Fuel Processing Technology 92 (2011) 213220

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel Processing Technology

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / f u p r o c

Analysis of main gaseous emissions of heavy duty gas turbines burning several syngas fuels
R. Chacartegui , M. Torres, D. Snchez, F. Jimnez, A. Muoz, T. Snchez
Escuela Tcnica Superior de Ingenieros, Camino de los descubrimientos s/n 41092 Sevilla, Spain

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
This work presents the development of a simple analytical model of performance for heavy duty gas turbine combustors and its use for the analysis of main emissions for a set of syngas fuels. This set of syngas fuels has been selected as a wide representation of different compositions of syngas fuels, from fossil or vegetal origins. Their combustion processes have been modelled as a set of chemical reactors in serial and a detailed kinetic model, simulating a conventional diffusion ame combustor. In each slice, the thermodynamics and the kinetics have been modelled using perfect stirred reactor models. The combustor model has been validated with the GE MS7001F gas turbine experimental data. From this validation the model applicability range has been established for combustor outlet temperatures above 1200 K. Finally the combustor model has been applied to the comparison of different syngas fuels emissions in three new generation gas turbines. 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 16 November 2009 Received in revised form 17 March 2010 Accepted 19 March 2010 Keywords: Syngas fuel NOx emissions Heavy duty gas turbine

1. Introduction The traditional fuel prices oscillations and their geographic distribution, is making that the use of fuels with alternative origins, as those generated from renewable sources or from more abundant fossil sources, is increasingly considered [1]. Hydrogen rich fuels being available the second step of the process is related to gas turbines engineering since this is the equipment where these fuels are to be burnt. Among all its components, fuel injectors and combustor are those that need to be modied more due to the higher mass ows required to achieve similar rated power [24], with a lot of work to be done at the turbine redesign as well to adapt it to the higher mass ows[3]. Gas turbines manufacturers are committed in the development of engines capable of burning hydrogen rich fuel as efciently and reliably as possible and most of them are running specic programmes for it: Siemens [5,6], General Electric [7,8], Mitsubishi Heavy Industries [9] and Alstom [10], adapting their gas turbines to fuels from variable origins [1], and with pilot plants in different localizations [11] (Table 1). Under the denomination of synthetic gas (syngas) fuels, mixtures of gases with different fractions of hydrogen, methane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and hydrocarbons are considered. Main differences compared with the gas natural as fuel are associated to their composition. The combustible and inert gases mixture, hydrogen and methane, have quite different LHV (Low Heat Value) and transport
Corresponding author. Tel.: + 34 954 467615; fax: + 34 954 48 72 43. E-mail addresses: ricardo@esi.us.es (R. Chacartegui), migueltorres@esi.us.es (M. Torres), davidsanchez@esi.us.es (D. Snchez), fcojjea@esi.us.es (F. Jimnez), ambl@esi.us.es (A. Muoz), tmsl@esi.us.es (T. Snchez). 0378-3820/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2010.03.014

properties. Also the high percentage of inert gases, like CO2, diminishes the LHV of the mixture and constrains the kinetic of the combustion, mainly because of the heat capacity increase of the syngas and therefore the decrease of the maximum attainable combustion temperature. Through this mechanism the reaction rate and combustion products are also affected. For this reason they are usually classied as Low Caloric Value Fuels (LCV) [1,4]. Gas turbines are primarily designed to be fuelled with natural gas, the use of syngases as fuel will present two main redesign challenges [12]: different combustion characteristics. higher volumetric and mass ow rates of fuel gases through the gas turbine combustor and turbine. Recent designs of gas turbine combustors use lean-premix combustion technology to avoid hot spots in the combustor; however syngas fuels cannot be directly used in natural gas lean-premixed combustors designs due to the combined effect of the shorter autoignition delay and faster ame speed of hydrogen. This combination produces an unacceptable risk of the combustion ame propagating upstream, or ashing back, into the lean-premix zone [12], under these considerations, premixing becomes a very questionable practice [3]. So, in a rst step of the design, the gas turbines adapted for syngas fuel would use single-stage diffusion combustors featured in older gas turbine designs until lean-premix combustors for syngas fuels are developed. This work is focused on the simulation of the reaction mechanisms with reactants from syngas fuels to predict the main gaseous emissions in heavy duty gas turbines. It presents the development of an analytical model of performance for heavy duty gas turbine combustors. The

214

R. Chacartegui et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 92 (2011) 213220 Table 2 Characteristics of the reference syngas fuels. Startup 1972 S1 [16] Origin Bituminous (dry) coal reacting with methane, oxygen and steam Conversion LHV Other data (%) (MJ/Nm3) 85 9.7 Coal reacts with methane, oxygen and steam The reaction temperature is controlled adding inert gas, N2.

Table 1 Siemens gas turbines pilot plants operating with syngas fuels [11]. Siemens gas turbine V93 Plant localization Luenen Germany Main features First CC plant in the world with integrated LURGI coal gasication CC plant with integrated DOW coal gasication CC Plant CC plant integrated with coalgasication (hard coal and biomass blend) CC plant integrated PRENFLO coal gasication (coal and petroleum coke blend) CC plant with integrated GE heavy-oil (asphalt) gasication CC plant with steel-making recovery gas CC plant with integrated SHELL heavy-oil gasication

2XSGT63000E 4XSGT63000E SGT5-2000E

Plaquemine, USA Sweeney Cogeneration L.P., USA Buggernum, Netherlands

1987 1998 S2 [16] 1994/5 S3 [17] 1997/98 S4 [18] 1998/99 2000 2005 S5 [19] S6 [20]

V94.3

Puertollano, Spain

2XGT52000E SGT5-2000E SGT5-2000E

Priolo Gargallo, Italy Servola, Italy Sannazzaro, Italy

Anthracite (dry) coal reacts with methane, oxygen and steam Coal gasication coupled with natural gas reforming Fluidized bed coal gasication with air and steam supply

82

9.5

Coal 83 Methane 77.3 79.3

14.2

4.0

kinetic model for this combustion chamber is based on a conventional diffusion ame combustor. The results obtained during the validation of the model show reasonable good accuracy of the predicted exhaust composition with respect to the emissions for natural gas operation (taken from the manufacturer's published results and Refs [13,14]). This validated model has been later applied to a heavy duty gas turbine operating on different syngas fuels. The selected compositions have been considered to be representative of different gasication processes from raw fuels such as coal, biomass and others. The main results of the analysis are shown in the last section. 2. Syngas fuels under study A previous step in this analysis has been the selection of a set of syngas fuels representative of the different gasication processes from raw fuels such as coal, biomass and others. This selection has been made taking into account the current technologies and their estimated evolution for the close future [15]. As function of the origin and the gasication process, the syngas fuel composition will vary, and the performance of the whole gas turbine will be affected, and in particular the gas turbine combustor. The selected syngas fuels, their origin and main characteristics are described in Table 2. The volumetric percentage compositions of the syngas fuels considered are shown in Table 3. With this selection, syngas fuels from fossil origin, like coal and petroleum coke, and syngases from biomass are taken under consideration. Their volumetric compositions vary from fuels with a high percentage of hydrogen, like S3 obtained from coal gasication coupled with natural gas reforming, to syngases with a low percentage of hydrogen, as S8 obtained from wood gasication in a pressurized uidized bed gasier with hot gas ltration.
Table 3 Composition of the reference syngas fuels. Syngas no H2 CO CH4 CO2 N2 Ar O2 H2O LHV UHV vol.% vol.% vol.% vol.% vol.% vol.% vol.% vol.% kJ/kg kJ/kg 1 37.67 37.43 0.48 20.61 3.81 0 0 0 9369 10,161 2 35.79 34.84 1 21.82 6.55 0 0 0 8756 9509 3 49.66 48.68 0.37 1.29 0 0 0 0 17,102 18,555 4 22.09 60.52 0 3.88 12.47 1.04 0 0 9771 10,193 5

S7 [21]

Coal gasication and petroleum coke Biomass air-steam gasication in a uidized bed Gas production from biomass catalytic gasication 98.4 Wood gasication in a pressurized uidized bed gasier with hot gas ltration.

10.5 11.3

Fluidized bed coal gasication with air and steam supply. Preheat temperature 500 C ELCOGAS IGCC Operation temperature 800 C Catalytic process with dolomite and Ni. Operation temperature 700 C

7.1

S8 [22]

2.73

Also the presence of CO2 in the fuel varies clearly from very low percentages in S4, with origin in uidized bed coal gasication with air and steam supply, close to 1.3%, to values close to 30% in S8, with origin in wood gasication in a pressurized bed gasier. The same considerations can be done with the presence of nitrogen in the syngas fuel for S3, 0%, to S8, 43.9%. Hence, the diversity of compositions of the selected syngas fuels is high and the analysis with the combustion chamber model will give a wide perspective of their different performance in the combustion chamber. 3. Combustion chamber model For the analysis of the emissions of the previously presented syngas fuels, an analytical model of performance for heavy duty gas turbine combustors has been developed. The kinetic model for this combustion chamber is based on a conventional diffusion ame combustor. The selection of this type of combustion chamber was justied in the introduction. As shown in Fig. 1, the combustor is modelled as a set of chemical reactors slices and a detailed kinetic model, developed with Chemkin 3.7, describes the combustion in each slice.

6 36.89 30.91 9.27 22.93 0 0 0 0 11,976 13,138

7 50.39 16.91 3.13 29.57 0 0 0 0 10,120 11,413

8 6.84 8.1 3.97 16.2 43.9 0.59 0 20.4 2705 3292

NG

39.4 33.42 7.1 19.59 0 0 0.49 0 12,306 13,481

91.15 0.82 C2H6: 7.33 C3H8: 0.67 C4H10: 0.03

48,944 54,181

R. Chacartegui et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 92 (2011) 213220

215

Fig. 1. Combustor mesh showing air addition at each slice.

The reactor model selected for this application is a perfect stirred reactor (PSR) [14] that will be applied in each combustor slice. The PSR is a zero-dimensional model that consists of a constant pressure vessel in which n-inlet streams are instantaneously mixed. The ux is entirely described by energy laws and by continuity laws for each of the chemical species. The detailed kinetic model has been derived from the Gas Research Institute Mechanisms, GRI-Mech v .3.0 [23]. This kinetic model has been developed for the analysis of gas natural combustion, however the analysis of several kinetic models for simulating syngases combustion presented by Cavalieri et al. [24], showed that for temperatures above 1000 K the performance prediction of syngases combustion with the GRI-Mech 3.0 model (and with the other models analyzed in the paper) was reasonably accurate (but not for temperatures below 1000 K). Same conclusion was derived by Liuewen et al. [25]. They justify the use of the GRIMech 3.0 mechanism for their analysis due to the good agreement between predictions and measurements for a range of H2/CO mixtures [26]. The goals of this work are to analyze the behaviour of the syngases in a gas turbine combustor and to extend the analysis to the performance of the whole cycle. From this latter point of view, the diffusion model developed and the selected kinetic mechanism are enough for the required analysis. More complex combustor chamber models could be derived adding additional reactor models for the different combustor slices. However, in order to obtain a more accurate model of the combustor chamber with this treatment, detailed information of geometry and control system performance at different loads would be required. 4. Model validation The GE MS7001 gas turbine combustor is an example of a conventional diffusion ame combustor. The main data required for the input parameters of the combustor model are shown in Table 4 for the engine indicated. Some of the results obtained using the model for simulating the GE MS7001 gas turbine combustion chamber are presented in Figs. 2 and 3. In Fig. 2, the estimated NOx emissions are compared with the experimental values obtained from Refs. [14,27] using gas natural fuel

Fig. 2. MS 7001F gas turbine. NOx vs TIT for natural gas operation.

as a function of turbine inlet temperature (TIT). The treatment for the NOx emissions has been the same used for the emission regulations. Therefore NOx are given by the sum of nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). As in most the circumstances, in this combustion chamber model it is NO that is formed in the combustor with conversion to NO2 occurring downstream [28]. It can be appreciated how the model estimates the NOx emissions with relatively good accuracy (maximum error is 8%). Model and experimental results highlight dominant mechanisms for NOx formation. The strong positive relationship observed between NOx and temperature, which slope is increased with TIT (Turbine Inlet Temperature), suggests that is due to the increasing weight of the thermal NOx in the routes to NOx formation [29]. The forward rate of the nitrogen-xing reaction by this mechanism; N2 +O=NO+N is accelerated by high temperatures and superequilibrium levels of O atoms where it can be expected rates around 5000 ppm/ms [30]. Furthermore extended Zeldovich, prompt-NO, N2O intermediate and NO reburning NOx formation mechanism are included in the reaction model. The observed deviation in NOx formation in Fig. 2 between estimated and real data that increases with TIT cannot be related to the perfect stirred reactor model, mainly because the time scale for NOx reactions is larger than the typical time scales for the turbulent mixing process, which is not considered in this model. A feasible explanation for this deviation can be a higher residence time in the stirred model than in the real combustion chamber. The CO emissions with gas natural fuel are compared in Fig. 3. In this case, the trend is the opposite to that of NOx emissions. The error in the estimated CO emissions for TIT below 1200 K is unacceptable; however the error in the estimated CO emissions is reduced to values below 5% for TIT above 1200 K. Thus, this establishes a criterion about the lower TIT limit for the application of the model in the further analysis. In any case, this lower limit will not reduce the applicability of the model to this study due to the TIT range to be simulated for the analysis of the syngas fuels, which is clearly above 1200 K. 5. Syngases emissions analysis

Table 4 Gas turbines characteristics. ISO conditions Rated power output (MW) GT efciency Pressure ratio Compressor discharge temperature (K) Turbine inlet temperature (K) Turbine exhaust temperature (K) GT turbine inlet mass ow (kg/s) Shaft speed (rpm) Simulated combustion chamber type Combustor's number Combustion chamber total volumen (m3) GE MS 7001 F 155 0.355 14 631.5 1533 873 366.6 3600 GE 7251 FB 186.6 0.372 18.5 690.5 GE 9371 FB 291.48 38.3 18.2 687.4 SIEMENS SGT5-4000F 291.6 40 17.2 694.8 1589 850 633 3000

The previously validated model of the gas turbine combustor has been applied to modern heavy duty gas turbines operating with

1644 1700 899 910 404.5 572.9 3600 3000 Tubular reverse ow 12 units 0.38

0.76

0.54

0.596 m3 Fig. 3. MS 7001F gas turbine. CO vs TIT for natural gas operation.

216

R. Chacartegui et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 92 (2011) 213220

Table 5 Full load operating conditions for the gas turbines fuelled with syngas fuels (Normalized to the gas natural operating conditions, Table 4). Syngas GT turbine normalized inlet mass ow GE 7251B GE 9FB SGT5-4000 GE 7251B GE 9FB SGT5-4000 GE 7251B GE 9FB SGT5-4000 S1 1.111 1.118 1.095 1.029 1.030 1.026 5.467 5.425 5.389 S2 1.122 1.129 1.098 1.032 1.033 1.027 5.891 5.835 5.754 S3 1.047 1.051 1.044 1.013 1.014 1.013 2.910 2.902 2.913 S4 1.103 1.110 1.095 1.026 1.026 1.024 5.146 5.113 5.121 S5 1.078 1.083 1.072 1.021 1.022 1.020 4.120 4.098 4.108 S6 1.081 1.086 1.075 1.022 1.023 1.021 4.243 4.220 4.229 S7 1.103 1.109 1.075 1.030 1.030 1.024 5.128 5.087 4.979 S8 1.324 1.339 1.309 1.029 1.047 1.048 13.974 13.659 14.352

Normalized Combustor Inlet Temperature

Normalized fuel mass ow

different syngas fuels whose compositions are shown in Table 3. The selected gas turbine main performance data operating with natural gas are given in Table 4. For the simulations the original combustion chambers of these gas turbines have been substituted by single-stage diffusion combustors, adapted in each gas turbine for a stable combustion process and a similar residence time operating with natural gas. Gas turbines part load performance has been simulated with GT Pro R18 (Thermoow Inc), introducing the estimation of the syngas fuels combustion products properties in the part load data analysis. The results of this model, Table 5, have been taken as inputs for the combustion chamber model. In Figs. 46, the NOx, CO and unburned hydrocarbon emissions are represented at 50, 75 and 100 % gas turbine load for the gas turbine GE 7251B as a modern evolution of the MS 7001F previously analyzed in the validation. From Fig. 4 it is appreciated that NOx emissions are higher at all loads for S3, with origin in coal gasication coupled with natural gas reforming, and S4 with origin in uidized bed coal gasication than for the rest of fuels like S7, with origin in biomass catalytic gasication, with similar percentages of hydrogen than S3 or S5 obtained from coal gasication and petroleum coke. This NOx trends can be explicated as a function of their hydrogen, methane and CO volumetric fractions, the nitrogen in the syngas fuel, and the presence of diluents like CO2. The combination of these factors in each fuel will give a different heat release rate for each one. Additionally the combustor inlet conditions, pressure and temperature, change when fuelling with different syngas fuels since compressor performance is affected by the increase of mass ow at the turbine, that will give a

greater power due to the higher fuel ow required for syngas operation (low value of LHV), with an increase of the pressure ratio. The heat release rate and temperature evolution across the combustor are shown in Figs. 7 and 8 for fuels S3, S4, S5, S7 and S8. From Fig. 7 it can be appreciated how fuels S3 and S4 give a higher heat release rate at the rst region of the combustor, clearly higher than for fuels S7 and S5 with similar (or greater) H2 percentages but with lower percentages of CO than S3 and S4 fuels. This can be explained by the contribution of the oxidation of CO to the raise of combustion temperature and to the presence of more OH radicals, one order of magnitude greater for the S3 fuel than for the S7 fuel in the rst region volume. Evolving across the combustor volume however the heat release rate decreases sharply in the gas turbine fuelled with S3 and S4 fuels, with heat release rate values clearly below the given for the S7 or S5 fuels combustion. This behaviour freezes the NO destruction for S3 and S4 fuels that is reected in an increase of the NO2 at the exhaust, one order of magnitude greater in the S3 fuel than for the S7 or S5 fuels. The temperatures evolution across the combustor with different fuels is presented in Fig. 8. This gure shows how the S3 fuel prole of temperature is falling from the maximum value almost from the beginning of the combustor, while for the rest of the represented fuels the temperature raises until the 30% of the combustor length and then falls due to the air cooling addition. The S8 fuel, with lower temperatures will produce very few thermal NOx. This behaviour is due to its lower LHV combined with a very high content of N2 in this syngas (43.9%, see Table 3) that increases the thermal heat capacity and therefore inhibit NOx formation. Furthermore, in Fig. 4 it can be appreciated how the gas turbine load affects to the relative position of NOx emissions in fuels with similar compositions, as S2, obtained from anthracite (dry) coal

Fig. 4. GE 7251 FB gas turbine. Estimated NOx vs GT load for syngas fuel operation.

Fig. 5. GE 7251FB gas turbine. Estimated CO vs GT load for syngas fuel operation.

R. Chacartegui et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 92 (2011) 213220

217

Fig. 8. GE 7251B gas turbine. Temperature evolution across the combustion chamber with different syngas fuels.

Fig. 6. GE 7251FB gas turbine. Estimated unburned hydrocarbons vs GT load for syngas fuel operation.

gasication and S6 obtained from wood gasication. The same effect is appreciated for S3 and S4 fuels, at partial load NOx emissions are greater for the S4 fuel, increasing the effect of its higher CO volumetric fraction. On the other hand, the CO emissions are relatively low for all the syngases under the analyzed conditions, with the exception of the S8 fuel, in which the CO emissions are drastically increased at partial loads. In the same way the UHC emissions are low and with similar trends for all the fuels analyzed. The trend that this emissions present to very low partial loads is that the values are drastically increased for all the fuels. This situation is not represented here due to not usual gas turbine operating conditions.

The effect of steam addition in the NOx reduction for the GE 7251B with a single-stage diffusion combustor is presented in Fig. 9. The steam addition is presented as percentage of air mass ow. From this gure it is appreciated that the NOx emissions are reduced for all the fuels, with sharper reductions obtained for S3 and S4 in this steam injection percentage range. For the S3 fuel the NOx emissions with a 4% of steam injection will be divided by eight. The differences of NOx reduction with steam addition follow the tendency between wet NOx and dry NOx exposed by Claeys for this gas turbine combustor [27]. Figs. 10 and 11 represented the temperature evolution across the combustion chamber for the natural gas and the S3 fuel, with different steam fuel ratios. From Figs. 10 and 11 the differences on the temperature prole shapes for natural gas and for S3 fuel can be appreciated. When the steam air ratio is increased the maximum temperatures are reduced and the combustion is delayed, achieving a similar temperature prole for natural gas and S3 fuel with a 4% steam air ratio. This similitude is reected in the similar NOx emissions for this steam injection

Fig. 7. GE 7251FB gas turbine. Heat release rate across the combustion chamber with different syngas fuels.

Fig. 9. GE 7251FB gas turbine. Effect of steam injection on NOx emissions as function of the syngas fuel.

218

R. Chacartegui et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 92 (2011) 213220

Fig. 10. GE 7251FB gas turbine. Effect of steam injection on combustor temperature evolution fuelled with natural gas.

percentage. A similar behaviour happens with the steam injection for the S4 fuel. In Figs. 1214 are shown the NOx, CO and UHC emissions for the different fuels and full load operating conditions for the gas turbines GE7251FB, GE9FB and Siemens SGT5-4000F. These gas turbines have been selected as representative of the heavy duty gas turbines state of the art and their original combustors have been substituted by singlestage diffusion combustors. The estimated power output at different gas turbine loads with the different fuels is shown in Table 6. From these gures it can be appreciated how for the three gas turbines and S1, S2, S5, S6 and S7 fuels the NOx emissions at full load are of the same order (or even lower) than for the selected combustor fuelled with natural gas. However with S3 and S4 fuels with higher CO concentrations, the NOx emissions are multiplied by four under the operating conditions of the GE 9FB gas turbine, by 2.5 under the operating conditions of the GE 7251 FB gas turbine and by 1.2 under the operating conditions of the Siemens SGT5-4000. The CO emissions for the three gas turbines and all the analyzed fuels are controlled under the simulated conditions and, and they are slightly increased compared to the gas turbines fuelled with natural gas for all the syngas fuels with the exception of the S3 fuel. Finally the UHC emissions are low, with lower values for the syngas fuels than for the natural gas. For the operating conditions of the GE 9FB gas turbine the NOx, CO and UHC emissions are greater than for the SGT5-4000 gas turbine due to its higher mass ow design.

Fig. 12. Comparison of combustor in different gas turbines. Estimated NOx emissions.

6. Conclusions The main results obtained from this work are the following: The model developed fulls the initial goal of predicting engine emissions for gas natural as fuel operation accurately, as long as turbine inlet temperatures do not fall below 1200 K. This temperature limit has also been taken as lower limit for the analysis of syngas fuels. Furthermore, this value is above the minimum value of temperature for the study of syngas fuels with the selected kinetic mechanism. Using the previous model, an assessment has been done on the effect of syngas fuels composition on the formation of gaseous emissions for

Fig. 11. GE 7251FB gas turbine. Effect of steam injection on combustor temperature evolution fuelled with S3 fuel.

Fig. 13. Comparison of combustor in different gas turbines. Estimated CO emissions.

R. Chacartegui et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 92 (2011) 213220

219

UHC emissions although their values are low for the three gas turbine models. This better performance with the emissions of the SGT5-4000 gas turbine can be associated to its greater mass ow design, reducing the relative effect of the mass ow increase due to the syngas fuel mass ow required to compensate the lower LHV of the syngas fuel than for the natural gas.

Acknowledgements This work is part of a research project funded by the Spanish Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade in the frame of the CENIT Programme (National Strategic Consortia for Technical Research) 20072010. The name of the project is SPHERA and is aimed at assessing the impact of using hydrogen as the main fuel for the power and transportation industry in our country. The project is coordinated by GAS NATURAL SAD, the national gas operator and the fourth biggest natural gas transporter worldwide. The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the Spanish Ministry of Industry for the economic support and the personnel at GAS NATURAL SAD, especially Mr. A. Juli, for their helpful cooperation.
Fig. 14. Comparison of combustor in different gas turbines. Estimated UHC emissions.

References combustion chamber geometry under operating conditions of three modern gas turbines. From this analysis it has been shown how, for the single-stage diffusion combustor selected, that fuels with similar percentages of hydrogen and hydrocarbons like S3, with origin in coal gasication coupled with natural gas reforming, and S7, with origin in biomass catalytic gasication, present different NOx emissions trends. In particular from the analysis done, it has been shown that the estimated emissions depend directly on the residence time in the volumes of the reactor, the CO oxidation and the sharp fall of the heat release rate across the combustor freezing the NO destruction. The NOx emissions are clearly higher in fuels with high CO percentages like S3, with origin in coal gasication coupled with natural gas reforming, or S4, with origin in uidized bed coal gasication, than in other fuels with similar hydrogen and hydrocarbons percentages than S3 fuel, like the S7 fuel, with origin in biomass catalytic gasication, or even with greater hydrogen percentages than the S4 fuel like the S5 fuel, obtained from coal gasication and petroleum coke. Under the analyzed conditions the steam injection reduces the NOx emissions to acceptable emissions levels, equivalent to the achieved with natural gas and NOx control technologies. For the GE 7251B gas turbine at full load conditions fuelled with the syngas fuel S3, which gives the maximum NOx emissions at this load, a steam air ratio injection of 0.4 divides by eight the NOx emissions. Comparing the results obtained for the three modern gas turbines analyzed the NOx emissions are lower in the Siemens SGT5-4000 gas turbine than for the other two gas turbines with the gas turbine combustor substitution. The same trend appears for the CO and the
[1] S. Rahm, J. Goldmeer, M. Molire, A. Eranki, Addressing Gas Turbine Fuel Flexibility, GER4601 06/09, GE Energy, 2009. [2] R.M. Jones, N.Z. Shilling, IGCC gas turbines for renery applications Report GER41219, GE Power Systems, New York, 1993. [3] P. Chiesa, G. Lozza, L. Mazzocchi, Using hydrogen as gas turbine fuel ASME, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power 122 (2000) 2735. [4] J.O. Jaber, S.D. Probert, P.T. Williams, Gaseous fuels (derived from oil shale) for heavy-duty gas turbines and combined-cycle power generators, Applied Energy 60 (1998) 120. [5] Advanced Hydrogen Turbine Development Factsheet. Project DE-FC2605NT42644, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Department of Energy (2006). [6] S. Gadde, J. Wu, A. Gulati, G. McQuiggan, B. Koestlin, B. Prade, Syngas Capable Combustion Systems Development for Advanced Gas Turbines, GT2006-90970, in: Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo Power for Land, Sea and Air. Barcelona, Spain, 2006. [7] Advanced IGCC/H2 Gas Turbine Development Factsheet. Project DE-FC2605NT42643, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Department of Energy (2006). [8] D.M. Todd, A. Battista, Demonstrated Applicability of Hydrogen Fuel for Gas Turbines, in: Proceedings of the 4th IChemE Gasication Conference. Noordwijk, Yhr Netherlands, 2000. [9] T. Komori, S. Shiozaki, N. Yamagami, Y. Kitauchi, W. Akizuki, CO2 emission reduction method through various gas turbine fuels applications, MHI Technology Review 44 (2007) 15. [10] Dbbeling, J. Hellat, H. Koch, 25 years Of BBC/ABB/Alstom lean premix combustion technologies, ASME, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power 129 (2007) 212. [11] J. Wu, P. Brown, I. Diakunchak, A. Gulati, M. Lenze, B. Koestlin, Advanced gas turbine combustion system development for high hydrogen fuels, GT2007-28337, in: Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo: Power for Land, Sea and Air, Canada, 2007. [12] J.G. Wimer, D. Keairns, E.L. Parsons, J.A. Ruether, Integration of Gas Turbines Adapted for Syngas Fuel With Cryogenic and Membrane-Based Air Separation Units: Issues to Consider for System Studies ASME, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power 128 (2006) 271280. [13] A.S. Feitelberg, M.A. Lacey, The GE Rich-Quench-Lean Gas Turbine Combustor, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power 120 (1998) 502508.

Table 6 Gas turbines power at different load fuelled with the syngas fuels. Power (MW) GE 7251FB GT Load 100 75 50 100 75 50 100 75 50 NG 182.9 137.9 92.3 286.7 215.9 144.4 284.8 214.7 143.8 S1 197.3 148.8 99.6 306.1 230.5 154.2 301.0 229.8 153.9 S2 199.7 151.0 101.3 309.2 232.8 155.9 301.0 232.3 155.6 S3 188.9 142.4 95.3 295.0 222.0 148.4 294.0 221.4 148.2 S4 192.5 145.1 97.1 299.5 225.4 150.8 297.3 224.1 150.1 S5 193.5 145.9 97.6 301.2 226.7 151.6 299.9 225.9 151.2 S6 193.9 146.2 97.8 301.7 227.1 151.9 300.4 226.3 151.4 S7 201.3 151.9 101.7 311.9 234.8 157.1 301.0 234.6 157.1 S8 159.2 120.4 80.7 248.0 187.1 125.3 250.7 188.7 126.2

GE 9FB

SGT5-4000

220

R. Chacartegui et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 92 (2011) 213220 [23] G.P. Smith, D.M. Golden, M. Frenklach, N.W. Moriarty, B. Eiteneer, Mikhail Goldenberg, C. Thomas Bowman, Ronald K. Hanson, Soonho Song, William C. Gardiner, Jr., Vitali V. Lissianski, and Zhiwei Qin, http://www.me.berkeley.edu/ gri_mech/. [24] D.E. Cavaliere, M. De Ioannon, P. Sabia, M. Allegorico, T. Marchione, M. Srignano, A. D'Anna, A Comprehensive Kinetic Modeling of Ignition of Syngas/Air Mixture at Low Temperatures and High Pressures, 32nd Meeting on Combustion. Italian Section of the Combustion Institute (Combustion Colloquia), Napoles, 2009, 26-28 April. [25] T. Lieuwen, V. McDonell, E. Petersen, D. Santavicca, Fuel Flexibility Inuences on Premixed Combustor Blowout, Flashback, Autoignition, and Stability ASME, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power 130 (2008) 011506. [26] J. Natarajan, S. Nandula, T. Lieuwen, J. Seitzman, Laminar Flame Speeds of Synthetic Gas Fuel Mixtures, ASME Paper No. GT2005- 68917, in: Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo Power for Land, Sea and Air, USA, 2005. [27] J.P. Claeys, K.M. Elward, W.J. Mick, R.A. Symonds, Combustion System Performance and Field Test Results of the MS7001F Gas Turbine ASME, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power 115 (1993) 537546. [28] J.A. Miller, C.T. Bowman, Mechanism and modeling of nitrogen chemistry in combustion, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 154 (1989) 287338. [29] Y.B. Zeldovich, P.Y. Sadovnikov, D.A. Frank-Kamenetskii, Oxidation of nitrogen in combustion, Academy of Sciences of USSR, 1947, p. 209, translation by M. Shelef. [30] M.C. Drake, S.M. Correa, R.W. Pitz, C.P. Fenimore, W. Shyy, Superequilibrium and thermal nitric oxide formation in turbulent diffusion ames, Combustion and Flame 69 (1987) 347365.

[14] A. Andreini, B. Facchini, Gas Turbines Design and Off-Design Performance Analysis With Emissions Evaluation ASME, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power 126 (2004) 8391. [15] M. Huth, N. Vortmeyer, B. Schetter, J. Karg, Gas turbine experience and design for syngas operation Gasication technology in practice, Institution of Chemical Engineers, Milan, Italy, 1997. [16] J. Wu, Y. Fang, Y. Wang, Combined Coal Gasication and Methane Reforming for Production of Syngas in a Fluidized-Bed Reactor, Energy & Fuels 19 (2005) 512516. [17] Z. Ouyang, Z. Guo, D. Duan, X. Song, X. Yu, Experimental Study of Coal Gasication Coupling with Natural Gas Autothermal Re-Forming for Synthesis Gas Production, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research 44 (2005) 279284. [18] R. Xiao, M. Zhang, B. Jin, Y. Huang, High-Temperature Air/Steam-Blown Gasication of Coal in a Pressurized Spout-Fluid Bed, Energy & Fuels 20 (2006) 715720. [19] M. Trevio, Tecnologa de gasicacin integrada en ciclo combinado GICC. Aplicacin real en Espaa, Club Espaol de la Energa, Puertollano, Elcogas S.A, 2003. [20] P. Lv, J. Chang, Z. Xiong, H. Huang, C. Wu, Y. Chen, Biomass Air-Steam Gasication in a Fluidized Bed to Produce Hydrogen-Rich Gas, Energy & Fuels 17 (2003) 677682. [21] P. Lv, J. Chang, T. Wang, Y. Fu, Y. Chen, Hydrogen-Rich Gas Production from Biomass Catalytic Gasication, Energy & Fuels 18 (2004) 228233. [22] T. Ganga Devi, M.P. Kannan, Gasication of Biomass Chars in Air Effect of Heat Treatment Temperature, Energy & Fuels 14 (2000) 127130.