.sk valves and enters two vertical feed pipes below the

The Gasifier Section

TABLE 7

As low as pas ible As high as 3%

26 to 50%

Under 15% if possible

Up to 35~~

Up to 30%

Up to 90%

Moisture Sulfur Volatiles

Ash (fusing at 2200°F or more)

Ash (fusing under 1900°F or more)

Fines (half the lower screen limit) Fines (through t in. screen)

--------------------------------------------------------------

77

As stated earlier, the McDowell- Wellman (Galusha) Gas Producer is simple to operate, without need of continuous attention. However, for safety and the control of gas quality, it is advisable to monitor the conditions in the producer and record the changing state of the unit for test runs and furure reference.

The M cDowel1- Wellman (Galusha) Gas Prod ueer is provided wi th pressure and temperature controllers and recorders. The overhead coal feed bin is equipped with a bin level indicator which signals a low level condition so the refill operation may be begun, either manually or automatically. The lower bin feed valves connected to the fuel feed pipes are open when the upper valves are closed. and coal is fed to the gas chamber as a continuous choke feed.

The turboeompressor has a butterfly fiow control valve in the discharge line which governs the quantity of air to the producer in relation to the gas outflow from the producer. The jacket cooling water passes through a water control valve which governs the amount of water passing through the water jacket. The air from the blower picks up the saturated steam from the top of the jacket, and the constant ratio mixture of air and steam is carried over to the bottom of the producer.

The producer is also equipped with thermometers to monitor the temperatures of the saturated steam and air mixture and off-take gas.

FI G. 2. The revOlving grates.

.. ~. '(MCDowell,-WeUman),

. tlon and GaSification

Coal. Carbonlza· ,

Coal, Carbonization and Gasification (McDowell-Wellman)

78

edge of the arm. The agitator assembly is positioned in the center of the gas chamber, passing through a water-cooled bearing assembly and the two top heads of the water jacket section. The vertical shaft of the agitator assembly can be rotated at different speeds with a variable speed drive reducer crank disk, connecting rod and ratchet arrangement similar to the grate drive. The agitator arm can also be raised or lowered inside the gas chamber with a similar ratchet and lifting screw arrangement. Cooling water is required for the agitator assembly and the center agitator bearing located between the two top heads of the water jacket; water flows in inner pipes to the agitator arm and shaft.

The water jacket has overflow pipe connections for regulation of water quantity, and thus temperature, to produce saturated steam. The saturation pipe connects the water jacket and the side of the ash cone section. The saturation pipe has a banking disk an explosion relief diaphragm, and a manual blast valve.

The producer can utilize either air or oxygen. When it is running on air, it is provided with a single stage turbocompressor or air blower to give the required quantity of air at a pressure of approximately 20 to 30 in. of water. A butterfly or blast gate type of control valve regulates the air supply to the producer.

. .. I. I There are several coal feed pipe

d bl walled water jacketed cyhnd. nca vesse.. id the draft arrester when

ou e, f these are mst e· .

openings in the top head; . two. 0 . the draft arrester. The inlet fuel pipe

id d and the others are outsIde. h·b r The inner shel) of the

provi e, . . . t the zas c am e .

openings ha e nozzles extendmg In °h d a~ the grate level to push the coal on~o

gasifier chamber has scraper fins attac rebricated steel stepped plates made. ill the grates. The rotating grates. are r':n three eccentrically mounted Clrcular segments and bolted together to fa t . has a spiral scraper on its face. The rings. The uppermost gr~te, ~nthe ce:~~n bracke~s, is mounted on a o~ntr~l entire grate assembly,~th nngsup~ e t~rust bearing. The thrust beanng IS bushing and post, re.~tmg on a b~- ~]nes from outside the gas chamber. The lubricated through oil and grease ~lP~rith a variable speed drive through a gear

grate assembly IS rotated very slow y .. d The connecting rod operates a

. di k d a connectlDg fa . .. . .

reducer a crank IS ,an. . . a slow interIDlttent monon.

ratchet 'wheel on a rin_g.rack, pro~~~~~ween the grate plates and.the shell~f

Due to the eccentflclty, the sP. t te As the space mcreas. es, It . . . the grates ro a .. . f

the gas-making chamber aries eases the ash is forced over the Inner edge 0 .

fills with ash. As the space decr.ea tel. fall into the cone shaped hopper belo~. successive grate platfo~~S to ulumal t~s the ash is thoroughly brok~n up as it

Because of the eccentnclty of the p a. ' . grate levels This actIOn occu. IS

h the ~ucceSSlVe (J •

proQIesses downward throug . s te area consequently a constant stream

~.. . usly throughout the enure gra , blow F·i!!Ure 2 shows the

contUluO 1 . . d t the hopper e .. '"

ofloose, readily. flowing as~ 15 d;~;ereate~ assembly is mounted at the bottom of

circular eccentnc grate deSIgn. gr

the water jacket. II ... (Galusha) Gas Producer a pipe forrn:s ~

In a typical M~Doweli-We~t~ a sroaner steel pipe jnside. The vertic honow vertical agltator shaft w~ at the bottom end and to a gland as.sembly a!!itator shaft assembly has a fian,,~ h . ntally to the bottom flange, IS made at the top. The a.gitato. r ar. m, bolte onzo h . lm ost to the inner wan of the

. ffi· tl lens to reac a . I di

f a flattened pipe su . cien y e. ld d t 4"'c angle toward the ea ing

o ine h . fins we e a a -' ~

ill. The flattened plpe as SIX gas er.

Ash Disposal Equipment

The ash cone attached to the bottom of the grate section is equipped with a water spray ring to flush out the ash through a manually operated slide gate at the bottom, operated when the ash cone is emptied.

Contrail and Instrumentation Equipment

79

80

Coal. Carbonization and Gasification (McOowen-WeHman)

There are four pressure metering points in the producer for pressures at the discharge of the turbocompressor saturation pipe, ash pit, and gas off-take. Pressure differential gauges indicate the gas flow through the producer bed.

Any difference in the producer bed, such as caking or channeling is indicated by these pressure and temperature gauges so correcti e action can be

taken by the operator.

The remote controls for changing the speed of the grate assembly and the

agitator arms are provided at the operator control room. The vertical travel of

the agitator can be varied.

Operation of the Equipment

The operation of the McDowell-Wellman (Galusha) Gas Producer is simple and automatic. Wben restarting the producer after an inspection shut-down. the gas-making procedure is carried out manually. After the unit attains the desired temperature, flow, and gas quality, further fluctuations in demand or feed rate are automatically adjusted. This normally takes several hours depending on the type of fuel and other conditions:- When the producer begins to supply gas after it has been banked for some period of time, the restart procedure is simpler and requires a shorter period to achieve a balanced state.

When starting the producer initially or after a total shut-down, the coal should fill the top and bottom bins, the water jacket should be filled, and water should be flowing through the agitator arm. The producer grate bearing should be lubricated and all instruments checked. Electrical starters should be reset and fuses inspected. The grate drive, agitator drive, valve drive, and turbocoro-

pressor assembly should be checked.

A layer of ash at least 2 ft deep should be placed inside the producer.

measured from the bottom grate and four to six wooden starting boxes added in position. The starting boxes should be filled with burlap and rags soaked in kerosene with long fuses leading to the ash slide valve. Six. inches of coal on the ash and starting boxes, saturated with kerosene should be added. Water should

overflow from the jacket.

The vent valve should be open, and the ash slide valve all fire doors except

one, and the saturation blast valve should be closed. A slight pressure through the open fire door should be induced by opening the saturation blast valve, then

closing the fire door and stopping the blower.

With the ash valve open, the igniting fuses should be lit. The turboco!1l-

pressor should be started and the ash slide valve closed, with water added in the cone for heat protection. The blast valve should be opened to induce a pressure

load.

After approximately 1 h when the gas is of good quality, sufficient to be fed

to the use line, automatic saturation operation will take place. After ~ additional hour, a fire zone ash bed depth test should be taken with a bar. It IS

advisable to repeat this test once every 24 h.

Coal. Carbonization and Gasification (M 0 cowell-Wellman)

When the producer is being started from b .' .

should be opened, the overhead fuel s a anked condition, the vent valve

closed. With the turbocom up'ply checked, and the bankinz disk

pressor operatmg th b flvva -

valve should be opened Th . ket v o,.e utter y valve and the blast

. . e Jac et water should b t d

steam is produced, the automatic sat . e urne off and, after enough operation. uration control should be placed in

The main gas valve should be 0 ened . . .

vent valve should be dosed grad ~ slow:y until the m~1D use line fills .. The

pressure should be reduced by ad~~s~; ::e exit gas volume ~ncreases. The back be restarted. The producer will Jth b e blast valve. The Jacket water should

The lubricating oil supply to then e ready for aut?mahc control,

be' .' ~ . . e grate center bearinz h ld b

erore beginning the normal sch d If' 0 sr ou e operating

e e u e 0 operation. b

Economic F a "bT

(Galusha) G ea· SSp. I Idtv o·f the McDowell-Wellman

. . ro ucer

When studying the economic feasibilit of . . . .

types of fuel, the cost of feed to the Y ro::oducer gas ~s a ~ubstltute for other

Beca.use of the present day flu t Pt' cerf IS of prime Importance.

I . c ua IOns 0 the markt . f . .

coa and Its uncertain availabilit . e price 0 anthracite

. . . 1 1 Y ill some part f th .

~egate the feasibility of investing in a roducei th 80 . : co~ntry, consumers It . can use. However the McD . Pil Wier at IS limited in t .he type of feed

. ' owe - e Iman [Galt h ) G .

versatile enough to work economicall wit '. us a ,. as Producer is

such availability problems. y h a variety of feeds, developing no

McDowell-Wellman Company has desiz d

Btu gas. The system includes a zas roone ~ system ~or the supply of low

generation of low Btu zas. free ot :- tIcer With ass?clated equipment for commercial and indus~rial' fi Pha ICU ate matter. This system is suitable for

. . rms W 0 are unable to btai

production needs. The cost of gas from thi .. 0 tam ~~tural gas for their

natural gas and more economi I h s unit 1S compeunve WIth the cost of

Table 8 includes economic ~cr~r~n f:ost othe~ forms of fuels.

Table 8 includes approximate cost fist pro~llcmg hot, raw, low Btu gas. comparison. It is suggested that an e~~r~s t~ aid m an understanding of the contract designed to achieve th Y. c est1_mate for this type of system be a

fl . .. e most economical proje t . 'hil 11 .

exibility to accommodate the eli 's desi .. . J c. W I e a owing design

. . . e c lent seslres A realistic n .. ~

Within the assumptions made ha b developed ic proportional estimate

. . . seen eveloped ith J

the base time period. Constructio teri I WI an_uary 1975 considered

ifi ' n rna ena and labor p will b .

speer ed more exactly at the ti d nce. s ··0 viouslv be

, IIDe an . place of the .'. . ~

Table 8 gives the breakd f h . e particular project.

. . 0\1 not e capital cost . .

taxes, insurance. and amortiz atio f h. ' ope.ratmg cost includins

. . . I n or ot raw ducti '"

per million Btu is then appended. gas pro uction. The cost of gas

81

82

'f' .' (McDowell-Wellman) Coal. Carbonization and Gasl lcanon .

Econoro:1' c Anal~fsis (10 in. gas producer and 8 in. cyclone dust coUector,

TABLE 8 J

10,920,000 sefId 8400 hJyr)

Cap1tal appropriation Site work for producer Building and erection Producer and cyclone Equipment erection Engineering

Start-up costs

Total

Annual operating cost Coal, $30!ton

Electric power (SO.OI5/kWh)

Water ($0.25/1000 gal) Chemicals and supplies

Labor, operations, benefits .

Maintenance, labor and matenal

Amortization

Taxes at 2%

Insurance at 1 %

Total annual ope,ating expense

s

5,000 190.000 550,000 50,000 75,000 25000

895,000

882,000 6,700 10,700 2500

117,600 15000 35,000 15,900

8,000

1,093,400'

coal, Carbonization and Gasification (McDowell-Wellman)

TABLE 10 Generally Used Quantitative Performance Indicators for Atmospheric Pressure Producers

CO2 Illuminants O2

CO

CH4

H2

1 2

Tar

H1S

SOx

Cyanide Temperature Scfgas/lb fuel BtUJft3

Sensible Btu/ft" Blast ft3 b dry fuel Steam, Ibflb dry fuel

4.5% 0.5% 0.0%

26.0% 3.0% 13.0% 52.00{

3.6±% 3000 ppm

6 ppm 1200crF

65

150

_0

45

0.4

not accounting for the subtractive effects of the recovery of any by-products for resale, and any sulfur and tar removal required.

Table 9 gives the expected fuel analysis of coal used in the gas producer.

This analysis was used in the economic considerations, and does not imply that other coal cannot be used. Operating expense figures win differ [rom those given when other coals are used.

Table 10 gives generally used performance criteria for producer gas and are intended as a guide and not as a constant composition.

'11·. BTU can be compared favorably to

dd .~ bovefioures' 1 75 per Dll ion . . .

'Interest must be a ec to a 0: . . BTU' tho e areas where natural gas 15 scarce.

natural gas costs in 1914 of 5;1.00 per Dllihon In S

. . f roducer sas with the price of

Table 8 makes a companson of the pnce 0 t~ ly $0 7S/million Btu more, natural gas at 1974 rates. The producer gas costs on . .

TABLE 9 Typical Expected Fuel Analysis

al Hazard o. 4 Coal

FlES 0.9 Co

--------~~~--~~-

4.2 1.8

Moisture 33.8 33.5

Volatiles 41.0 48.5

Fixed carbon 20.0 14.0

Ash 3.6 0.7

Sulfur 10.0 10.0

Tar 12,000 Btu 13,500 Btu

Heating value 20500F 2600i'F

__ ~A~S~h~fu~s~io~n~te~m~pe~~r~at~u~r~e ----~------------------------------

The process, technology, and feasibility of the McDowell-WeHman (Galusha) Gas Producer have been presented. There are several potential industrial applications.

Internal combustion engines and gas turbines can be run; ovens boilers, and furnaces can be fired; and time, brick, glass, and chemical plants can be run using producer gas. Normalizing, annealing, heat treating, smelting, and heating operations for steel, tin, magnesium, aluminum, and zinc production can be fueled. Silk and textile mills, bakeries, potteries, and electrode baking operations can also be fueled with the gas producer.

Conc'lusion

83

84

"f" t' (McDowell-Wellman) Coal. Carbol1izati,on and Gasl rca 1011

. . heati .. for commercial, industrial, and

Electric power productIOn a~~:at.l~gmet with the McDowell-WeHman private research needs can be sans ac on y

(Galusha) Gas Pr~d~C~~. . Galusha) Gas Producer and its low Btu gas The Mc~owe - e man.. .. t while roviding a good gas for power,

preserve and unp. rove the enVl[onmen . t PI cas is available The producer

d . I ses where no na ura c .

industry an commerCIa ~ .. I in a relatively short time, and requires very

IS proven, developed. availabie d Since they are historically proven,

little adaptation for different feeds an uses... d

d . t ay be more easily finance .

the processes an eqUlp~en mav : 1. a ital and operating cost. In-

The producer supplies gas at the = cPo duced zas co t

stallation cost is 50%, material of constructlon IS 20% and pro c

is 700/ of most other pro. ce.sses being developed. d . erati on can be

/0 . 1 I" Btu Gas pro ucer in op

A program for users to pace a.ow . .. tions and can utilize

compatible with planned growth In coal mmmg opera 1

high sulfur coals for reduced fuel cost. .. ". . . imum at-

The McDowell-Wellman (Galusha) Gas Pr.oducer req~lIes mdlUlt "t b

. . ." h eration and mamtenance, since a JUs men Y

termon by personnel. for bot. op Pr d ed zas is readily used in existing gas-

varying throughput IS automatic. ro uc b •

consuming equipment.

STEPHE P. ENGSTROM

Coal.r Chemicals from (India)

During the last decade India recorded a good.deal of de:~~p~~~~~sC!:~~~ industries based on petroleum. Prolc~s~es ~~mgh~~~r;~oved ~o be technologistocks for various types of chem1~a in us res etitive. Today over 85% of cally more advanced and economIcally most coml p . 1 . of the unprece-

. . duct made from petro eUill. n VIew "

orgarudc ~he~cathleprpOn. c':c~tpr:troleum products, however, th.e superiority of dente ' nse ill ,. " . . bei . iously ques-

t h drocarbous as chemical raw matenals 1S emg sen "

petro eum Y .

tioned by technologists allover the \\~Orld.. ding to the Or<>anizationof

The increase in the price of petro eum, accor fIb t· es 'Thev

. . (OPEC) Its to the cost 0 a terna IV,. -

Petroleum ~xportmgCou~t.n~~ d· 't .' .re ~.~y the cost ofaltemativ,e means of

say, 'the pnceofcommodlhesIS e ermme "

Coal, Chemicals from (India)

satisfying demand.' Whatever validity this argument has for the precipitous rise in the price of crude oil, it is unlikely that there will be any downward revision of petroleum prices during the next decade.

In the present context of the Indian heavy import bill for crude oil, it is generally agreed that it may well be prudent to exploit the existing technologies and develop new ones for the production ofchemicals from raw materials other than petroleum fractions.

There is a general trend the world over to develop advanced coal processing technologies for the production of energy and chemicals for at least partial replacement of petroleum. Attempts are being made in India as well for replacement of petroleum products by setting up suitable coal processing industries. A good beginning has been made in the field of nitrogenous fertilizers for converting coal to chemicals.

The main processes for conversion of coal to chemicals are carbonization, gasification, solvent extraction, and hydrogenation.

The purpose of this article is to review technological developments since the last seminar held at CFRl in 1969 on chemicals from coal and discuss the coalbased chemical projects which can be considered now, particularly for the Eastern Region of India.

Carbonization

Carbonization of coal at high and low temperatures is a century-old practice for the production of coke, gas and liquid products.

From high-temperature carbonization of coal, a number of liquid products are recovered as by-products, namely, benzene, toluene, xylene, naphthas, ammonium sulfate, and tar products such as phenolcresols, xylenol, multivalent phenols, light oil, naphthalene, creosote oil anthracene oil, and pitch. By downstream processing 0 f these prod ucts, a host 0 f chemicals can be obtained. To name a few cyclohexane caprolactarn, phenol, and maleic anhydride [rom benzene; cresols, trinitrotoluene, benzaldehyde, and benzoic acid from toluene; phthalic anhydride from naphthalene or o-xylene ; phenanthrene and carbazole from creosote oils; anthraquinone from anthracene; and carbon black from processed tar.

Economic processing will, however, depend upon the availability of liquid products of carbonization in large quantities. Due to a limited reserve of coking coal in the country and its exclusive use for the production of metallurgical coke, the availablility of by-products from H.T .C. is almost entirely dependent upon the expansion of steel industries.

Althougb the prospects of availability of liquid by-products in large quantities from high temperature coke ovens do not appear to be bright, it is felt that scope exists for more efficient recovery of by-products from coke oven plants. The exact yields of by-products from a battery of coke ovens will depend

85


86

upon the blended coal composition and carbonization :ond~tions. It ~ay be assumed for our discussion that per tonne of coal carbomzed ill an efficient byproduct coke oven, 10 kg of ammonium sulfate, 8 to 10 liters of crude b~nzol~, and 27 to 30 kg of crude tar are recovered. Actual recove~y of by-products is lower either due to inefficient recovery or to a general trend ill the steel plants to slip benzole with the coke oven gas for increasing the calorific value of the gas required in the various furnaces of the steel plants. In some c~ses even the fractions recovered by scrubbing and rectification are blended ~t~ coke oven gas and burned. Increasing the calorific value of gas either by slip~mg benzole or by blending benzole products is undoubtedly a wast.eful pracnce.

With production capacity of 12.7 million tonnes of ingot ste~l .per annum (Bokara Steel Plant, 4 million tonnes: Bhilai Steel Plant 2.5illllhon to~~es Rourke1a Steel Plant, 1.8 million tonnes ; Durgapur Steel Plant 1.6 million tonnes ; Tata Iron and Steel Company, 1.8 million tonnes ; and Indian Iron and Steel Company, 1.0 million tonnes), it is estimated that ap~roxlmat~ly 15 million tonnes of coal will be carbonized assuming a coke ratio of 0.8 m the blast furnace and coal to coke yield of 0.7.

From high temperature carbonization of 15 million tonnes of coal per

annum, approximately 150,000 t of ammonium s~lfate, 120,000 ~l ?f crude benzole, and 400 000 t of crude tar should be obtained from the existing coke

oven plants in India.

Except for the coke ovens at the Bhilai and Rourkela steel ~lants, ~ll the

others at Bokaro, Durgapur, Jamshedpur. and Burnpur are stt_uated ill the Eastern Region. These plants should be carbonizing about .12 million tonne~ of coal per annum (after Bokaro reaches 4 million tonn~s of ingot steel capacay) and should produce approximately 120,000 t ammonmm sulfate, 100,000 kl of crude benzole, and 300,000 t of crude tar. Crude benzole andcrude tar, on further processing, should yield approximately 65,000 kl of rutratlOn grade benzene. 15000 kl of nit.ration grade toluene, 5,000 kl of naphtha, 3,000 t or light oil: 15:000 t of naphthalene 40,000 t of anthracene oil, and 180,000 t of pitch. Pitch on further blending with oils will give road tars, coal. tar fuels, and

feedstock for carbon black. .

It has been proposed from time to time that a ce~tralized coal chemicals

plant be set up in the Eastern Region to recover tar aCI?S, tar bases, and other chemicals from coal tar. Recovery of chemicals bkephenanthrene and carbazole from creosote oil and authraoene from anthracene oil in such ~ centralized plant win pose a practical problem of transporting back the 011 fractions to the respective steel plants for the preparation of coal tar ~uels. In large integrated steel plants like Bokaro Steel, where c~ude tar produc~on may be of the order of 130.000 to 140000 t/yr in the 4-rmlhon tonne stage itself, the possibility of recovery of tar chemicals in an adjoining facility may be

examined. ..

A process onow-temperature carbonization of noneoking coal in statrc ~ed

by indirect heating has been developed at CFR~,Dhan?ad for the prod~cnon of coke, gas, and tar products. Co~e. and gas WIll be SUItable for dO,mestlc an~ industrial uses. L.T. tar can be distilled to produce phenol, cresols, xyleno, multivalent phenols, creosote oil light oil, and feedstock for carbon bla~k.

An LTC. plant with a coal throughput capacity of 150() tid Will produce

Coal. Chemicals from (India)

daily 100 to 120 t of L.T. tar, which on further processing will yield 175 to 200 t of phenol, 700 to 725 t cresols, 560 to 600 t xylenols, 250 to 275 t multivalent phenols, and 25,000 to 30,000 t feedstock for carbon black per annum ..

~ow-temperature carbonization of noncoking coal in static bed by direct heating has also been successfully carried out at RRL, Hyderabad. By this process, coke and tar are obtained as the main products. LT. tar on further processing can yield similar products as discussed above.

Low-temperature carbonization of noncokingcoal in a fluidized bed has also been developed at CFRI, Dhanbad.ln this process, the heavier fraction of tar produced is utilized for briquetting of char fines to produce formed coke and the lighter fraction can be used for recovery of tar chemicals. The formed coke produced may prove to be of great value for partial replacement of blast furnace coke. We arecurrently developing designs for a commercial scale plant to be installed at Talcher, Orissa.

Complete Gasification of Coal with Oxygen

S~veral first generation processes are available for complete gasification of coal WIth o~ygen and steam. Important among them are the Koppers- T otzek, L urgi, and Winkler processes.

. It has been reported that gas from both Lurgi and Koppers- Totzek gasifiers IS suitable for synthesis of ammonia and methanol, generation of power ill zas turbin.es, production of high Btu gas (synthetic natural gas), and synthetic oil by the Fischer Tropsch process. These and other complete coal gasification processes can be adapted for tbe production of reduction "as for the metallur~cal industry, town gas by enrichment with LPG, a:d SG by methanatron. A large number of Koppers- Totzek and Lurgi gasifiers have been installed in different countries for gasification oflignite and coal, mostly for the production of fuels. In almost all the coal-based ammonia plants installed and under construction so far, Koppers-Totzek gasifiers. have been chosen.

Oxygen consumption is considered to be a major factor in the economics of a gasification process. The effect of the oxygen/coal ratio on gas yield, thermal efficiency, and carbon gasified is shown in Fig. 1 when coals from the Ranigunj field (Jambad Bowla) are gasified in suspension [1]. It may be noted that carbon gas.ification efficiency is very much dependent on a high oxygen/coal ratio, which adversely affects the economics. On the other hand, almost any type of coal can be gasified in suspension gasification, which is a great advantage in selecting a gasifier.

In fixed bed gasification under pressure, oxygen consumption is lower but steam consumption is higher, which creates problems of effluent treatment and disposal. Also, coal properties sucb as caking index and ash fusion temperature affect the selection of this process to a great extent .. All types of coal cannot be used in this gasifier.

The effect of pressure on methane formation, calorific value of the gas, carbon gasification, and thermal efficiency is shown in Fig. 2. It may be noted

87

88

z

o '·2L. j::

u

~

o

o

1%

0..

~ ·71

e>


96~-------'

.' ith asifier pressure of percent of methane in rali

FIG. 2. Fixed bed gasilication. (6) vanatlo~:t (g) Thermal efficiency for Takher coal.

gas. to) Percentage of carbon gas . x

Coat Chemicals from (India)

installed at Talcher and Ramagundam with production capacity of 900 tid ammonia (1500 tid urea) for each plant. A similar plant at Korba is in an advanced state of planning.

Other than ammonia synthesis, it is also possible to produce chemicals from syn gas (mixture of CO + H2) with different H2 :CO ratios and process routes. Simplified process routes for the production of chemicals by complete gasification of coal are shown in Fig. 3. By having a coal gasification plant at the front end and a series of process plants, it is possible to produce methane (by catalytic methanation of CO + H2), methanol, and liquid products from Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. In downstream plants it will be possible to convert methanol to acetic acid, formaldehyde, and other derivatives.

Acetylene made from methane by pyrolysis can be the building block for the manufacture of PVC, PV A, and a host of other chemicals. A series of aleohols, ketones, and waxes can be made from syn gas by the. Fischer- Tropsch synthesis.

The high olefin content in liquid products of FT. synthesis is an important criterion for using F.T. products as the feedstock for the production of chemicals. The Sasol plant, for example, produces, besides gasoline, diesel oil and fuel oil, about 20 chemicals such as propanol, butanol, acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, crude phenols, and waxes [2]. About one-third by weight of the total products from the Sasol plant is made in the fixed-bed type reactor using the precipitated iron catalyst and the balance in the entrained fluid-bed reactor using fused magnetite as the catalyst. The main products from the fixed-bed reactors are gasoline (33%) middle oil (16%), and waxes (30%). The entrained fluid-bed reactor, on the other hand, yields 72% by weight of gasoline, 3.4% middle oil, 12.6% alcohols and ketones, and 1% acids. It has been estimated [3] that a Fischer-Tropsch plant producing 1 million tonnes of products per year will require an investment of the order 0[$400 million and the production cost per tonne of finished products will be between $130 and $170, depending on the delivered price of coal and the rates of depreciation and investment chosen. It is evident, therefore, that a Fischer- Tropsch plant designed to produce liquid fuels as such can bardly compete witb crude petroleum at the present price level. The large capital which would be required for a liquid fuel-oriented FischerTropsch plant can probably be better employed toward production of more indigenous crude oil or natural gas at Bombay High, Assam, EFA, and Tripura. A Fischer- Tropsch plant oriented toward production of chemicals can be considered, however, and deserves detailed study. Such a plant can be considered either at the South Karanpura area of Bihar or at the East Ranigunj area of West Bengal.

The relationship of cost of production of oil, methanol and high Btu gas, against the cost of coal is shown in Table 1 .. An annual coal throughput of 6 million tonnes in each of the plants and an average c.alorific value of coals at 6,200 kcal/kg have been assumed for estimation purposes [4 51-

The actual cost of production w:ill be somewhat higher than what is shown

89

o

!!:!S' f-

u.. rIn

<[

e>

z72 r~ r- 1%

<[ tU

61)1[_-__..!..--...._-~

0.60 0·10 0·80 0·90

OXYGEiNlCOAL Kg/1<9

I· gas vield \6) Thermal

. ificati (0) Effect of oxygen-coa rano on J"

FIG. 1. SuspenslDn gas cation. .

effic.iency. (0) Carbon gasified.

ratio carbon oasift.catioD increases with an

that with a fixed stea~/oxygen '.ft. 1'. f~vors the yield of methane and

increase in pressure. High-pressure gasi ca lon..

ificar d onward tranSllIlSSI.On.

facilitates gas pun ca~lOn an . " h ox sen is being commercialized in India

Complete g~iftcatlon of c~al ~lt. c~~l-based fertilizer plants are being for the synthesls of ammonia. wo

TAlCHER COAL STEAM/OXYGEN Kg/nm3 6·2 T06'S

'0 ..
....
~ ..
> 0
o u.I
z i:L
UJ iii
~ <[
'Ll- e>
LI-
W Z
..J 0
Q)
<[ 1%
Z «
a: u
LIJ
:::t:
10-
l;S ...J
0
> CI
>-
Oil
.. 30
....
0
In
<[
e>
3
«
1%
~ 18
LIJ
z
<[
:::t:
t-
WI
Z BL-~~--~~~~~--

12 16

GASIFIER PRESSURE


90

"". """,

~fa::l ~~37

~<!~

OO~ oO~

..:'f'i ri

w
z
g
w
'"
c: ~
~ >-
" "
'" u w w
~ " z ~
" ~ >-
~ ':: ;:: w "
u ~
<i ,.;
'"
0.
E
0
u
5
0
'0
E
:::
if
:.0
~
0
Or D Il=
r "0
<>
~
a.
E
ro
r.j
s
u.. Coal, Chemicals from (India)

TABLE 1

Cost of Coal Rs/t)'

Cost of Production of oil (Rs/t)·

Cost of Production of Methanol (Rs/t )'

Cost of Production of Higb Btu Gas (Rs/Therm.]"

91

60 80 100

990 10 0 1160

700

1.15 1.40 1.50

970

"Sl.OO = Rs. 8.30. "Therm. = [00,000 Btu.

in Table 1 because of the lower quality of coal available, rising capital cost, and investment charges. This table i.s, however indicative of cost structure and comparative prices. Table 1 amply illustrates that long distance transportation of coal to any project site will considerably increase the cost of production, apart from overburdening the already strained transportation system.

Coal Reserves in the Eastern Region

If one takes into account the fact that an economic coal-to-chemicals plant must have a coal throughput of at least 500,000 tlyr and that noncoking coal to be gasified should have less than 24% ash, one realizes that there are not many coalfields in the Eastern Region which can be considered for such complexes. A standard 1500 tid urea plant requires nearly 1 MM t of coal for process and steam, whereas a Fischer-Tropscb synthesis plant producing 1 MM t of liquid products will require 4 to 6 MM t of coal annually depending on the product pattern chosen. Assuming a plant life of 40 yr and that 50% of the coal reserve is mineable, one can conclude that a coalfield must have a proven reserve of at least 40 MM t of suitable quality before it can be considered as the location for a coal-based chemical plant. The coalfields which have good potential in the Eastern Region are shown in Table 2 [6). The Talcher coalfield is not shown as

TABLE 2 Reserves and Properties of Coal in the Eastern Region Considered for the Chemical/Fertilizer Industry

Estimated Calorific
Reserves Ash Value
State Coalfield (MM t) (%) (kcal/kg)
Bihar South Karanpura (Sirka and Argada) 600 15-l8 6050-6400
Bihar Rajmahal (Chuperbhita) 2700 15-20 4800-5600
West Bengal East Ranigunj ~90 14-18 5800-6300
Assam Makurn 200 9-16 6450-6700 Coal. Chemicals from (India)

its coal is already committed to a number of projects. For similar pr?jects ~ other parts of India, coalfields of Disrampm and La~anpur, Singrauli, Kamptee, and Chanda call be considered. The coal depOSIts ofRa}mahallD Bihar and Makum in Assam need detailed geological survey as the data now available are inadequate for planning a coal-based complex.

Newer Coal Gasification Processes

Some second generation coal gasification processes are also in the p:ocess of rapid development. Important among them are synthane Hygas, Blgas, an.d CO2 acceptor processes [7]. Engineering design of demonstration plants IS likely to be completed soon, and commercial plants may be operat~g by the 1980s. All these processes are basically designed to produce synthetIc natural gas. Some of these processes may be further ?evelope? to pro~uce synthesl~ gas for ammonia, methanol, oil, and other chemicals. Union Carbide Company has developed a coal gasification process in which circulating hot ash agg~omerat~s provide the necessary heat for the endothermic steam-carbon r.eactlOns. T~s scheme eliminates the need of extern all produced oxygen which IS a major

element in the cost of production of the gas.

It is being speculated in the United States that the availabilit! of cheap

synthesis gas from coal is a distinct possibility in the near future. It is expected that the cost of synthesis gas may be as low as 2¢b when large coal processmg plants are set up. It is envisaged that production of :tl:ylene fro.m syn gas ~ay also be possible, and cost may beofthe order on to )¢/lb assummgtbat syn gas will be available at 2¢Jlb. Methanol synthesis from syn gas by the ICI process has been practised the world over. Monsanto's newest acetic acid plant involve-s the reaction of methanol with carbon monoxide, which has been found to be economical. Processes for the production of ethylene glycol and glycerol from syn gas have been developed by DuPont and Union Carb~de ..

According to recent reports, the scientists of Union CarbIde have succeeded in converting a mixture of CO and H2 directly to ethylene glycol and glycerol by passing synthesis gas at high pressures and 190 to 230"C overrhodi~m catalyst. The glycols account for 64% of the oxygenated products, WIth weight percent

distribution as follows:

Ethylene glycol 76.5

Propylene glycol 11.75

Glycerol 11.75

The syn gas produced by coal gasification can thus b~ a :ery promising alternative raw material for the production of ethylene dcnvanves F Of many years DuPont operated an ethylene glycol plant in w~ch .for~aldebyde was reacted with CO and H20 under pressure to glycollic aCldwhlCh was the~ reduced to ethylene glycol by hydrogen. Therefore, a large methanol plan

CoaL Chemicals from (India)

93

based on coal cannot only save some gasoline through blending with methanol but can also serve as the raw material for formaldehyde and it derivatives' acetic acid, and ethylene glycol. '

Liquefaction and Solvent Extraction of Coal

Liq.uefa~tjo~ of coal has not received much attention as compared to gasification III recent times. During World War II quite a few commercial plants were set up In Germany for the production of petroleum by hydrogenation of coal and coal tar. In competition with natural petroleum, these plants have long been out of commission. -

Some work in this field is being carried out in the United States. The Bureau of Mines has developed a slurry hydrogenation process, called the Synthoil process, for the production of synthetic fuel from almost any type of coal. It has been claimed that from 1 t of coal (17% ash, 5.5% sulfur), 3 bbl of clean fuel oil are obtained. The cost of production of fuel oil in this process appears to be less than. that ?f petro.leum-derived fuel oil. This oil can also be refined to gasoline or diesel OIl, If desired. However, the eoonomics of the process can be evaluated only after the current plan to build an 8 tid pilot plant materializes. The COED (Cbar ~il Energy Development) process has been developed by FMC for production of char and oil. A pilot plant has been set up with a capacity of36 tid for testing ~oals. A ~odification of the COED process is the COGAS process for convertmg char into gas.

. Engineering design of demonstration plants for proving these new processes will take some tune to develop. Investment patterns and the economics of commercial plants may be known only after the 1.9805.

Apart from gasific~tion and liquefaction of coal, high sulfur, high ash coal can be refined more effectively for direct use by extracting coal with a solvent .. A proces~ has been de~eloped by Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining Co., a subsidiary of Gulf 011 Co., to produce low sulfur, low ash solids from hizh sulf~r, high ash coal. These ~01id5, having low sulfur and low ash on delay:d coking at low temperature Will produce coke, which may be utilized for making carbon electrodes and calcium carbide. The results from preliminary operation of a pilot plant to produce solvent-refined coal are expected to be available soon.

U.S .. Steel has recently conceptualized a multiproduct process, called the clean coke pr~cess, for the production of gasoline, oils chemicals, gas, and coke from. noncoking coals. In this process a portion of coal is carbonized in a fluidized bed to produce a char which on briquetting curing, and carbonization p~oduces metallurgical coke. Another portion of crushed coal is hydrogenated with slurry 011. The liquid product of hydrogenation is treated to yield ethylene, hydrogen, fuel gas, etc.

In a re~ort submitted in 1970, Dr. E. E. Donath, who bad been a coal hydrogenation expert in G~rmany during World War II, found that the high sulfur coal of Assam was suitable for hydrogenation for producing liquid fuels


94

and chemicals. The report stated that synthetic oil produced by coal hydrogenation is an excellent raw material for the manufacture of phenols and aromatics. The ethane and propane fraction of the off-gas can be easily cracked into ethylene and propylene. Dr. Donath estimated that a 30,000 bblld coal refinery as shown in Fig. 4 would require a capital investment of$190 million [8]. The plant would produce from a total feed of6600 tId of coal. and 500 tId of hydrogen (requiring 60 MM ft3 of locally available natural gas), about 3000 tId of kerosene and diesel oil, 300 tid of BTX aromatlcs, 190 tid of ethylene and propylene, and 160 tid of phenol and cresols. Such a plant, according to this report, could produce liquid fuels for about $25/t if the chemicals could be sold at the then international price. These figures, when corrected for the price escalation during the last 4 yr, compare favorably with the cost of producing liquid fuels by the Fischer-TIOpsch synthesis. However oommercially proven and currently operating technology is available for Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, while it will take several years of development work with Assam coal before all the design information on a coal hydrogenation plant in Assam can be made

available.

Conclusion

In the present context of the energy crisis and the increase in the price of petroleum products, lndia should put high priority on development of the coalbased chemical industry. Valuable chemical by-products from high temperature carbonization plants should be more efficiently recovered. Producer gas or fuel gas of higher heating value made by coal gasification can provide the

necessary fuel requirements in the steel plants.

B suitable rearrangement of processing schemes in individual plants,

fractions of tar products may be collected in a centralized plant for downstream processing to yield chemicals- The process of low-temperature carbonization of noncoking coal both in static bed and ftuidized bed has been developed in India at CFRJ, Dhanbad, and RRL, Hyderabad, Capital investments on L.T.C. projects are reasonable, with minimum foreign exchange involvement.

Total gasification of coal is the key step in the production of chemicals and fertilizers on a large scale. As gasification plants have to be large for the economlC production of chemicals, two or three large coalfields in the Eastern Region should be earmarked for such projects. Proven technology is available for producing liquid fuels and chemicals from coal by the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. A detailed study should be undertaken on the feasibility of installing a Fiscber-Tropsch synthesis plant in West Bengal/Bihar which would provide

the maximum benefit -cost ratio.

Another coal complex. to convert syn gas to ammonia and methanol

together with the downstream chemical units is also a very good possibilitJ in

the Eastern Region.

Coal in the Makum area of Assam is likely to be suitable for hydrogenatiOo..

Howe er, detailed geological data on the coal deposit are necessary befoJll


II'l _J

0:« tu~ I-.Z LLtu

:13 I

W LL,Q

i=O-;,_j t=zl-UJ zoolll «_",tu

=>ti~o

a=>

_J 0 I III 0 I

=> 0:: •

U. n, I

I ,

--'

,00

~_J

t- ill ell'l ",Ill

..,_0

.___

-c ,QI ~ t":1: t-a_

~«

",z

I t

III 0: Z ..... tu "'VI 1-0

00;: <Ow ~~

z o

o z ~,_ crZ 0« u.--' wo._

0:

I« _J

--' tVI

o

o

..... .. l-

e

'"" o

~

<!)'r-------------_j

It- -

(5

C!l Z Z u::

w a:: o a:: o :> :J:.

_J

(5

<1.

a::

::::l <f)

,_ «

«, <!)

z i LL---

1-_____ 15·

1---------

r - - - - .. - - - - -

I

I I

__ .J

95

164

Coal, Coking and Metallurgical. Supply and Demand

of ovens. At present it is estimated that old ovens, accounting for about onefourth of the productive capacity will soon have served their normal life expectancy.

Note: The United States faced a similar problem of inadequate productive capacity because of aging coke ovens in 1950 just prior to the start of the Korean war. The problem was brought into focus when the National Security Resources Board, by a special survey, determined that the physical condition of slot-oven plants in the United States was such that the nation faced a loss of more than 3 milJion tons of coke per year because 45% of the ovens in operation at that time were 25 years of age or older. Because of national defense considerations the problem was resolved by a federal program of accelerated tax amortization that applied to both reconconstruction and expansion of facilities. The number of ovens built or rebuilt under this program cannot be determined, but according to published Bureau of Mines figures, productive capacity increased 7 million tons during the period 1950-1955 and the number of ovens over 15 years of age declined to 35% of the total. This rebuilding program virtually carried the coke industry into the present era, because only 4250 ovens with an estimated productive capacity of28 million tons, have been constructed or rebuilt during the past 20 years.

3. Industry sources have reported that the 64 million tons of slot-ovencoke production in 1973, which amounts to 86% of the estimated theoretical maximum annual productive capacity, was the total the industry was capable of producing. These reports are probably correct because imports of coke increased to 1.1 million tons in 1973 about seven times the average quantity imported annually during the previous 5 years.

4. It is expected that, with no revolutionary changes in technology, the blast furnace will continue to produce the bulk ofthe iron output of the United States throughout 1985 and that con entional coke will remain the dominant blast furnace fuel,

5. On tbe basis of projections of future probable iron demand and assuming a continuing decline in blast furnace coke rates, coke demand in the United States in 1985 should range between 65 and 70 million tons.

6. Assuming further that current rebuilding will only maintain present production levels, an expanded program of oven construction would be needed to assure that coke supplies wi1l be adequate for expected demand in 1985. The net capacity deficit at that time without additional rebuilding probably would range between 5 and 10 million tons.

This article was taken from a U.S. Department of Interior publication of the U.S. Bureau of Mines by Eugene T. Sheridan and George Marken.

Bibliography

Hamilton,P. A., White, 0.. H.., Jr., and Matson, T .. K., "The Reserve Base of U.S. Coals by Sulfur Content (in Two Parts). 2. The Western States, ' u.s. Bur. Mines, Inf. Circ- 8693.6(1975).

Coal. Construction of Conversion Vessels

Thomson, R. D., and York, H. F., "The Reserve Base eru.s. Coals by Sulfur Content (in Two Parts). L The Eastern States" U.S. Bur. Mines, Inf. Circ. 8680, 5 (1975).

IReferences

1. P. Averitt, "Coal Resources of the United States. January 1, 1974," U.S. Geol. Surv., Bull., 1412,14-15,20 (1975).

2. P. H. Mutschler, "Impact of Changing Technology on tbe Demand for Metallurgical Coal and Coke Produced in the United States to 1985," U.S. Bur. Mines, In! Cire.86 ,7 (1975).

Edited by JOHN J McKETTA

Coal, Construction of Conversion Vessels

Introducti,on

Construction of the so-called second generation coal conversion plants will require many large pressure vessels. This presentation will review the appearance of these vessels, tbeir important design considerations, and how they will be built. Specifically, insight will be given to how a fabricator will be approaching the following problems:

1. Vessel design

2. Schedule considerations

3. Shipping

4. Fabrication

5. Field assembly

6. Quality control

These six item are presented in the logical order that they are considered in the planning of a project. However, they are not independent, as the fabricator will take each item into account at each step and iterate the group until an acceptable project plan is developed. Ideally, the fabricator and owner work closely together to develop an optimum plan. With close collaboration, the project is assured of minimum costs, quicker deliveries and optimum vessel design.

165

166

Coat. Construction of Conversion Vessels


Construction Materials

Vessel 'Design

It must remain the responsibility ofthe owner or the process designer to specify the materials of construction. This is only logical, as be is the only one with full knowledge of the vessel's operation. The fabricator has to build the unit and, within certain limitations, he can normally fabricate any material selected. However, the owner is the one who will operate it to his own requirements.

The selection is simpler than one would imagine. From a practical standpoint, the many materials specified in the ASTM material standards reduce to the fi e logical candidates listed in Table 1. The A516-70 carbonmanganese material is usually selected by process designers when design thickness remains under 3 in. and temperatures are less than 700GF. As design thicknesses increase, low alloy materials with greater strength are utilized. A302-C and A533-B are prime candidates. These materials, with identical chemistries. have nickel added for strength and toughness and molybdenum added for retention of strengths at higher temperatures. Supplementary requirements such as vacuum degassing, electric furnace, and quench and tempering may be important, particularly in the heavier thicknesses. This improves the notch toughness even further. The heavier vessels will probably adopt either of these materials as long as the operating temperature is under 700°F.

When temperatures exceed this limit or when the presence of hydrogen is significant, the process designer will be considering the chrome-moly series known as A387. Grades 22 and 21 of this specification are shown in Table 1. The addition of chromium guards against hydrogen attack at elevated temperatures. The percentage of chrome and molybdenum to be added will probably be determined from the Nelson Chart shown in Fig. 2. This is an experience chart on hydrogen corrosion that suggests safe working limits for various chemistries. A387-22 02 has been widely used for hydrocracker vessels in the 850 to 87SOF range. A387-21 Cl2 has more resistance to hydrogen in the 850 to 950cF range but exhibits lower creep and stress rupture strengths. Consequently, it has seen limited use. Above these parameters, other grades will have to be considered .. Above these temperatures, the prooess designer might want to consider varying his design conditions, as significant cost trade-offs may be available. A little lower hydrogen partial pressure or lower design temperature could end up saving significant costs, as the higher chrome materials (3 chrome to 7 chrome) become more expensive to purchase and fabricate. The fabricator can offer a number of helpful suggestions in this area.

Typical Pmameters

. . .' cr be called a typical conversion vessel for this new

Figure 1 Illustrates wh~t might h I G T Hygas Process. Two or tbree such industry. It IS the.gaslfier for t e ... ·lsiz;gasificationplant.Eachvesselis

vessels :will ~ ~equ~ed for')~~Yf~~=e~~: total~ weight of each unit will exceed over 7 Ill. thic an ov~r - e other second generation processes 2000 tons. The converSiOn vessels for mo~t ~ 1 15 Ib/in 2

. . .. I 0 desi zn reVIewed operates as ow as . ,

have similar credentla s. ne esig t 900°F The size

3600 Ib/· 2 Temperatures range up o·

while others range up to . . ill··8 t 30 ft in diameter. Overall heights are

of vessels seems 10 be varying from 0... .'.. to 3000 tons

..,. m about 30 to 250 ft .. The weight of anyone urut IS up .. .

ranging fro . 1. ·ll·b·b ilt of low alloy steels. Most u. ruts WIll

T .,. 11 the thicker vesse s wt em. . .

ypicai Y'. I . h. f bricated but shipped to the site in pIeces. Assemb~y

not be complete y s op a . . d heat treatment will be performed m

. 1 t d i the final pOSItIon an

;:!~~~ ~::: v::se;~ ~11 be small en:~g~e:~~e r~:~~~e~::~~s a::;:~~. ~~

technology for ~~Lldlll~ ~b~h?:UantitY of structures now in service. However, estabtished, as e 1 ~nce Y 1 .ill b the heaviest pressure vessels ever built.

many coal converSIOn vesse s w e

II

RAW GAS

COAL SLURRY

DIAMETER 2:4'10 X 19'-4"10

H'E'IGHT 220' OVERAUL .

DESIGN PRESSURE 1265psi!-'650°F CODE-ASME. DIVIS'ION 2 MATERIAL-A302-C

WEIGHT 2050 TONS WITHOUT INTERNALS

TWO OR THREE UNITS PER PLANT

Structural Analysis

I"

74"

STEAM AND OXYGEN

ASH SLURRY

These vessels will normalJy be built to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Unfired pressure vessels (those that do not generate steam as a primary function) are designed and built under Section VIn of the code. This document is completely adequate to handle tbe design function, and a separate code dealing only with coal conversion vessels is not necessary. While two divisions of Section VIII of the

FI G. 1. LO.T. Hygas gasifier.

167

168



169

1300

, 6.0cr·0.5 1.10 STEEL

/"3.0cr-0.51.10 STEEL

1000

,.-2.25cr -1;0 1.10 STEEL

,r 2.0cr-0.5 1.10 STEEL

'" 0 0 0 V""\ -0 -::l
0 -0 I!)
,..., - --0 V""\ - N ''_ <lJ t q ~
~ 6 ei 0 - '"'"' () .... co c
I I -0 Cl..-U a. <l"\ 0- 0
I cr,
0 .,.., IlJ E t: 8 M .... e
c> 0 r-; .b Q ~ ~
N r, c; - ::;
I 0 0 N 0'-0
l""- E -0
co c .. c
C"') 0 ~ 0 '"
-< "Z
V"\ 0 0 0 0 -0 "0
N ~ o.n - ..,., IlJ "0 2 ~ ~
._ <J C! 00 C!
0 'Y 0 - N <> r 0 b a
, v ;:!'u c, . ", .... r-
I I!) E N N on _ e-
N 0 0 0 j:J c c e 2::.-
N <'"I O':! q ~ ID: ~
.- '~
I 0 0 N "" 0"'-0
r- E "0
00 C ,_ C
<'1 0 ol 0 '"
.-:: Z
on 0 0 <:> 0 -;:j
o ~
,..., '0 r"! r-; ~ '""' r-;
0 - c c 0 IlJ <-: b
-I 0 I I a. 'D -o 0
s:: N N
''I") ..,., 0 V") "0 t::..
a:l - ~ ~ <1) B
-: ..<:
I - ci c 0 <.)
<') C -0
<') <> c
V"l .::> ';0
-c o
If) 0 0 0 0 -0 iZ'
"0 .,
M v: ('") r-; '-0 ....
ei .0 <J I!) <-: r-; 0
.0 _. 0 ""0 ..<: a. -..0 0
C) I I I , <.) C '-0 0
'-1 C P N ('oj
I V"I V"l 0 V") 5 t::..
,.......; ~ ~ <.> N
N - ::> -
C - 0 0 0 "" cr ;;)
f'"1 § ""0
.-:: ..... c >
0 0 ""' 0
z TEMP.F 800

600

0.51.10 STEEL

"-. 0.25 1.10 STEEL

400

"-.. CARBON STEEL

2000

2500

3000

500

1000

1500

HYDROGEN PARTIAL PRESSURE psi abs

FIG., 2. Selection of steels for hydrogen.

code are available these heavy vessels should be analyzed and built in accordance with Division 2. This document requires more analysis, more examination during construction, but permits a higher basic design stress. However, the process designer should be aware that the code does not permit a design temperature greater than 900°F, and this level is on.ly applicable to A387-22., Above this level, creep and stress rupture can be significant, and Division 2 does not include rules for analyzing these conditions. In fact, fatigue curves are given only for temperatures up to 700"F. Code Case 1489 permits higher temperatures with Division 1 allowable stresses if the service is noncyclic. Code Case 1473 permits short-time operation at higher temperatures, but restrict the stress level. This is applicable to catalyst regeneration cycles and other special conditions. Stainless steel attachments and bolting are covered under Code Cases 1450 and 1480, respectively.

Division 1 provides rules beyond the 900°F level, and it might be possible to design a vessel to higher temperatures. However, the resultant thickness may produce an uneconomical design. The alJowable stress levels in Division 1 fall off rapidly after about 850°F, so a refractory-lined vessel may prove more attractive. Here again, close commun.ication with the fabricator will prove invaluable.

Building these big heavy-walled vessels to Division 2 may place obligations on the buyer that are unfamiliar to him. It is the buyer's responsibility to furnish the fabricator with a certified design specification in accordance with Paragraph A-301 of Division 2. This document must be certified by a registered professional engineer. In addition to the conventional design parameters of temperature and pressure, all secondary design conditions must be documented. Significant forces imposed on all penetrations must be furnished. Thermal transients associated with start-up, operation, and shutdown must be detailed for the entire vessel and all the nozzles. This requires the buyer to consider and specify significant temperature gradients and loads imposed through attachments. Wind, earthquake, or other conditions must be outlined .

The cyclic nature of the service must be specified. If noncyclic, a simple statement of the fact suffices. If a cyclic service is anticipated the conditions

v:
Q
of>
'"
'" 0
> r-
t: I
0 '-0
.~ .,..,
.... -<
<1)
;;.
Cl
0
U
~
0
U
~
'"
~,
....
E
:<:
~.
.-
w
_.I
Dl
<t
1- r-OO MM<'"I

ci·~ 0

I I <n ..,.,

~...-: 00

170

Coal, Construction of Converston Vessels


Design

Procure & Receive Materials

Fabricate

Ship

Field Assemble

4 ,

Months

16 20

44 48

8

12

24

28

32

171

must be described in detail. The specification can determine ira fatigue analysis will be required or if the evaluation can be left to the fabricator. From the information available to date it appears that most of these new coal gasification processes are noncycl.ic.

Design Limitations

Mills can currently produce the materials discussed to about 14 in. in thickness. Allowing a margin for thinning, scaling during formation, and other factors suggests a thickness limitation of approximately 13 in. I umerous nuclear reactors and petroleum vessels have been constructed in these heavier thicknesses and there is no particular problem associated with this variable. When the materials are available, the fabricators will probably be able to build thicker vessels.

There are virtually no limitations associated with the diameter and length of a vessel. Vessels too large to be shipped from the fabricator's plant assembled can be shipped in small sections for assem bly at the project site. These pieces can either be completed rings or parts of rings. In either case, the nozzles will usually be installed in the shop.

The previous section mentioned briefly that there would be an operating temperature limitation associated with creep and stress rupture problems. As long as the vessel design temperature is 850°F or less, construction is practical. Exceeding this limit may be possible, but each case will have to be examined carefully. At tbis stage of development temperatures over 900"F appear to be impractical for heavy-walled vessels.

40

I

I

I I

Project Schedule

It may take as long as 4 years to construct a heavy-walled coal conversion vessel. Figure 3 depicts a simple schedule for a field-assembled structure. The times shown can be considered conservative for long-range planning. However, these values do fluctuate considerably and depend on the availability of materials and workloads in a fabricator's plant. Heavy plates are only available from one domestic source and two foreign sources. Their mill capacities are limited and there are many demands for their special products.

In general, a fabricator may spend about 6 months on design work before lie orders materials. It then may take as long as a year to receive materials so that fabrication can begin. Deliveries at this time are running well under this duration, but demand is expected to increase in the not too distant future. Fabricating rings, installing nozzles and building the heads for field assembly can be anywhere from a year and a half to 2 years, depending on the.size of the vessel and the number of fittings. Eighteen months has been shown as typical. Shipping takes very little tim; as most of it takes place wbile field work is proceeding. Assembly, heat treating, and testing can consume up to 2 years to complete the project. While this may seem long, it can often be shorter than a shop-assembled vessel. Shipping and setting a shop-assembled unit can take

HG.3. Feasible construction schedule.

se~eral mOl~ths, fo.llowed by additional time for the installa tion 0 f internals and re r~ctlory.n .addition, the delivery ofa large unit in one piece often requires a

specIa path through th ~ . .

. . .. e con:>truchon complex for clearance Thu dditi 1

tune can b 1 t·· Ietino r . sal iona . .' e os. In ~ompetmg the rest of the facilities. However, b workinc

closedly W1thb the fabfJc~tor early in the plant design stage, significant time can b; save On t e completion date.

Shipping

~hippi:gplan_s playa major role in how a vessel is built. Transponingthe vessel ro~ t e fa?fJcator:s plant ~o its final support pad in a practical manner is the ~~~ ~~i~er:: us~d In deciding w.hetber it sh?uld .be shop or field assembled. . mmd,. the first thing to consider IS the site location and its transportanon arterres.

Assuming the plants will b b ·1 . h .

. . .1 e Ul t near t ,e coal mmes narrows the 10 t·

down to are ·th J d . .. . .. ca Ions

i o bl as WI coa eposits. FIgure 4 is an overlay of the United States

naviga . e :vaterways on the coal deposits. This reveals that some Eastern lants may be b~Jt cI?se enough to ~ater to allow completed vessels to be deli ve~.d b barge .. WIth this mode the lImItatIOns will be on handling and settin g at the sit y

The We t it hi ... ~.. .e 1 e.

" s ern SI es, W ch are likely to have most of the construction activit

have virtually no waterways close by and must rely on rail and perha y,

over-the-road haUling. Railroads do go through aU major coal areas as can b«

172


~ SUB BITUMINOUS ~ LIGNITE _ ANTHRACITE

UNfTED STATES OF AMERICA

St4LE ~ MlL~S

, 0 100 200 300 400 ~

,- ._ .. __ ."_ ... __ ,_q.~ . . ,------ ....... - .... -,-.- .. - .. - •. -- ....... -------,-.-,--. ----_ ... __ ... _._._::..._.::.:_. --i

I'

FIG. 4. United States coal deposits and waterways.

seen from Fig .. 5. Only the main trunklines are shown here. If there are spurs into the sites, then it may be possible to deliver assembled vessels that are not too large .. Limitations imposed by the railroads dictate that overall widths not exceed about 15 It, or heights of about 21 ft. The length is also a criteria, but more nebulous. There is also a weight limitation of about 600 tons which many structures will exceed. In general, this applies to shipments We t of the Mi sissippi. East of the Mississippi is even more restrictive.

Over-the-road hauling is also a possibility in some sections of the country (Fig. 6). West of the Mississippi clearances are often large enough to ship completed vessels with special carriages. There have also been isolated cases in the East where this has been practical. A number of nuclear reactors have been transported for relatively short distances this way, but the application is limited by the high expense. It will not be practical to consider road hauling even for very short distances if weights exceed 600 or 700 tons.

For these reasons, any time a vessel exceeds 13 to 15 It in diameter, or exceeds 550 to 600 tons, field assembly should be considered. In general. if hauling and setting approximates, or exceeds, 25% of the vessel cost, then.fie~d assembly may be more economical. As reviewed earlier, field assembly will invariably show a time savings.

Coal. Constructi,on of Conversion Vessels

173

UN TEO STATES 0= AMt:RICA

fZ:Z2'2I' 'BITUMINOUS ~ SUB BITUMINOUS .~ LIGNITE

i

'';;'11 t\-.~<>,._

~ ... \

- ANTHRAGITE ~~ "P.; ~ =- .. vo• ~~.~~.e

o

i .~._~_" ._ .. ._""_ .. ._. __ .. . -,---.------.-----~ __ ~~" .. _i

SCoO:lE OF I\J LES

o 00 zoo 300 4CQ

, 'J

FIG. 5. United States coal deposits and railroads.

FIG. 6.. Over-the-road shipment.

174


Fabrication

Following a decision on shop or field assembly, the vessel will be detailed and scheduled for fabrication. Fabrication is basically forming fitting welding,

examination, and quality control.

Plates up to 3 or 4 in. Me normally formed in a set of plate bending rolls

although this practice varies from one fabricator to another. Some switch to press forming after about 2 in. onnally, eveI)'tbing over 4 in. thick is press formed. Figure 7 shows a 6-in. ring that was formed in two pieces. As the thickness increases, or the radius decreases the strain of forming increases to unacceptable levels. On a chrome-moly material, 3% strain is a practicalli:mit, w bile a more ductile carbon steel can approach 7%. To exceed these parameters, the plate must either be~ormed hot or stress relieved each time the strains reach the limit. Figure 8 depicts a hot pressing operation. In general, intermediate beat treatments are used with oold forming to 7 or 8 in. Materials over9 in. thick are usually hot formed. The mode of forming is usually a function of the material specification, the plate widths, tbe welding procedures, and the

preference of tbe metallurgist in charge.

All long seams for vessel sections that are not formed and heat treated are

electro lag welded. Not only does this process show superior costs, the

1

FIG.7. Cold press forming.


175

FIG. 8. Hot press forming.

~~~~~t~~~~:n:~l:n~~~~h~~~(Jtreatm~nt is superior to other methods.

to the prescribed tolerances .. pe "" operation hot formed nngs are re-pressed

1 The round seams joining successive rings are submersed-arc weld d . th e ectroslag process does not demonstrate d .. . .~. '", e ias e require low alloy plate to be postheated g~? pr~pertle.s. Both processes treatment can be {: . can. muous y until a complete heat

per armed. Heat treatment IS required on thick teri 1

preve t . kin . . .. llJ maena s to

. n crac g, to reheve stresses caused by weld shrinkage at d t dri

trapped ?ydrogen out of the weld material. ., no ro c lye any

Quality assurance emphasizes close examination of all weldinz .'

shows the X-ray operation on a 10 in thi k . d .~. Flgure.9

-. c roun seam The rna bin h

can expose material u to ab . 1511.. . c e sown built with all thei h IP] out. 12 1~. thick. Coal conversion vessels will be

. ... . . elr s e .. seams 100% radiographed d . ...

~~~, re1'": ':'" to be ultrs .. sotdcally exammeda~I:::~~~;=~';,' ::::

may::n :e u:erf~;~:~l::~~r:~~:~s ~~=:~~u;::~~::;~~:~::Ct:~:~~~

176



117

vessels the separate plates delivered will b ... . .

ground before stacking. e joined into complete rmgs on the

T~e size of each piece to be stacked in lace. i d ' ' . " .

capacity of the available lifting e ui: p ,s etermined by the maximum

2S0-ton derrick although 500 t~ q ~ment. Th~se ~essels '1',1]11 probably use a

, ~ on units may be Justified _.

general, the larger the piece, the less work b',,' ,on certain _projects. In leads to lower costs. However. there are to e c~mpleted at the Site, and this

evaluated carefully. ' exceptions and each case must be

The assembly tasks will amount to v li I . .

been pre-fit and marked in the h e6' tt e work ~s aU the pieces will have sop. nee each piece IS set in place and

FIG. 9. Radiographic inspection.

Field Assembly

The field work entails assembly of the components built in the shop. This normally consists ofthe bottom head with the support skirt attached (Fig.l0),a number of completed rings and a top head. However, some of these projects will require individual plates to be shipped for assembly into rings at the site. The Hygas vessel in Fig. 1 may even require the heads and skirts to be shipped

in pieces for the reasons discussed earlier.

The field work can then be itemized as the following tasks:

1. Handling the pieces

2. Assembly

3. Welding

4. Heat treating the welds

5. Testing

6. Inspection

The handling operations inVOlve unloading the pieces received froIll t~e shop and setting them in final place. These vessels will be built on the~r permanent foundations in the upright position. Therefore, the operation IS essentially stacking one piece on top of auother (see Fig. 10). On the larger

FIG. 10. Field assembly.

178


Coal, Const,ruction of Conversion Vessels

179

-

FIG. 11. Field welding.

temporarily fastened down, the seam can be cleaned inspected, preheated, and welded. These operations are depicted in Fig. 11 ... The bar above the seam is the edge of the electrical preheat units covered by insulation. The welding, as shown in the figure, will be manual and will be performed inside a temporary enclosure. The enclosures are equipped with air conditioning and lighting to achieve an environment equivalent to shop conditions.

The preheat applied to the seams will have to be maintained until the welding has been completed the work inspected, and the seam postweld heat treated. The examination procedures will consist of visual examinations. magnetic particle inspections, and ultrasonic probes while the material is still hot. Once it has cooled down after heat treatment the seams will be ultrasonically examined again and then radiographed.

The techniques for field heat treating have been developed over the years so that just about any size structure can be processed. While there are some restrictions on vessel geometries, they do not appear significant for coal conversion vessels. There may be some problems associated with material thickness that requires prolonged heat treatment which in turn can influence mechanical properties. However, these can be solved by carefully selecting the vessel's operating conditions. The most suitable material can then be matched

to the conditions prescribed. .

The field heat treatment will be accomplished by wrapping the vessel with insulation as shown in Fig. 12. Heating will then be by luminous flame on the inside of the vessel, Fig. 13). Most of the coal conversion vessels will have to be

heat treat.ed in stages because the height to diameter ratios wi .

Vessels with lower ratios similar to Fiz 12 b. . ill be very large. Staging involves a n ,b . "': ,can e p~ocessed m one operation. bottom of the struct:e anerd of suocde~s]ve overlappmg heats, starting at the

. procee mg to the top.

Tbe ASME Code renui

. .' 0 e requires that ali structures be tested in 0 d t . .

code certification This will be accomplished b fillin. r, er 0 receIve pressurizing it to th ib d." Y ~ the vessel", ith water and and all its seams w~Ptrhesecn e clondltJh·. ons. A final mspection ofthe structure

n comp ete t e field work.

Concluding Remarks

While coal conversion vessels will b h '. . .

built to date the complexity of tb e ~avler t?an most hIgh-pressure vessels

exists ,'.. . . .e projects WIll not be new. The technolo

now to build any of the structures that are being proposed for co~

I

~r~j .....

.,..... 1',,1f ~-~_J~ ..

.' ~. ~ --.~.<=<.

~. - I'!' ---

, .

~

I

F,IG. 1.2. Field heat treating.

180


Coal, Costs of Clean Burning


There are as many as two dozen ways to use coal as a fuel. They vary from the direct firing of low-sulfur coal to the burning of low- or medium-Btu gases derived from processes still in development.

In between those extremes is a spectrum of both generic and proprietary approaches:

1. Intermittent generation controls to cut the volume of sulfur dioxide emissions when ground level concentrations get too high ..

2. Filters and scrubbers to clean combustion products before they go up tbe stack.

3. Washing and chemical cleaning schemes to remove sulfur, as well as particulates, ahead of the combustion process.

4. lew combustors and combustion processes that minimize the release of

sulfur compounds.

5. Liquefaction processes (like those for gasification) that convert coal s heating value to an entirely different, clean, efficient form.

But is there a best way to use coal? Which way? How does one decide?

Selecting a Yardstic'k

A yardstick is necessary to guide research and development (R&D) efforts 00 behalf of utilities. Designing and applying that yardstick has been the aim of a tecbnical analysis conducted by Electric Power Research Institute's EPRI'S) Fossil Fuel and Advanced Systems Division [l}. The methodology and conclusions of that work are summarized here.

What follows, then, focuses on the yardstick, its construction, its precision and its application. The measurement unit is busbar electric power cost, figured in 1975 dollars and expressed in mills/k Wh. Distinctions are not made between aod within individual coal technologies, other than, to name them and to characterize them by their sulfur removal capabilities.

The evaluation was limited to 10 options (Table 1).

Because all the candidate technologies are seen as options for limiting S02' even low busbar power costs would be meaningless if the options could not reasonably be expected to meet environmental standards. EPRI's work included some assessment of future sulfur removal requirements based on projected coal utilization, environmental standards, and coal quality.

The remaining stages of the study were devoted to estimating the capital costs for coal cleanup or conversion plants to meet the calculated sulfur

181

FIG. 13. field heat rrcating.

. d no development work is required. If the vessel fabricator has an

converSIOn, an . desi then the structure

opportunity to optimize the design w~th the ~rocess esigner, . . .

will meet at] requirements WIth rmmmum time and cost.

This material appeared in Energy CommuniCiltions 2, 133-157 (1916).

WILLIAM L. mCKLEN

182

Coal. Costs of Clean Burning

TABLE 1 Ten Clean Ways to Burn Coal

Sulfur

Method

Direct firing pulverized low-·sulfur coal . .

D· . fi . p'ulverized high-sulfur coal with wet alkali scrubirect ring,

bing and on-site sludge disposal . .

. fi . 1 ized hi'gh-sulfur coal With regenerative

Direct nng, pu venz ' . f

scru bbing (using h ydro gen produced on site) and reduction 0

"as to elemental sulfur , oh .

Direct firing, pulverized coal in a fluidized bed at atmosp enc

pressmewlth dry limestone added to the bed

Direct firing, pulverized solvent-refined coal

Liquid firing, petroleum-type fuel , . , . .

B firi " '100' -150 Btu/scf) after gasificatton ill

Low- tu gas rmg \ '

moving-bed, dry ash Lurgi gasifier, and Selexol process for

acid gas removal " . .

. B " firi o- (~300 Btu/scf) after gasification m

Medium- tu gas Db' , .

slagging moving-bed gasifier and Selexol process for acid gas

removal

90-95

80- 90

70-90 90-95 >95

>95

>95

>95

• I

. . . f ,70 quads (quadril-

United States energy consumption IS expected ~~ n~e <J ro:; the coal used for

lion Btu) in 1975 to 170 quads III 2000. Consi e~=d~ inY1975 to 30 quads in electricity genration, the need ~lll mcre~se from 11 q ion b electric utilities 2000. This growth implies an increase III coal cons.umpt ,~, 1500 million from 400 million tons in 1975, to 900 million tons in 1985, an to

tons in 2000. 1 fir d power plants, a

Based on a 3% annual replacement rate for coa.-,. e ,,' .. , .ve to meet

. , .' lent to 300 million tons (of 19758400 million] Will hac ,,£\I1lL...-

eapacrty equiva u " (NSPS) in the year £.1,JoJV' what are caned new-source performance standards , . limit of

. ., tit the present upper

that is, control of sulfur errnSSlons to a . eas . , ". b 1100 million tonS

0.6 Ib/106 Btu. Of course, the capacity growth represented y


will be similarly governed. Thus, by the turn of the century, more than 90% of United States utility coal-fired plants may be subject to SPS levels.

M ore Stringent Controls

But what is the likely level, or stringency, of sulfur control? Of course, it is not certain what action various federal, state and local agencies engaged in environmental regulation will take.

SPS at 0.6 Ib/l06 Btu sulfur in coal is a likely upper limit on control requirements. State implementation plans for primary ambient air quality, possible new national ambient air quality standards, and limited and controlled growth provisions within the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) policy for preventing significant air quality deterioration are projected to result in a sulfur limit of about 0.4 Ibj106 Btu. Although much less certain, control of sulfates could further reduce sulfur emission levels to about 0.2 Ib/106 Btu (and also call for control of precursors such as trace metallic catalysts and ammonia). A reasonable expectation is that sulfur levels may be controlled, on average, to 0.2 to 0.4 Ib/106 Btu by the year 2000.

It should be noted that today's strategies and standards apply only to the direct firing of coal. There are no formal emission regulations for coal conversion processes orfor power plants fueled by tbeir products. However, in at least one case [Lurgi dry ash gasification and cleanup trains for synthetic natural gas (S G) production], EPA is considering even more stringent requirements that would call for emission levels comparable to those from the resource replaced (natural gas). The implication is that separate control requirements might be placed, for example, on a gasification or liquefaction plant (considered as a refinery) and on a power plant fired with synthetic gas or petroleum-type fuel. Certainly, this would add significantly to the processing costs for fuel conversion. However, in its study EPRI adopted for each conversion process a range of sulfur removal capability that can achieve the 0.2 to 0.4 Ib/l06 Btu sulfur level also assumed for direct-fired plants.

183

firi (100 1"0 B·u/scf) after !J'asification in

Low-Btu gas mg , .- _.t . '"

atmospheric, two-stage entrained gasifier and Stretford pro-

ces for acid gas removal . . .

Medium-Btu gas firing (~300 Bru/scf) after gastiicatton in pressurized, two-stage entrained gasifier and Selexal process

for acid gas removal

ti busbar power costs for each removal requirement and. the.n . compu ni ed in both baseload and incandidate technology as It might be emp oy

termediate generation modes.

Coal Quality and Sulfur Removal

Annual production of 1500 million tons of coal by the year 2000 is an assumption of the study. The logistic implications for production, processing, and transportation are neglected. So is the competing or overlapping demand for perhaps 850 million tons of coal to be used in synthetic fuel production (SNG, solvent-refined coal,low- and intermediate-Btu gas, and petroleum-type fuels). Some of these would be available to electric utilities, but production "splits" have not been estimated. The focus is simply on the sulfur quality of the coaL

Sulfu'r Criteria

184


Goal, Costs of Gilean Burni:ng

Perhaps 100 million tons of low-sulfur Eastern coal will be available to utilities each year, and from 300 to 600 million tons of low-sulfur Western coal. Low-sulfur coal is considered to be less than 0.5% sulfur by weight; the Western coal runs about 8000 Btu/lb, so its sulfur quality can be expressed as being about 0.6 Ib/106 Btu. It is thus considered capable of meeting today s newsource performance standards without sulfur control measures.

The balance of the coal expected to be needed in the year 2000 will be about 800 to 1100 million tons each year .. It will be high-sulfur (2.5 to 3%) coal, running about 12,000 Btuflb and, therefore, between 2 and 2.5 Ib/l06 Btu. Today's utility coal (overwhelmingly the high-sulfur variety) averages a sulfur content of about 2.4 Ib/106 Btu. Assuming the same average in 2000, the sulfur removal requirement is 83 to 92% to attain likely regulatory levels 0(0.4 to 0.2.

Of the estimated 1500 million tons of coal in the year 2000, some 150 million tons will be burned by the 10% of power plant capacity still exempt from emission controls. Of the balance, some 350 to 650 million tons will be lowsulfur coal requiring only minimal beneficiation. This leaves 700 to IOOOmillion tons of high-sulfur coal likely to need extensive cleaning or conversion .. The average sulfur removal requirement for that coal is in the range of 80 to 90%.

Stated simply. 80 to 90% removal of sulfur will be sufficient to meet projected SOl standards between now and 2000. This is extremely significant because it implies that flue gas desulfurizatiou with today's wet alkali scrubbing process will remain adequate throughout the same period. Wet alkali scrubbing carries with it, of course, the need for either a sludge pending area or some means to dispose of wet slurry.

185

TABLE 2 C .

apita! Costs for Ten Clean Ways to Burn Coal

Base Costa

($jkW)

Uncertainty

(%)

Total Costb (S(kW)

II

, J

Estimating Busbar Power Cost

The yardstick of direct comparison of alternatives takes shape in the dollar estimates of total power plant cost (Table 2).

The estimate for a coal-fired plant with wet alkali scrubbing (and on-site sludge ponding) was used for normalization: Ebasco's estimate was compared with others by Combustion Engineering and by General Electric (for ECAS). This estimate assumed the use of Eastern coal with 3% sulfur content, and all basic plant cost estimates fell within a range of 2%.

Table 2 also lists design heat rates assumed to be attainable in baseload operation. (For intermediate load operation, as in daily cycling, toe heat rate was assumed to be 5% higher.) Other vital assumptions were:

Heal Rate" (BtU/kWh)

Contingency

(%)

1. Conventional team plants-2400 lb/in.", 1000°F superheat, lOO(YF reheat conditions.

2. Combined-cycle plants-2200°F gas turbine inlet temperature and 16:1 pressure ratio coupled to a 2400 lb/in.", 1000°F steam bottoming cycle.

Low-sulfur coal Conventional Steam Plants
High-sulfur coal with alkali 9,000 290 +10 ±IO
PP: 290 375-460
scrubbin.g 9,500 +.10 ±1O}
SR: 50 +20 ±20 48~ -625
High-sulfur coal with 340
regenerative scrubbing 10,000 PP: 290 +10 ±IO}
SR: 150 +20 ±20 575-740
Aunospheric fiuidized-.bed 440
9.500 PP: 340
combustion +20 +25.,-15 450-665
Solvent-refined coal 9,000 PP: 290
BC: 10,000 +15 ±I5 375-500
Petroleum-type fuel 9,000 PP: 190
BC; 13,400 +10 ±1O 250-300
Low-Btu zas movina-bed
dry ash ~L:rgi pro;e.ss ' PP: 190 +10 ±10}
BC: 13,600 SR: 390 760-1,000
+20 ±I5
Medium-Btu aas, slaaoing 580
. b ~ Q~"- BC: 11,300 PP: 190 +10
rno"lllg-bed process +10 }
SR: 255 +20 +25 -15 585-800
Low-Btu gas, atmospheric, 445
two-stage entrained process PP: 190 +10 !~~'-15 }
BC: 10,600 SR: 210 +20 525-710
Medium-Btu gas, pressurized, 400
PP; 190 +10
two-stage entrained process BC: 9,800 +10 }
SR: 155 +20 +25,-15 490-600
345
Petroleum-type fuel Combined-Cycle Plams
7.500 PP: 160
Be: 11,200 +15 ±15 185-250
LOW-Btu gas, movina-bed
dry ash Lurgi process ' 7,500 PP: 160 +15 +15 }
BC: 9,500 SR: 335 +20 ±15 650-875
Mediu~-Btu gas, slagging 495
7,-00 PP: 160 + 15
mOY1!Jg-bed process BC: 9,100 SR: 215 ± 15 }
+20 +25,-15 . 490-695
LOW-Btu gas, atmospheric, 375
7,500 PP: 175 + 15
two-stage entrained process BC: B,400 +15 }
SR:. 180 +20 +25,-15 460-650
Medium-Btu gas, pressurized, 355
7,500 PP: 160
two-stage entrained process BC: 8,150 + 15 +15 }
SR: 130 +20 +25,-15 375-530
---------- 290
'Pp == POwer I .
'lOcllld . p ant. SR· sulfur removal system. Be _ basis coal ( .
es rDC and startup at 30% (except 22% fo . hi coal COD version and power generation).
c r com med-cYCle petroleum-type fuel plant). Base capital cost for each plant is given in mid-1975 dollars per kilowatt. In

186



Direct utilization

Conversion proces.ses

Uque'aclion Gasification

The ranges of bus bar power cost for coal fuel tech I ' .

groups: four options for direct c a] firin .. DO ogles are most easily compared in

ifi . 0 g, two liquefactIOn process d r.

gasi catron processes. In each !!TOU th . . esses, an iour

at the left. Thus among .thedrr'-ect firP~ e pr~sen!--or most ne. arly developed--option is

,. - mooptlODS ea hi' ,

power than power from I '_ I' e .,' c resu ts ill successively more costly

ow su rur coal without cont JAm' processes, however, the more advanced-and at the ro s. ong the gasificarioi, produce markedly cheane , moment, more uncertain-versions ........ ~r power,

187

each case this figure consists of total construction cost, including contractor's overhead and fee, land cost, and owner's head office costs. It excludes contingency, escalation, and interest during construction, A contingency was then added the amount depending on the degree of definition-for example, 10% for a coal-fired plant but 20% for a stack-gas scrubber.

The accuracy of estimates was considered separately and a range, or band, of uncertainty was assigned, Understandably, wider bands of uncertainty were linked with the less well-defined options that are still in early development. By adding or subtracting uncertainty figures, upper and lower capital cost estimates were obtained. Interest during construction, together with startup costs was applied to each of these plant costs at a ra te 0 f 30%. (The combinedcycle option using petroleum-type fuel is an exception; a rate of 22% was used beca use 0 f a significantly shorter construction period.) The total cost column in Table 2 gives the probable range of capital requirements for each plant.

Capital costs for the solvent-refined coal and petroleum-type fuel options do not include increments for their respective coal liquefaction plants. Costs associated with the liquefaction processes are incorporated in the fuel costs,

- 8aseload~ service. conventional steam plant

, IntermedIate service. conventional Steam oiaru

~ Baseload, setvic«, combined--cycle plant

. Intermediate servioe. combined-cycle plant

.$-
J'
."
0"'>-
'vvol1j
80
70
'2
3:
.x: 60
~
F
C
;;;
0
0
~ 50
3:
a
Q_
B
en
~ 40 I

0.3 and 0.6 ton of limestone per t f I S'

varies from $5 to $20/ton th on 01' ,coa, moe the cost of limestone itself

. . . e resu tmg range of h ' 1

significant, and two levels were computed for use with ~h::Jghca a~~~~ bebcomb·es

cost estImates, respectively. w ' usnar

Operation and maintenance costs were estimated '.'..'

complexity, ranging from 2 mills/kWh for dir ?n th: baSIS of plant

scrubbino) to 4 mill,' sf'kWh .f' bi ect co.al. firing (WIthout stack-gas

e lor a com med-cy I . It' h '

For intermediate cyc1ing service all. fee p an ~lt coal ga~afication.

assumed to be 0,5 milljkWh h'ab .hopera Ion and mamtenance costs were . I., er t an for baseload operation.

, I

Est,ima,ting Capital Costs

r I

The ultimate unit of measurement on this yardstick of coal utilization technologies is mills/kWh, the busbar cost of power from each candidate, Values were calculated for both baseload operation (at 0.65 capacity factor) and intermediate or cycling operation (at 0,35 capacity factor).

Busbar cost comprises both fixed and variable charges, A fixed charge rate of 18% per year was applied to the range of capital costs derived for Table 2. (Current utility experience varies around the United States between about 15 and 22%.) This covers interest on debt, return on equity, depreciation, insurance, and federal, state, and local income and property taxes.

Variable charges include the costs of fuel, chemicals, and operation and maintenance, Two levels of coal cost were investigated, $1/106 Btu and $2/106 Btu, but only the former, which is representative in 1976, was used in the computations for Fig, I. (An exception is the case of direct-fired low-sulfur coal, estimated to cost $1,25/106 Btu because of delivery charges.) Raising the coal cost across the board would increase plant fuel expense by varying amounts, depending on the heat rates of the different options.

Fuel costs for the solvent-refined coaJ and petroleum-type fuel options are based on high-sulfur feed coal at $1/106 Btu, but they also include plant charges for liquefaction. Recent cost estimates for such plants are $2.50 to $2.75/106 Btu and $3,50 to $3.75/106 Btu, respectively,

Chemical costs were found to be negligible for most plants (0.1 to 0.2 millsjkWh), except for the coal-fired plant with wet alkali scrubbing and the atmospheric fluidized-bed combustion plant. In the latter case, for example. stoichiometric requirements for sulfur removal are uncertain but range between

I I

30

FIG. 1,

Coat Costs of Clean Burning

188

Reading the Yardstick

. "fir d 'I ulfur coal comes in with the

. e that direct- e OW-s]

It is perhaps no surpns. , h bid nd intermediate operation: 25 to

lowest bus bar pow:r cost for bot~sel ~a a r is it unexpected that high coal 28 and 36 to 41 Dlllls/k~, res~e~tl~e ) hea~ rates-crenerally, the combined-

costs tend to favor options WIt ower "

cycle plants. . d to date intimately related to

But the most telling conc.lus,lO~ of the sbtlu Y'eds for ~ulfur removal, is that

.. t dards and loreseea e ne

projected emls~lon s an. . t h 0102:Y almost fully developed

direct firing with wet alkali scr_Ub~ng'l a d:p~on ~at 28 to 34 millsfkWh with

today, is the second most attractIVe ase oa ,

mgh-sulfur co~1. in Fia 1) are: (1) busbar power costs for

Other findings (all .ap~arent I 40-~ill range, except for LUIgi low-Btu gas baseload operatIon are In the 25 to ti 1 steam plants ; (2) regenerative and petroleum-type liquids fueling condvehn ILona.,..) and atmospheric fluidized-

d d zasifiers (beyon t e urgn, 1 .

scrubbers a vance '" . bl f use with conventional steam p ants-

bed combustors are all compare e or I t ith wet alkali scrubbing-for

• _1.. 1 expensive than p an S WI . f

and only slight Y more . . . d . (3 1 the combined-cycle versions 0

either baseload or intermediate uty ; on.y f being less costly than low-

ificati rocesses show proIDlse 0 , .

advanced gas caho~ p. .,' troleum-type fuels and medium-

sulfur coal; 4) combmed-Cycl11an~ using ~parable costs for intermediate Btu gas f,rom advanced gas. fier~d. aVdebc~ combustion looks attrac6w, in

. d 15) atmosphenc Ul lze -. e . ,. .

service; an ~ . .·":fi '. t uncertainty III its eCO[}OnllC

basdoad operation, but there IS sigm can

performance.

hi

l I

Using the Yardstick

. , .. n1 the economic benefit that any utility can

The payoff from this study IS ~ot 0 Y I The payoff is also in the beEter

. h"· nnma: coal techno ogy. . .

get by adoptmg t e WI . =. d. '1 a] utilization and coal converSIOn

shaping of R&D emphasis in . jrec e<_> , ,. ,. .

S· , ples suagest the ramIDcatlons.

progJ"am., IX exam . 0

~ bbers because they are

. an ted to research on :;CIU, .

1. ew funding is being oca. t for plants that must complyWltb

the most economically attracuve prospec

tighter S02 emi~sio~ standards. . lant r uirements, all the way from

2. More attention IS being g)v:~ to tot;l p . ew ~ther than a narrow focUS on raw coal to busbar energy. ~ s a Sy~:;v. And it is particularly pertinent one or another coal converSIOn tee ,.,,, e fuel rocesses. For example. for sOlvent-refined c?al and petrole~m-tYPd'fyinuPo-as combustors and gas how can fuel processmg costs be cut, y mo 1 ]0 0

turbines so they can accept lower quaht~~~:i (Hydrocarbon Research.

3. Two major coallIquefaCt1(on processes, ininz encouracrement to produce

Inc.) and Donor Solvent Exxon, are gal . 0 0


189

both utility fuel oil and gas turbine fuels. Major funding is necessary to support the operation oflarge pilot plants (250 to 600 ton/d) for both these processes. In contrast, major pilot plant support is not planned for any other process that yields petroleum substitutes from coal.

4. Coal gasification integrated with a combined-cycle plant remains a high priority because of the need for operating experience with this technology. Three coal gasification schemes are gaining much attention: the slagging moving-bed gasifier (British Gas Corp.) and the partial-oxidation entrained gasifier (Texaco), both for combined-cycle plant application and the atmospheric, two-stage entrained gasifier (Combusion Engineering, Inc.) for fueling a conventional steam plant. Research efforts on the other advanced gasification systems are being cut back.

S. Fluidized-bed combustion (FBe) research is now focused on the atmospheric-pressure process. The pressurized FBC concept is being minimized.

6. The importance of reliable gas-steam combined-cycle power plants is newly evident and getting attention. One major new effort has been the work with utilities and suppliers toward demonstration of an air-cooled gas turbine that can operate in the temperature range of 2100 to 230(YF .

Is Cost the Only Yardstick?

The seeming simplicity of this analyzing of coal technologies suggests the question whether cost is the only yardstick. The answer is yes, but only because it is so nearly universal a way to recognize many variables. A better question seeks to clarify the cost of what.

This discussion has focused on the cost of one factor alone: sulfur removal.

The criterion for the various options was only their design capability to meet projected sulfur control levels of 0.2 to 0.4 Ib/106 Btu with coal having a 2.5 to 3J)% sulfur content (2 to 2.5 Ib/106 Btu).

What must be emphasized is that many other important variables, and their inevitable effects on costs, have knowingly been omitted in the interest of simplicity and so that a guidance scale could be quickly assembled. One example is NOr control. What will be required? How widely? When? By what process means and at what cost?

Similar questions can be asked about siting restrictions, cooling water requirements, and waste disposal, to name a few. Always, the bottom-line question is "At what cost?" As more of these variables are researched and included in the estimates, the busbar power costs will change, and perhaps even the relative ranking of options.

Despite their favorable ranking on the basis of sulfur removal cost, wet alkali scrubbers may not retain their advantage as other Goal technologies show the need for less land area, or a smaller volume of cooling water, 0[' as they exhibit lower overall heat rates.

Mid-term commercialization (that is, between 1985 and 2000) is now the


Coal. Desulfurization Economics

191

190

most remising coal options. Today's simple

earliest for,eseen, for even., ' t, he fP If 'removal enables a mor,e~ocused,

d lIthe cost 0 su ur ,

screening base. so e Y on " d' A the cost implications of other fact.ors are

efficient aUocatlOn of R&D fun s. s d 'arch will reveal the best choices for included. the resultant fully documente ' rese

clean coal utilization.

itation of sulfur emissions from the burning of coal and oil vary from state to state. A federal emission limitation of l.2lb/miI1ion Btu's ofsulfur oxide applies to new large combustion units.

Basically, there are two ways of resolving the sulfur emissions problem.

First, a high-sulfur fuel can be burned with sufficient removal of sulfur oxides from flue gases, or second a fuel (natural, desulfurized, or synthetic) low enough in sulfur to meet regulations can be utilized.

Unfortunately, natural gas, the cleanest burning of the fossil fuels, is in short supply. The addition to natural gas reserves has decreased, while its demand has increased. This increase in demand, coupled with drastically reduced reserve additions, has affected deliverability and most major pipelines have instituted curtailment actions. Large utility and industrial boilers have the lowest priority for the use of gas. Consequently, natural gas cannot be considered for pollution control in large combustion units.

The domestic oil supply situation is similar to that of natural gas. Total supply of domestic oil and natural gas liquids is declining. To offset the declining domestic supply, the nation increased its importation of petroleum. The recent oil embargo disrupted the supply of imported oil. Subsequently, the OPEC nations instituted higher oil prices. These events threatened the quality of life in the nation and highlighted the need for energy independence.

In light of these recent developments in fuels and environmental matters, the authors assessed the features of control methods for attaining sulfur oxide emission limitations for large combustion units burning coal, the nation s most abundant fuel resource. The methods examined were: (1) the combustion of high-sulfurcoal followed by flue-gas desulfurization using throw-away sludge processes and sulfur recovery processes; (2) the burning of solvent-refined coal supplied by a refinery located at a high-sulfur coal mine; and (3) the utilization of naturally occurring low-sulfur Western coal. The economic and intangible trade-offs that exist among these emission control methods are shown.

Modeling Future Capacity

. ble cost data for coal conversion

. f '. t ' t directly compara ,

The eXIstence 0 oonsis en '. . d lina too It s one thing to use the

'bI e mterestlllg mo enng. wv- ~

technologJ.es ena es som. nn f: ltd plants but it would be more

figures for direct companso~" °Tt1SO a :em interaction. Since the expansion meaningful to se, e t. he effects 0 lib, 1 Y StYhs ghout the United States it should

. I tTt systems rou ',' .

models dosely sunu ate u II Y " 1 f each technology in a future national

be possible to better asse~ss the potenua or

generation capacity. . hit swer a perennial question about R&D

Th d lin,· (J should also e P 0 an . 1 .

e rno e <:> • d power "eneratlOn techno ogles, as

Th . coal converSion an . b . . f ti

leverage. e new . n models through, some penod 0 tune,

ti of the expanslo . .

selected by the opera on d th . total economic benefit to the national

can be identified and assessed, an elf

energy picture can be estimated.

. , . I h ve been previously published in EPRI Journal.

Parts of this matena a , '

ovember 1976.

I t

I ,

Refel"ence

1. EPRI 1., pp. 6-13 (November 1976).

Flue-Gas Desulfurization

Edited by JOHN J. McKETIA

~c~o~a~I~,~D~~e~s~U~lf~u~ri~z~a~t~io~n~E-=c=o:.:_n:..::o:..:m~i~C~S~~~ __ --

Two genera] categories of flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) systems exist. One group consists of the nonregenerable systems which produce a sludge that must be discarded. The sludge may be disposed of by dewatering by vacuum filtration, pending, and fixation followed by land filling. Regenerable FGD systems recover a product more valuable than sludge, such as sulfuric acid or elemental sulfur.

In the first quarter of 1975, EPA reported that 101 FGD systems were operational, under construction, or planned. Of today's FGD commitments, 70% are for the nonregenerative lime or limestone systems. All of those on new plants are of the nonregenerative type. Since the majority of nonregenerative FGD plants. employ limestone or lime scrubbing this technology was selected as typical for the nonregenerative group. The APCI-IFP ammonia scrubbing process with elemental sulfur recovery was chosen as typical of regenerative systems because the authors had direct knowledge of the process.

Introduction

. . h l'mitation

. rv he United States require tel '

Environmental. regulatIOns th~~Ug~ou:~ fuels. The restrictions apply to ]lla?~ of sulfur ,errusslOns, from the . urmn~ts operating in residences, commer~" sizes and types. ofcombustl~n e~~tric ~ower generating utilities. The establishments, mdustnes, an

192

Coal. Desu.lfurizati,on Economi,cs

Coal, Desulfurization Economics

193

Nonregenerative

A schematic of the system circuitry for the limestone FGD process is shown in Fig. 1. In large combustion units the particulate matter is generally removed from the flue gas by an electrostatic precipitator before sulfur oxide removal. Further removal is frequently attained by washing the flue gas with water or reagent. Then the flue gas is sent through a sulfur oxide scrubber designed to promote intimate mixing and reaction of the sulfur oxide laden flue gas with the absorbent. The lime or limestone is introduced into the scrubber as a water slurry containing 5 to 15% solids. The clean flue gases leave the scrubber are heated to reestablish buoyancy, and exit by way of a conventional stack .. The spent slurry is discharged through an effluent holding tank to a clarifier where the waste sludge is separated. The sludge is vacuum filtered to reduce its water content and to concentrate the solids. Thereafter it is sent to one ora number of methods of disposal. The reusable slurry is recycled from the clarifier back to the scrubber. Makeup lime-limestone is added to the effluent holding tank as needed.

Information regarding the economics 0 f the lime-limestone system was derived by modifying a detailed cost estimate printed in the Environmental Protection Agency's publication 600/2-75-006. dated January 1975. The modifications consisted of adjustments in the published total capital investment from their mid-I974 values to those of mid-1975. Land reclamation or sludge handling costs were adjusted to include $3.20/ton in operating costs plus another $4.00/too of capital charges for tbe sludge pond and its equipment.

For the economic evaluation, the FGD system was assumed to be owned and operated by the utilities. The capacity of the FGD system was equal to the stack gas output of the boiler served. The combustion unit burned coal with a beating value of 12,000 Btuflb and a sulfur content of 3.5%. The total capital investment for these utility-owned units includes all equipment and construction labor costs, with a 15% contingency and escalation .. It also includes fees, land, royalties, interest during construction and startup and working capital. The total capital investment is depreciated over a 30-y£ period using the straight-line method for obtaining the annual capital cost.

The itemized annual costs for nonregenerative flue gas desulfurization are shown in the first column of Table 1. The costs are for a 500· W size unit operating for 5000 h during the year. which is equivalent to a load factor of 60%. As can be seen, the total capital cost of the system, not including an electrostatic precipitator, is slightly over $41 million or about $82/kW. The total annual operating cost, including capital charges, is $11.06 million. The incremental cost for sulfur oxide removal for other load factors is also shown. The cost range is from 3.65 mils/kWh for 7000 h/yr operation to 11.06 mils/kwh for 1500 b/yr. By way of comparison the unit price in 1973 of electrical energy to industrial consumers was 1.25¢/kWh.

In addition to economic considerations, a. number of intangible factors related to the use ofnonregenerable systems should be considered because their perceived value at a particular location and electric generating system may significantly affect which control method to select. For example, with the fluegas desulfurization system the utility must obtain the capital for oontrol. No

.,

'" ;;:::

.;:

'"

i3

0;

... " o 0

'" E

'" a::

a:: w I~

~ -----..I.

::>

UJ -----.

>t: ~ 2

194

Coal. Desulfurization Economics

TABLE 1

Sulfur Oxide Control Costs Using Flue Gas Desulfurization in MW) Utility Boilers

ew 500

Capital Operating costs:

Raw material

5000 hfyT Labor/supervision Steam/energy Process water Electricity Maintenance Analyses

Sludge processing Capital cost Overhead

By-product credit Total operating cost

N omegenerative Regenerative
(millions S) (millions $)
41.166 52.761
0.500 0.160
0.150 0.280
0.530 1.850
0.010 0.010
0.560 0.550
1.350 0.960
0.030 0.060
0..960
6.130 7.860
0.820 1.080
(1.660)
11.060 11.160
Mils Wh Mils/kWh
3.65 3.43
4.42 4.45
5.76 5.99
1l.06 12.80 Coal. Desulfurization Economics

As mentioned earlier, the APCI-IFP ammonia scrubbing process was selected to be representative of regenerative FGD systems. The information was obtained from a detailed design and cost estimate submitted by Catalytic Inc. to a potential buyer in August 1975. Ammonia was estimated to cost $240/ton and lime $25/ton. Credit for the sulfur produced was $56/ton.

The schematic diagram of the ammonia scrubbing process is shown in Fig.

2. After appropriate pretreatment for the removal of particulates, flue ga enters a multistage scrubber where S02 is absorbed in a solution containing aqueous ammonium suLfites and bisulfites. The clean flue gas leaves the scrubber and is heated to provide thermal buoyancy. Spent ammoniacal solution from the absorber is delivered to the recovery plant through a hold tank which permits independent operation of the absorption and regeneration systems .. Regeneration consists of the thermal decomposition of sulfites in an evaporator and the reduction of sulfates in a submerged combustion unit. The decomposition prod ucts are sulfur dioxide, ammonia and water. Next, some 0 f the sulfur dioxide is converted to hydrogen sulfide by using reducing gases prepared by the gasification of coal. The remaining sulfur dioxide and the hydrogen sulfide are converted to elemental sulfur in a liquid-phase Claus reactor. Elemental sulfur is the only by-product of this process. Ammoniacal off-gas from the Claus reactor is recycled in. tbe scrubber along with a small amount of make-up ammonia.

The estimated cost of the regenerative flue-gas desulfurization system is shown in the second col umn 0 f Ta ble 1. The conditions are the same as for the nonregenerative system. The capital cost is almost $53 million, which is equivalent to $l03/kWh. The annual operation cost, after credit for byproduct, is about $11 million. This is an incremental cost of 4.45 mils/kWh for flue gas desulfurization for a unit operating at a 60% load factor or about 5000 h/yr. The incremental cost of operating at other load factors is also shown. The range is from 3.43 mils/kwh at 7000 h/yr to 12.80 milsjkWh at 1500 h.

195

I,

7000 h/yr 5000 h/yr 3500 h/yr 1500 hfyr

1 I

Solvent- Refin.ed Coal

one FGD system has yet demonstrated that it can run r~liab~y wit~out the unacceptable discharge of dissolved solids, with.out a carbide lime, wltho~t a maintenance shutdown every other night, or Without some other constramt. Corrosion of construction materials exists, and the ~eheat ~f the flue. g~se: requires dean fuels such as unavailable natural gas or inexpedient fuel Ol~. Th f electricity required to run the FGD systems lowers the output ~ap~clty o. existing equipment or necessitates the building of excess cap,aClty. ill. ne~

ti g units Th e main advantage of an FGD system is that high sulfur coa

genera ill. ..... . ."

can supposedly be utilized as fuel for the combustion umt.

Regenerative

Flue-gas desulfurization processes which recover sulfur in some form ru::~ ~in! tested around the world in large-scale units. These proce~ses vary ":1 he Yust design and raw materials, Many of the processes need fe-daclll: gas whi~ t: call be produced from a fossil-fuel. Supply reqwrem:nts can be l~rbe eno~g coal for long-term dedicated supplies of gas ~r oil or r~du~tng. gasent;~ulfur. gasification. The by-products vary and are either sulfuric acid, elem

';;r ammonium sulfate.

Two major solvent-refined coal operations are being conducted in the United States today. Since December 1972 the Energy Research and Development Administration has been supporting a 50-ton/d solvent-refined coal demonstration plant at Tacoma, Washington. Earlier, in August 1972, Southern Services, the Electric Power Research Institute, and Catalytic, Inc. initiated construction of a 6-ton/d solvent-refined coal plant at Wilsonville, Alabama. The latter plant bas operated successfully on various coals for almost 2 years. The information for the assessment of solvent-refined coal is from a recent Catalytic, Inc. report on the Wilsonville operation.

The flow diagram for the solvent-refined coal (S RC) process is shown in Fig. 3. The SRC is produced by first dissolving coal under pressure in a recycled solvent containing a small quantity of hydrogen. The coal solution is then filtered to remove virtually all of the mineral matter including the pyritic sulfur.


196


197

.~ 'a,

, ~~ ~.~

" "

" L..---,.,------a: a:

I

•

en ~ (!)

w ::J ...J U.

Z ~ w -' u'

a:

uJ

I-

<t

;;:_---''''

The recycled solvent, as well as a small quantity of light liquid product with a high content of benzene, toluene, and xylene, is distilled off. The remaining reconstituted coal is the SRC product with a uniform gross heating value of about 16.000 Btu/lb. The yield ofSRC and other liquid products is about 90% by weight ofthe original MAF coal. About 76% by weight of the product slate is SRC to be sold for combustion. The mineral matter of SRC is reduced to approximately 0.1 %. Depending on the composition 0 f the feed coal the sulfur level can be reduced to as low as 0.3%. The moisture content of the coal is completely eliminated, which further reduces transportation cost per unit of heat value.

When a clean fuel such as SRC is used to obtain sulfur oxide limitations in a combustion unit, the utility is freed of certain capital requirements .. It no longer needs to raise capital for a flue-gas desulfurization system. In new units utilizing a clean SRC, the capital savings extend to the electrostatic precipitators as well. Furthermore, the combustion unit can be of uniform design with a smaller fire box due to a lesser amount of inert material in the fuel. In addition to these capital savings, related operating cost can also be lower.

Thus from the point of view of a utility, emission control costs attained by utilizing SRC consist of the incremental cost of the SRC over that of raw coal minus certain capital and operating credits which accrue because of the unique features of SRC.

In this study, the incremental cost ofthe SRC to the utility is the processing cost less transportation savings on a shipment of 300 miles, which is currently the average coal haul in the East and Midwest. Inherent in this assumption is

FiIG. 3. Solvent-refined coal process.

..... '" ::J

u,

to: a I:I:

'" ~

> ..J U.

t

198

Coat. Desulfurization Economics


199

the condition that the combustion unit and the SRC process are both fed equivalent quality and equal mine-priced coal shipped the same distance.

To estimate the processing cost of SRC, certain design and operating conditions were assumed. They are itemized in Table 2. The selected 20.0Q() tons/d SRC plant would be capable of supplying a 1800 MW boiler or any combination of smaller boilers. Technical information regarding operating variables such as hydrogen consumption filtration rate, and solvent-to-coal ratio indicates that no single price can be fixed for SRC. Therefore, a range of processing costs which express the extremes and the most likely of these operating conditions was developed. The most likely processing cost was 69¢/rnillion Btu, or about $22/too. The low extreme was $19 . .91 and the high S22.40. The most likely processing cost was used to calculate the control costs

for the base case at a utility.

The cost of sulfur oxide control at a 500-MW utility boiler using SRC is

itemized in Table 3 when the boiler generates electricity 5000 h/Yr. The total ann ual incremental cost for sulfur oxide control is $11.26 million which is 5.54 mils/kWh. The costs of control for a 500-MW plant range from 4.73 mils/kWh for 7000 h/yr operation to 3.02rnils{kWh at 1500 h.

A number of intangible factors accrued to a utility using SRC. The use ora low-sulfur fuel is a positive guarantee that sulfur dioxide pollution will be controlled at all times. The power plant is independent of a FGD unit and its associated problems, and operates more reliably to meet timely energy demands and emission limitations. The use of SRC is environmentally fail-safe. The consumer pays for the cost of pollution cont:rol only while the boiler is being fired with SRC. SRC can be stockpiled while flue gases cannot. Flue gases from

E~ssion Control Costs Using Solvent-Refined C I'

Utility Boilers oa m

TABLE 3

ew (500 MW)

II

III

TABLE 2 Solven(-Refined Coal Plant Data

Basis: 20.000 tons coalfd

Coal price = 80¢ M Btu Depreciable life = 20 yr Debt/equity = 90/10 Interest on debt = 10% R.O.!. = 20%

Federal income tax = 52% Total capital investment

Annual revenue required

Annual revenue from SRC

Annual tonnage produced

Add-on price/ton

Add-on price/MM Btu

Operating variables:

Hydrogen consumption Filt.ration rate Solvent/coal ratio

Add-on price range/ton Add-on price range/MM Btu

-----------------------------------------------------------

$467,580,000 $246,104,000 $172,270 000 3,675,000 $22.08

30.69

2.0-3.0% 10-36 galfb/ft2 1.75: 1-2.5:1 $19.91-$22.40 $0.62-0.70

Millions S

Capital savings:

Boiler

Electrostatic precipitator Soot and ash handling Coal handling - Stack

Electrical equipment Total capital savings Annual added operating

cost 5000 h/yr:

Added cost for SRC Savings operating labor Savings electricity Savings maintenance Savings transport Savings capital charges

Total added operating cost

5.0(0) 4.1(0) 0.400 (3.700) (2.500) (0.600)

(16.300

15.500 (0.250) (0.750) (0.250) (1.000) (1.990) 1l.?60

Mils/kWh

7000 h/yr 5000 hlyr 3500 h/yr 1500 h/yr

80% LF 60% LF 40% LF 20% LF

4.73 454 4.18 3.02

s~~ n~d not?e heated to impart buoyancy. Electrical energy is not required as wit su ur OXIde and particulate controls .. Thus fuel and electrical energy are

conserved at the utility I t C I· h .

.. .' . p. an. oa, t e nanon s most abundant fossil fuel is

utilized III support of national energy independence.

Naturany Occurring Low Sulfur Coal

The Uni~ed States has a known reserve base of 384 billion tons of coal. Most of t~e coal!s not locatednear the major centers of energy demand. Figure 4 shows t e outline of al~ major coal fields in the United States and the ~e!ID1ents of naturally occurring coal that comply with the national sulfur arid;' . standard of 1.2 lb/million Btu. . emISSIOn

fi Ids.The 5 shows the location of coal-fired power plants relative to the coal . e ths. . ey can be seen to be :remote from the complying low-sulfur coal fields

III e West. Western coal IS usually low in heat content and hi h . .

19. 10 moisture

200

Coat Desulfurization Economics

II

n

~ >_J'-/-~~'

~----------~~. ~----------------------

Coal, Desulfurization Economks

<i
r-,
'"
~ r/.'
u -0
-;:; 0;
c u::
2 '"
'" 0
iii o
'-
'<l 0
.~
.~ '"
:3 E
"0
!: !:
'"
"
5 !:
o '"
... 0. .
!: iJ
;.. ~
Ii
E 0.
0 "0
o 2
~
c 'f
!: -a
.,g 0
o
5 ~
0 0
...l .2
<Ii '"
o
ci q
ii:
u)
(!l
u::: 201

202

Coat Desulfurization Economics

CoaL Desulfurtzatlon Economics

TABLE 5 Sulfur Oxide Control Costs Using Low-Sulfur Western Coal in lew (500 MW) Utility Boilers

203

I· I in the Appalachian field is generally of coking

and ash. The comp ymg coa . '.

alit and held captive for the metallurgIcal market. . .

qu The uantities of various coals in each state are shown in Table 4 .. The first

quanu '. . f' itu deep coal at depths of down to 1000 ft

column contains the quantrties 0.' In S. . I

. . herein it . ld be currently mined. The next three co umns

under condItions w erem 1 cou . J • I' b

. . the quantities of in situ strippable coal by type of coa , r.e. su -

It~mlZ~ .' ~ d lignite and zenerally with less than 150 feet of

bitummous bltununou:., an ., e. . d

' Th . If and heat content of each of the coals was use to

overburden. e su ur f

determine if the coal could comply with the federal new source per ormance

.' .' and Lignites and the Portion ill Compliance with
TABLE 4 Reserves of BltUIDmous, Sub-Bltum1l10~S, d f Sulfur Oxides' (millions of tons)
Federal ew Source Performance Stan ar s or
Strippable Coals Combined Identilied
Deep Coal Sub-bituminous Bituminous Lignite Statewide "Complying'
o. State to 1000 ft
157.2 1,026.5 2,981.8 255.2
1 Alabama 1,798.1 350.0 432
2 Arizona 350.0 569.3 54.3
231.3 32.0
3 Arkansas 306.0 870.0 14,841.5 783.7
II
4 Colorado 13,971.5 12,222.9 65,664.8 25.0
5 Illinois 53,441.9 1,674.1 10,622.6 49.5
6 Indiana 8,948.5 2,884.9
7 Iowa 2,884.9 1 388.1 1,388.1
8 Kansas
9 Kentucky, east 7,354.2 25,540.6 2,958.2
and west 18,186.4 146.3 1,048.2 17.8
10 Maryland 901.9 0.6 118.2
11 Michigan 117.6 3,413.7 9,487.3
12 Missouri 6,073.6 7,098.0 108,396.3 30575.8
13 Montana 65,834.3 35,464.0 4,392.5 1,297.6
New Mexico 2,134.2 2,008.3 250.0 500.9
14 16,003.0 16,003.0
15 orth Dakota 3653.9 21,077.2 13.6
16 Ohio 11423.3 434.1 1,2942 99.7
17 Oklahoma 860.1 1.9 1.3
1.0 0.4 0.5 473.9
18 Oregon 1,091.1 23,880.1
19 Pennsylvania 22,789.0 428.0 428.0
20 South Dakota 319.6 986.7 75.2
21 Tennessee 667.1 3,271.9 3 271.9 75.3
22 Texas 262.0 4,042.5 1982
23 Utah 3,780.5 679.2 3,512.4 1,120.4
24 Virginia 2,833.2 8.1 1,954.0 91.3
2S Washington 1,445.9 500.0 39,589.8 6,900.9
26 West Virginia 34,377.8 5,212.0 53336.1 5,902.0
27 Wyoming 29,490.8 23,845.3 ---

62,1.68.0 39,360.8 27,867.5 417,663.9 51,5]3.0
Grand totals 288,267.6 6.7 100.0 12.3
69.0 14 .. 9 9 .. 4 -
Percentages . U.s. Bureau
. ali 7 '94 60 million tons has been omitted. Source : L. William Richardson, compLied frOID
a Anthracue tot ng.- .
of Mines information as of January 1976. Millions :$

Added capital costs:

Boiler

Electrostatic precipitator Coal handling

Ash handling

Total added capital Annual added operating

costs 5000 h/yr :

Added electricity Added maintenance Added transport l¢/ton

(additional 1200 miles) Added capital charges

Total added operating cost

1.090 15.270

5.000 1.200 2.500 0.250 8.950

0.330 0.250 13.600

Mils/k\¥h

7000 h/yr 5000 h/yr 3500 h/yr 1500 h/yr

80% LF 60% LF 40"10 LF 20% LF

5.98 611 6.29 7.13

standard of l.2lb of sulfur oxides per million Btu. The last column comprises the summation of complying coal by state and the total for the nation. The United States embraces 51.5 billion tons (42.9 strip, 8.6 deep) of complying coal or about 60 years supply at present rates of utility coal consumption with mining recovery of 50%.

Many utilities are considering the use a flow-sulfur Western coals to achieve their respective sulfur emissions limitations .. Because Western coals are generally higher than the Eastern or Midwestern variety in moisture and ash content, a switch to Western coals would necessitate larger fire boxes for new plants. At both new and existing plants, larger electrostatic precipitators for the removal of particulate matter and bigger coal and ash handling facilities would be needed. Existing boilers with fire-boxes designed originally for higher heat content coal would be derated and their burners would require adjustments. The major cost, however, of utilizing low-sulfur Western coal to meet sulfur oxide emission limitations is the incremental cost of transporting coal to a distant utility.

Table 5 embodies the incremental cost ofsulfur oxide emission control using a low-sulfur Western coal. For the case shown the utility is approximately 1500 miles from a Western coal source. Since coal is transported an average of 300 miles in the Midwest and the East, the incremental cost of hauling low-sulfur Western coal is based on the distance between mine and utility less 300 miles. The net distance is 1200 miles for tbe situation in the table. The tariff is a cent

Coat Oesulfurization Economics

Coal, O.esulfurization Economics

204

per ton mile. The size of the utility boiler is 500 MW. Costs are itemized fOT 5000 b/yr of operation, or 60% load factor.

The incremental cost for sulfur oxide control using low-sulfur Western coal

is $15.27 million annually for 5000 h of operation per year. This is equivalent to 6.11 mils/kWh. The range of costs is 5.98 mils/kWh fo[7000 h/yr to 7.13 mils for 1500 b. Sin:lllar calculations were made for burning Western coal at each of a

number of cities. The results are later displayed graphicaUy.

14.0 :

i •

13.0

1.50

.. ::J

~

:;

s

a: -0: ..J -' a c

~

'" 0.

'-' _,

0. a:

1.00 ~

8

LEGEND

LOW SWES1ERN COAL NON REGENERATIVE FGD

REGENERATIVE 'fGD

LEGEND

lOW S WESTERN COAL - - - (200 - 1000 MWj

- NON REGENERATIVE ,FGD

.' •• " ••.•• ' REGENERATIIVE 'fGD

k'. ~~:::J SOLVENT RE'fIN'ED COAL

- (200·1000MW)

SOLVENT RE'fINED COAL

1.50
'"
::J
'"'
<D
::;;
:;
.,
a:
-0:
..J
-'
0.
0
'"
'"'
'"
0.
o
-'
0.
a:
r
1.00 2
0.
'-' PHilADELPHIA

.......

:t
~
'" 9.0
~
-'
~
en
r
'" 8.0
a
o
..J
0.
a:
r
2 7.0
a
u
6:0
"-
5 .. 0 ....
4.0
3 .. 0
.....
<,
<,
2.0 . --._
.........
--
1.0
20 40 100

3.0

-

PH I LADELPHIA NEWV.oRK

2.0

CLEVELAND HOIlST.oN

100

PLANT LOAD FACTOR, percent.

AT'LAN,TA 0.50

FIIG.7.

Sulfur emission t I

... con roi costs of existing utility boilers.

CHICAGO

Trade-offs among Sulfur Oxide Em" .

15slon Controls

.

loa •

l)41w

To facilitate an understanding of the trade off

met. hods, the.ir control costs are~pl tt d in .. ~ s. among the four oontrol

1 . . ' a re In relation to I t 1 f

p ants III Fig. 6 and for e . t' . 1 ... pan oad actor for new

F .. XlS nng pants m FI" 7 or new and . . . . 'C" •

D existing plants, the unit cost of sulfur oxide control with FGD

,-

"

60

PLANT LOAO FACTOR, pe,eent

FIG.G.

Sulfur emission control costs of new utility boilers.

205

206


Coal, 'Energy Shortage-Issues, 'Impacts, Solutions

A Much of this article originally appeared in Chemical Engineering Proeress ugust 1976. " ,

-

207

systems increases as the load factor decreases. The magnitude of the change in the unit cost with load is apparent in each of the figures. The shift to lower load factor generally occurs in utility boilers because they become less efficient with age and are called upon less often to generate electricity.

Using SRC, the utility pays for pollution control only when the dean fuel is being burned. Pollution control is paid as an operating cost rather than a capital charge. For new boilers designed for SRC, certain capital credits accrue whieh result in a decrease in the cost of pollution control as the load factor decreases. The diminishing unit cost with load can be seen in Fig. 6. In existing equipment, however, capital charges are already sunk and must be paid regardless of the type of fuel that is burned. Consequently, the unit cost of pollution control using SRC is level with load factor throughout the remaining life ofthe plant, as shown in Fig .. 7.

Finally, low-sulfur Western coal appears feasible for sulfur emission control within 1200 miles of a mine site. Thereafter, transportation charges cause total cost to exceed that of the other control methods. If a boiler is designed specifically for the use of low-sulfur Western coal, certain additional capital charges must be paid; therefore, as with FGD the cost of pollution control using low-sulfur Western coal increases as the load factor decreases. Although similar to the situation experienced with FGD systems, the increase is Dot as severe. In existing boilers the expenditure of the necessary capital to maintain the original capacity rating would probably not be made. Instead, a derating of the boiler capacity would be accepted. Thus the unit cost of sulfur oxide control would be level with load factor but initially higher because fixed capital charges are being paid from a derated output.

ROBERT M. JIMESON ROBERT R. MADDOCKS

Summary

o sulfur oxide pollution control system is universally applicable. Flue-gas desulfurization units appear to be most appropriate for large boilers that can operate compatibly with FGD systems at high load factors throughout most of their life.

In contrast, solvent-refined coa.! is most appropriate for medium to small boiler units where load factors over the life of the plant are expected to be less than 65% or where it is desirable to dedicate a utility's capita] to electric generating equipment. As a corollary, SRC would be appropriate as the clean fuel in an intermittent control system (ICS) plan. SRC would be burned only during poor meteorological conditions which occur about 10% of the. time during the year. Thus ICS is tantamount to SRC being burned at low load factor, and considerable savings in sulfur oxide emission control costs are possible without jeopardizing ambient air quality standards.

The use o flow-sulfur Western coal appears economically feasible as a sulfur control method for some plants within a range of 1200 miles. The zone-of equal trade-off appears to be located at roughly the Mississippi River.

Coal,.Energ,y Shortage--Issues, Impacts, Solutlons*

Introduction

~:er~ca~s slowly ~ut surely bein~ destroyed by a collection of groups and inervi .~ . s who. claim to be pursuing their objectives out of concern for the well-being of this coun~ry. Unfortunately, if they are successful, it will result in the collapse of the United States as an industrial nation.

As .a result of action taken by many groups and individuals producing ~~ss and less domestic oil and natural gas, we are producing le.::o:,e ~d our ability to construct and operate more nuclear plants is being hampered o~e~an;r groups and~overnment agencies. At the same time, we are importing . t~ceas~.uch oil.and paying 10 times as much as we did 6 years ago. Th~

mcredible political acnons by the u.s. Congress and the Ford Ad ,. .

. . d sismi mlll1stratlOn m pas~mg an. signing the so-calJed Omnibus Energy BiJI in December 1975

mad~ It certain that.the l!nited States would not only be consum:ing more oil tb~n It should be, but that It would be uneconomic to produce more domestic oil an , .as a result, we would be importing more and more foreign oil to meet our reqUlreme~ts for many years to come. It is easy to understand why the United Sta tes has Just been tbro ugh the worst depression since the thirties and why we arfe unable to reduce un. employment. Our costs for energy have grown from 2% o our GNP t 10% to>. . 0

'.. 0 over . 0 of our GNP in less than 5 years. Our failure to

rec~gruze the. role that ener~ costs are playing in world economics is preventing us rom solving our domestic economic problems. -

b The latest energy plan to add to the confusion is President Carter s. It s oUI~ not even be ca~ed an energy plan because, in fact it is basically a massive tax pan. m.as.queradlDg as energy. While it has a few features on the conserv~t1On sIde.which are ~ommendable, as a whole the Carter Energy Plan is a bl~e?~mt for d~saster. ~t. IS based on the false assumption that there is DO possibility of finding additional oil and gas in the United States and therefore

'" A speech presented at the Seminar on Obtaining Foreign Investm.ents in U S Ener R

January 30.-31, 1978. Sponsored by the World Trade Institute, ew York. . gy esources,

Coal Gasification

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Coal Gasification

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

XII

Вам также может понравиться

Coal Gasification

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Coal Gasification

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

﻿XII

Вам также может понравиться

XII