Collot 2006

Matching gasification technologies to coal properties
Anne-Gaelle Collot
*
International Energy Agency-Clean Coal Centre, Gemini House, 10-18 Putney Hill, London SW15 6AA, United Kingdom
Received 23 January 2004; received in revised form 18 May 2005; accepted 22 May 2005
Available online 9 August 2005
Abstract
The gasification of coal to produce hydrogen for use either in power generation or/and for synthesis applications and
transport is attracting considerable interest worldwide. Three types of generic gasifiers (entrained flow, fluidised bed and fixed
bed gasifiers) presently in use in commercial gasification plants or under development worldwide are described. Their
suitability for processing all types of coals is discussed. This includes an assessment of the impact of some of the major
properties of coal on the design, performance and maintenance of gasification processes.
D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Hydrogen; Coal gasification; Gasifiers; Coal properties
1. Introduction
Global electricity demand is increasing at about
three times the rate of total energy while the industry
is expected to reduce CO
2
emissions because of global
warming. As a consequence, there is pressure to
improve the efficiency of energy use through changes
in technology and to produce energy vectors such as
H
2
with near zero emissions of greenhouse gases.
Oxygen-blown gasification may be the most attractive
route for the production of H
2
from coal with CO
2
capture and sequestration as CO
2
can be removed
from the pressurised syngas (pre-combustion) rather
than the exhaust gas (post-combustion). Removing
CO
2
from the exhaust gas in conventional combustion
processes is feasible, but extremely expensive as this
is carried out at atmospheric pressure and implies the
treatment of a much larger volume of gas (10 times
the volume of syngas). Another attraction of gasifica-
tion technologies and, in particular, of Integrated Coal
Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) is the possibi-
lity of cogeneration of electricity, H
2
and chemicals.
This contributes to the improvement of power genera-
tion efficiency compared with conventional pulverised
coal fired plants as well as the reduction of emissions
of greenhouse gases and particulates to the atmo-
sphere (Clayton et al., 2002; Collot, 2003, 2004).
H
2
is currently produced from coal for use as an
intermediate for the synthesis of chemicals such as
methanol, ammonia/urea, FischerTropsch products
0166-5162/$ - see front matter D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.coal.2005.05.003
* Fax: +44 20 8780 17 46.
E-mail address: collota@cia.org.uk.
International Journal of Coal Geology 65 (2006) 191212
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijcoalgeo
and substitute natural gas (SNG) all over the world.
However IGCC technology for commercial-scale
plants is relatively recent. A summary of the
main existing gasification processes is given in
the following.
There are presently sixty five Chevron Texaco
owned or licensed gasification facilities worldwide
that produce power, chemicals and H
2
from coal (6
plants), oil derivatives and natural gas. Three of the
coal gasification facilities produce ammonia, one pro-
duces town gas and electricity, one is an IGCC plant
and one is producing methanol and chemicals. There
are also other gasification projects in development or
engineering for the production of diesel, H
2
/steam,
syngas or electricity from either coal, natural gas or
oil derivatives (Preston, 2003).
Sasol, which was established in 1950 with the
prime objective to convert low grade coal into petro-
leum products and chemical feedstocks currently
operates three major coal to liquid (CTL) complexes
based on the former Lurgi gasification process (now
known as SasolLurgi dry bottom gasifier) in South
Africa for the gasification of coal into Fischer
Tropsch (FT) products (Van Dyk et al., 2001). The
Great Plains Synfuels plant (Dakota Gasification)
located in North Dakota (USA) has been producing
substitute natural gas (SNG) from lignite using the
same technology since 1984 (Lukes and Wallach,
2003).
There are presently five gasification plants using
the Shell gasification technology. Only one of them,
the Nuon Power Buggenum IGCC plant in the
Netherlands (formerly named Demkolec) which
was started up in 1994, is fed with coal for the
production of electricity. All the other gasification
plants are fed with petroleum wastes to produce
chemicals and/or H
2
(Postuma et al., 2002). Eight
other coal gasification plants using the Shell Coal
Gasification Process (SCGP) for the production of
chemicals are planned to be built in China and one
in the USA (the Waste Management and Processors
Inc project). The plants will all produce syngas for
ammonia/urea, FischerTropsch liquids production
or H
2
for other chemical plants (methanol, oxo),
replacing naphtha reformers, oil gasifiers or out-
dated coal gasifiers (Ploeg, 2001; Zuideveld,
2003). It is expected that the same technologies
as the ones developed at the Nuon Power Bug-
genum IGGC facility, based in the Netherlands,
will be used for the construction of future SCGP
plants with power/H
2
.
New projects based on demonstrated or commer-
cial technologies for the production of hydrogen from
coal for power generation are presently under devel-
opment all over the world.
The EAGLE project (coal Energy Application for
Gas, Liquid and Electricity) is one of two Clean Coal
Technologies (CCT) projects sponsored by the Japa-
nese New Energy and Industrial Technology Devel-
opment Organisation (NEDO) and the Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) as part of a
new strategy called the dDeployment of Coal Utiliza-
tion Technology Development Strategy for the 21st
centuryT. The objective of the EAGLE project is the
development of an Integrated coal Gasification Fuel
Cell combined cycle (IGFC) (Wasaka and Kubota,
2003).
In Italy, a partnership of Sotacarbo, Ansaldo
Ricerche, Enea and the University of Cagliari is
presently developing a pilot scale gasifier for the
production of H
2
and power from coal/biomass and
waste mixtures. The process, based on a 5 MW
(thermal) gasifier combined with an internal combus-
tion engine, will generate 0.2 MW power (Pratola et
al., 2002).
The New Zealand government through its science
funding agency, the Foundation for Research, Science
and Technology, has approved funding to develop a
dtechnology platformT for hydrogen energy. CRL
Energy Ltd is presently constructing a small scale
atmospheric air blown fluidised bed gasifier pilot
plant fed with local lignites for the production of an
equivalent of 50 kW hydrogen energy (Pearce, 2003;
S. Pearce, pers. comm., 2003).
The FutureGen project in the USA is a 10 year,
US$ 1 billion, demonstration project which was
launched by the US government in February 2003
for the production of H
2
from coal. The 275 MW
prototype plant known as FutureGen will serve as a
large-scale engineering laboratory for testing new
clean power, carbon capture and coal to hydrogen
technologies. Every aspect of the prototype plant
will be based on cutting edge technologies (US
DOE, 2003).
Two new IGCC projects, the Kentucky Pioneer
Energy project (Kentucky) and the Lima Energy pro-
A.-G. Collot / International Journal of Coal Geology 65 (2006) 191212 192
ject (Ohio) and one existing IGCC power plant, the
Wabash River IGCC (Indiana), are being developed
by Global Energy Inc in the USA. The objective of the
Kentucky Pioneer Energy project co-sponsored by the
US DOE, is to demonstrate the reliability, availability
and maintainability of a utility-scale IGCC system
using a high sulphur bituminous coal, coal fines and
pelletized refuse-derived fuel (RDF) blend in a BGL
(British Gas/Lurgi) gasifier (Bailey, 2001). The Lima
Energy 580 MW gasification plant project is based on
the use of the E-GASk technology, for the co-gen-
eration of H
2
and electricity from petcoke. The
Wabash River IGCC power plant also designed with
an E-GASk entrained flow gasifier has been operat-
ing with a range of local coals since 1995. A molten
carbonate fuel cell is currently being installed at the
Wabash River IGCC plant instead of as originally
planned, at the Kentucky Pioneer Energy plant. It is
expected that operation of the integrated IGCC-fuel
cell will start in spring 2004 first with natural gas
followed soon after with coal syngas. The Wabash
River IGCC power plant and the Lima Energy pro-
jects are owned by Global Energy although ConoPhil-
lips recently acquired the patents and intellectual
property associated with the E-GASk Technology
for Gasification (P. Amick, pers. comm., 2004).
There are also three projects of cogeneration plants
(power and chemicals) projects sponsored by the US
DOE as Early Entrance Coproduction Plants (EECP)
(Amick et al., 2003; Rich et al., 2003; Shah and
Schrader, 2003; Strickland and Tsang, 2003) and
one project for the production of 100 t/d of dimethyl
ether (DME) from coal in Japan (Ohno and Omiya,
2003). More details on these projects can be found in
Collot (2004).
New concepts based on the gasification of coal for
the production of hydrogen are presently under devel-
opment. Some of the concepts are based on the com-
bination of three steps which include the gasification
of coal (either steam gasification or hydrogasifica-
tion), the shift reaction and carbon dioxide removal.
Examples of this type of concept are the Absorption
Enhanced Reforming (AER) process developed in
Germany (Weimer et al., 2002), the Advanced Gasi-
fication-Combustion (AGC) project (Rizeq et al.,
2002) and the Zero Emission Coal Alliance (ZECA)
process (Ziock et al., 2002, 2003) developed in the
USA, and the Hydrogen Production Reaction Inte-
grated Novel Gasification (HyPr-RING) process
developed in Japan (Lin et al., 2002, 2003). Other
concepts under development include membrane reac-
tors (Sammells and Barton, 2003) and molten bath
processes (HydroMaxR, HyMeltR) adapted from
metal smelting processes existing in the iron making
industry (Alchemix Corporation, 2003; Trowbridge et
al., 2002). More details on these new concepts can be
found in Collot (2003).
2. Coal gasification and its applications
Gasification is defined as the reaction of solid
fuels with air, oxygen, steam, carbon dioxide, or a
mixture of these gases at a temperature exceeding
700 8C, to yield a gaseous product suitable for use
either as a source of energy or as a raw material for
the synthesis of chemicals, liquid fuels or other
gaseous fuels. More details concerning the mechan-
isms of these reactions and their kinetics can be
found in Kristiansen (1996).
Common gasifying agents used in industrial gasi-
fiers include a mixture of steam and air or oxygen
with the amount of oxygen being generally one-fifth
to one-third the amount theoretically required for
complete combustion. The chemical composition
and future use of the gas produced (syngas) varies
depending on the following parameters:
! coal composition and rank
! coal preparation (particle size)
! gasification agents employed (oxygen or air)
! gasification conditions: temperature, pressure,
heating rate and residence time in the gasifier
! plant configuration which includes: the coal feed-
ing system (fed as a dry powder or as a slurry with
water); the way by which contact between the fuel
and the gasification agents is established (flow
geometry); as to whether the minerals are removed
as dry ash or molten ash (slag); the way heat is
produced and transferred and finally, the way syn-
gas is cleaned (sulphur removal, nitrogen removal,
other pollutants removal).
A large number of gasification technologies
exist (see Section 1) and are detailed by Collot
(2002). They can however be classified into three
categories of gasifier configurations according to their
flow geometry:
! entrained flow gasifiers, in which pulverised coal
particles and gases flow concurrently at high speed.
They are the most commonly used gasifiers for
coal gasification.
! fluidised bed gasifiers, in which coal particles are
suspended in the gas flow; coal feed particles are
mixed with the particles undergoing gasification,
! moving bed (also called fixed bed) gasifiers, in
which gases flow relatively slowly upward through
the bed of coal feed. Both concurrent and counter
concurrent technologies are available but the latter
is more common.
Other gasifier types have been developed based on
rotary kilns or molten baths, but no gasifiers of these
types are near to commercialisation. Gasification may
also be carried out in situ in coal deposits (also known
as underground gasification).
The choice of a gasification technology is difficult
as it depends on diverse factors such as (Vamvuka,
1999):
! coal availability, type and cost;
! gasifier end use locations and interactions;
! size constraints;
! production rate of energy;
! turndown requirements;
! heating value of the gas;
! allowed gas purity (S, CO
2
, etc) and cleanliness
(tars, soot, ash) for meeting international regula-
tions, plant requirements and further use of the gas
products.
Coal choice maybe the least flexible factor for
economic, geographical and political reasons and it
is thus necessary to adapt the gasification technology
to the base coal to be processed.
3. Entrained flow gasifiers
In entrained flow gasifiers, coal particles concur-
rently react at high speed with steam and oxygen or
air in a suspension mode called entrained fluid flow.
Short gas residence times (seconds) give them a high
load capacity but also require coal to be pulverised.
Coal can either be fed dry (commonly using nitrogen
as a transport gas) or wet (carried in a slurry water)
into the gasifier. They usually operate at high tem-
peratures of 12001600 8C and pressures in the range
of 28 MPa. Entrained flow gasifiers are all slagging
gasifiers which are either lined with a refractory or a
slag self-coating system. Raw gas exiting the gasifier
usually requires significant cooling before being
cleaned. There are two main methods of cleaning
the gas by: using a high temperature syngas cooler,
this can also include recycling of cooled gas to the
gasifier, or quenching the gas with water. In entrained
flow gasifiers flexible load operation is more difficult
to handle than with the other types of gasifiers (flui-
dised and moving bed gasifiers). As entrained flow
gasifiers have a small heat capacity and no inventory
of process feedstocks, it is critical to control the
coal:oxidant ratio within narrow limits through the
entire operation in order to maintain a stable flame
close to the injector tip.
Entrained flow gasifiers are the most widely used
gasifiers with seven different gasification technologies
based on entrained flow gasifiers presently used at
industrial scale or under development worldwide.
Tables 1 and 2 give a summary of the main character-
istics of seven entrained flow gasification technolo-
gies. More detail on each gasification process can be
found in Collot (2002).
3.1. Slurryability and grindability
In entrained flow gasifiers, coal is pulverised to
ensure high carbon conversion during gasification.
The grindability of a coal is measured by the Hard-
grove Grindability Index (HGI). The HGI is used as a
comparison basis against experience with other coals
that have had satisfactory size distribution from grind-
ing operations. Slurryability is another important coal
property to take into account for slurry-fed gasifiers.
These two properties are very much interrelated as the
grind size distribution from a grinding mill affects the
slurry properties of a coal and then the conversion in
the gasifier. If a coarse grind size is used, a high solid
concentration of slurry can be produced but the larger
coal particles will not gasify as well as smaller parti-
cles that will tend to form a slurry with a lower
concentration. A coal with a high HGI favours the
production of slurry with a high concentration for use
in slurry-fed gasifiers. Important points to consider for
the slurry concentration are whether or not it is pump-
able, stable with particle settling and its rheology. A
considerable amount of research has been dedicated to
the development of techniques for the production of
coal/water mixtures in the last 2030 years with a
view to replacing oil by coal slurries (Thambimuthu,
1994). Results are also relevant to the preparation of
coal slurry for gasification.
Dooher et al. (1990) studied the slurryability of six
bituminous coals and one subbituminous coal to
develop a methodology for assessing the suitability
of coals for slurry fed gasifiers. They reported that the
most important coal properties affecting coal slurry-
ability were: equilibrium moisture, fixed carbon, sur-
face carbon/oxygen bonding as determined by
electron microscopy and free swelling index. The
equilibrium moisture (ASTM test D1412) of the
coal is a measure of the inherent moisture rather
than the coal surface moisture. According to Curran
(1989), experience showed that the equilibrium moist-
ure correlates with pumpable slurry concentrations.
Kanamori et al. (1990) performed tests on twenty
coals and found that it was possible to predict the
slurryability and stability of coal slurries with the
oxygen to carbon ratio in coal, the oxygen-containing
groups and the clay minerals.
All coals that can be pulverised (high HGI) can be
processed in dry-fed entrained flow gasifier systems.
Bituminous coals with their low inherent moisture
content and hydrophobic nature are the coals of
choice for the commercial preparation of high solid
content coal/water fuels. However higher and lower
rank coals can also be processed in slurry fed gasifiers
provided the coal is pre-treated or an additive is used
(Thambimuthu, 1994).
3.2. Coal reactivity
Highly reactive coals provide high carbon conver-
sion at moderate gasifier temperatures improving
Table 1
Main characteristics of existing dry-fed entrained flow gasification processes
Technology Operating conditions Gasifier Cooling and cleaning modes and
ash removal system
Hitachi Operate under slagging
temperatures at pressure
of 2.5 MPa
Water cooled tube. Two sets of burners
are installed tangentially to the gasifier
sidewall allowing a spiral flow of coal
and oxygen from the upper stage to the
lower stage and making particle residence
time much longer than those of a gas
stream.
Gas is cooled in a syngas cooler
(4508C) followed by a cyclone
and a filter. Char and fly ash are
recycled to the gasifier. Slag is
water quenched and removed
through a lock hopper.
Mitsubishi heavy
industries
Air blown Two-stages: combustion zone where O
coal is injected. Gas produced diffuses to
a reducing section where the remaining
coal is added. A welded water tube vessel
is contained in a pressure shell.
Char particles are collected in a
syngas cooler and cyclones and
recycled to the gasifier. Slag is
water quenched and removed
Prenflo Four burners at the
bottom
Gasifier lined with a refractory. Syngas
cooler is incorporated into the gasifier
shell.
Syngas is quenched with recycled
cleaned cooled syngas. Raw gas
is dedusted in ceramic candle
filters. Slag is water quenched and
removed through a lock hopper.
Shell coal gasification
process
Operation at 24 MPa, at
1500 8C and above
A carbon steel vessel, which contains a
gasification chamber, is enclosed by a
non-refractory membrane wall. Coal is fed
into the gasifier through horizontally
opposed burners.
Syngas is quenched with cooled
recycled product gas and further
cooled in a syngas cooler. Raw
gas is cleaned in ceramic filters.
50% gas is recycled to act as a
quenching medium. Molten slag
is removed through a slag tap and
water quenched.
overall system efficiency. The reactivity of coal chars
under gasification conditions is a major determinant of
the gasifier size and design. Char reactivity has a
significant influence on the degree of char recycle
and on the volume of oxidant required for the gasifier.
Boyd and Benyon (1999) studied the reactivity of
six Australian coals in a laboratory-scale pressurised
Drop Tube Furnace (DTF) and a Pressurised Thermo-
gravimetric Apparatus (PTGA). Chars were produced
in the DTF and their reactivities were measured with
the PTGA. Their results were then extrapolated to
full-scale entrained flow gasifiers (Shell, Texaco and
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries) using a dsensitivity
method of analysisT. They reported that the effects
of change in char reactivity (coal) were the largest in
the air blown MHI process and the lowest in the Shell
process. They concluded that even though the rank of
the six coals studied was very similar, they had sig-
nificant differences in reactivity. These differences
were due to physical characteristics as well as the
chemical characteristics defining ASTM rank. A cor-
relation with fixed carbon, volatile matter or specific
energy was not found. They also pointed out that
inorganic constituents may have a small effect on
coal reactivity by acting as catalysts.
More fundamental studies (Kelly et al., 2001;
Roberts et al., 2000) to better understand the process
of coal conversion focused on the effect of operating
pressure, temperatures and heating rate on coal reac-
tion behaviour under conditions relevant to entrained
flow gasification systems. The work reported by Kelly
et al. (2001) provided comparative data on 13 Aus-
tralian coals usually processed in entrained flow gasi-
fiers worldwide. Volatile yields of the coals were
determined in a wire mesh reactor and results showed
that coal volatile yield decreases with increasing reac-
tion pressure despite the enhancing effect of heating
rates. The greatest reduction in volatile yield with
pressure was observed for the higher coal ranks.
Char gasification of the same coals was studied in a
PTGA. Results indicated that char gasification in CO
2
atmospheres was strongly influenced by coal rank,
whereas steam and O
2
gasification did not show
much of a coal rank effect on apparent reaction
Table 2
Main characteristics of existing slurry fed entrained flow gasifiers
Technology Operating conditions Gasifier Cooling and cleaning modes
and ash removal system
Babcok borsig
power (Noell)
Dry-fed or slurry-fed gasifier.
Operate in the range 13501600 8C
at pressure of 2.6 MPa
Either covered by a cooling
screen (refractory on which
are mounted cooling tubes
supported by pins) for coals
with a ash content N1%wt or
a cooling wall (other feedstocks
than coal).
Raw gas is cooled with water spray
and further cooled before being
recycled to the gasifier. The molten
slag is water quenched. The granular
slag is removed from the gasifier
E-GASk Slurry is preheated prior to injection.
80% of the coal is injected through 2
burners and is partially combusted at
temperatures of 13501400 8C and 3
MPa pressure. The remaining coal slurry
is injected in the upper stage and reacts
with the fuel gas produced in the lower
stage.
Two-stage pressure shell lined
with refractory.
Crude gas is cooled in a firetube
syngas cooler, which is a boiler
system with the hot gas circulating
on the boiler side as opposed to a
water gas cooler. Syngas is cleaned
in metal filters and ash and char
particles are re-injected into the
gasifier. Molten slag is removed
through a tap hole into a water
quench.
Texaco Slurry-fed through burners at the top of
the gasifier. Operate at temperatures in
the range 12501450 8C and 38 MPa
pressures.
Pressure vessel with refractory
lining.
Raw gas can either be cooled and
cleaned from slag by water
quenching or radiant cooler. The raw
gas and slag flow out towards the
bottom of the gasifier. The molten
slag is water quenched and removed
rates. These results suggest that other coal character-
istics, such as crystallinity and coal mineral matter are
playing a greater role under these conditions. The
conversion profiles of each char were also different
with the different gases tested (CO
2
, H
2
O, O
2
). This
fundamental study claims to be useful for predicting
coal performance in practical high-pressure reaction
systems as well as contributing to the resolution of
problems associated with Australian coals in interna-
tional demonstration and pilot-scale facilities. The
same authors are now expanding their study to inter-
national coals (Harris et al., 2003; Roberts and Harris,
2003).
In practice, reactive coals can be gasified at lower
temperatures and hence at higher cold gas efficiency,
whereas less reactive coals may need higher gasifi-
cation temperatures in order to achieve adequate
conversion efficiencies. At the same time, the tem-
perature must be high enough to yield a tappable
slag. Thus the preferred operating strategy for a coal
is always a balance between reactivity and slag
tapping considerations.
3.3. Ash/slag properties
Entrained flow gasifiers are usually recom-
mended for coals with a low ash content for both
economical and technical reasons. Considering that
gasifier operating conditions are kept constant, an
increase in coal ash content will lead to a decrease
in gasification efficiency and an increase in slag
production and disposal. These three factors contri-
bute to an increase in the overall cost of the
process. The decrease in gasification efficiency is
mainly due to an increase in oxygen consumption
which is necessary to melt the minerals as well as a
thermodynamic penaltythe heat in the slag exiting
the gasifier cannot be fully recovered. An increase
of the slag quantity can also cause blockage of the
slag removal and cleaning devices. It is neverthe-
less difficult to draw an optimum ash content value
for coals processed in entrained flow gasifiers. This
is because some of the technologies require a mini-
mum ash content. These technologies (BBP, Hitachi
and SCGP, see Tables 1 and 2) use a slag self
coating system that has to be covered by slag to
function and minimise heat loss through the wall of
the gasifiers.
3.3.1. Ash chemical composition
In entrained flow gasifiers, the high temperature of
gasification (usually up to 1600 8C) combined with
pressures of up to 3 MPa can accelerate the deteriora-
tion of refractory lining existing on the walls of some
gasifiers. Current refractory materials, which are
expensive pieces of gasifier equipment, have typically
a service life of no more than two years and the study of
their service life is an important parameter for the
selection of base coals for a gasifier. Texaco developed
a method to predict gasifier refractory life based on coal
ash ASTMfluid temperature which depends directly on
the composition of the ash/slag (see also Section 3.3.2).
Dogan et al. (2001) performed an extensive analysis
of spent refractories from commercial gasifiers and
concluded that some compounds present in coal slag
(SiO
2
, CaO, iron oxides) can penetrate deeply into
high chrome refractory materials and eventually give
rise to cracks that lead to material loss.
3.3.2. Ash fusion temperature (AFT) or ash melting
point
In slagging gasifiers, the ash flows down the gasifier
walls and drains from the gasifier as a molten slag.
Coals selected for slagging gasifiers should thus have
an ash fusion temperature (AFT) below the operating
temperature of the gasifier (14001600 8C). In practice,
AFTcan be lowered by either the addition of flux, such
as limestone, or by blending with low ash fusion coals.
AFTis widely used as a guide to slag behaviour and can
be simply and quickly determined by laboratory stan-
dard methods, which consist of coal ashing by slow
heating in air. However this method does not reproduce
real commercial gasification conditions and other tests
have been developed. For example, engineers at the
Polk power station (Texaco technology) in the USAuse
the difference between the ASTM ash fluid tempera-
ture, determined under reducing conditions and the
gasifier operating temperature plotted versus refractory
liner life, to estimate the optimum operating tempera-
ture of the gasifier for successful tapping (McDaniel
and Shelnut, 1998; McDaniel et al., 1998). Shell uses
the ash melting point as a preliminary indication for a
new coal and to check if the addition of flux would be
required (Ploeg, 1997). The temperature of 1400 8C is
considered as a breaking point with higher values of ash
fusion temperatures requiring flux. For an actual
design/operation a complete analysis of the ash should
be done to confirm the first approach and it is then
necessary to either perform further measurements on
slags produced in a gasifier or to rely on other methods
which can predict ash fusion temperature based on the
chemical composition of the ash.
Ashizawa et al. (1993) developed a method to
determine the ash fusion temperature of 26 coals as
a function of the chemical composition of their ash
(acidity). The acidity is defined as follows:
Acidity = (SiO
2
+Al
2
O
3
) / (Fe
2
O
3
+ CaO + MgO
+ Na
2
O+K
2
O).
To validate the dacidityT method they produced
slags under oxidising conditions in a 2 t/d pilot
plant gasifier developed by CRIEPI (MHI technol-
ogy). The slags produced were analysed and com-
pared to results obtained by the dacidityT method.
They found a correlation between the ash composition
(acidity) and the ash fusion temperature and the equa-
tion giving the relationship between Tf (fusion tem-
perature) and X (acidity) is as follows:
Tf 27:7931TX 1236:89:
This dacidityT method was then used to predict the
ash fusion temperature of coals in the presence of flux
and coal blends. Results obtained showed that the
prediction was even more precise when flux was
added to the coals. This could be explained by the
lowering of the importance of the influence that minor
oxides have on the ash fusion temperature when flux
is used.
3.3.3. Slag viscosity and temperature of critical visc-
osity (Tcv)
As the ash melts, its viscosity has to be low enough
to enable it to flow down and drain from the gasifier.
The viscosity of the slag, which depends on the slag
composition, is one of the most critical factors in the
operation of slagging gasifiers.
There are two types of coal slag behaviours:
! Type I exhibits a glassy behaviour, which means
that when the slag cools down the increase in the
viscosity of the slag, is predictable and continuous.
! Type II exhibits a crystalline behaviour when cool-
ing down and, as a consequence, the flow becomes
non-Newtonian and the viscosity of the slag
increases sharply below a temperature called the
temperature of critical viscosity (Tcv). This type of
slag will behave the same as Type I (Newtonian
flow) at temperatures well above the Tcv. However
in the Tcv region crystallisation begins to have a
significant effect on the viscosity of the slag and
induces the possibility of blockage of the tapping
system with crystalline deposits.
Tcv is the minimum temperature required for safe
operation with slags that exhibit crystalline behaviour
rather than glassy behaviour. In practice the operating
temperature of the gasifier must be high enough to
maintain the slag in the Newtonian flow region (Scott
and Carpenter, 1996). Tcv depends on slag composi-
tion and, in particular, on the ratio of SiO
2
/Al
2
O
3
in
the slag.
It has been established that slag viscosity must be
low enough (2515 Pa.s), with an optimum value of
15 Pa.s at temperatures of 14001500 8C, to achieve
successful slag tapping (Browning et al., 1999). As a
consequence, viscosity models have been developed
to predict coal ash slag behaviour in coal slagging
gasification processes; this is necessary for optimisa-
tion of the operating parameters (coal selection, blend-
ing and flux) in order to achieve stable process
conditions and to reduce operating costs.
Shell uses a model (bSLAGSQ program) developed
by Mills and Broabent (1994) to predict ash behaviour
for the range of coals in the SCGP (Ploeg, 1997,
2000). The model gives an estimation of the physical
properties of the slags from their chemical composi-
tions. This model was originally developed for metal-
lurgical slags but was later successfully applied to
coal slags, provided that all components present at
concentrations above 5%wt were included for the
calculations. The bSLAGSQ model contains routines
for the estimation of ash fusion temperatures, viscos-
ities, densities and surface tensions. Fluxing agents
(mainly limestone) are then used to balance the slag
viscosity of the different coals fed.
Eastman Chemicals developed an in-house test in
order to determine the quality of their feedstocks prior
to gasification in a Texaco gasifier (Trapp, 2001,
2002). Considering that the typical standard viscosity
or melt point tests usually used to estimate slag visc-
osity are inadequate to fully predict slag behaviour in
the gasifier, they determined a continuous curve of
viscosity as a function of temperature. Eastman Che-
micals also reported, without giving more details, that
they co-fed slag modifiers (probably limestone) to
positively affect certain ash properties. As a result,
dbetter qualityT coals were gasified leading to a reduc-
tion in operation difficulties and shutdowns.
Oh et al. (1995) studied the slag characteristics of
four US coals used in a Texaco gasifier. They stated
that all the empirical models used to determine slag
viscosity as a function of temperature and composi-
tion can only be applied with success for slags having
a dglassyT behaviour and that the models often fail to
predict correct slag viscosity behaviour when a crys-
talline phase appears during cooling.
Patterson et al. (2001) studied the slag character-
istics of 68 Australian coals for their utilisation in
slagging gasifiers. They established an extensive
slag viscosity database versus ash composition, tem-
perature and flux addition (Patterson and Hurst,
2000). They concluded that the slag viscosities of
Australian coals can be properly predicted from their
models for tappings at 1500 8C, however these pre-
dictions were not validated for all the coals at 1400 8C
due to slag crystallisation. The same authors (Patter-
son and Harris, 1998) also reported that after addition
of limestone flux (up to 20% CaO) to some Australian
coals having a very low iron content (b2.5% Fe
3
O
2
in
ash) and a very high ash flow temperature (N1600
8C), the slag viscosities of those coals were indepen-
dent of SiO
2
/Al
2
O
3
in the range 1.25 at the optimum
viscosity of 15 Pa.s. They then concluded that varia-
bility in ash composition of those coals was not a
problem and that the addition of a fixed amount of
limestone flux by weight of coal should be effective at
all times.
The effects of slag composition on the Tcv still
remain poorly understood and need more investiga-
tion. Nevertheless, three solutions can be implemen-
ted to tackle the problem arising in slagging processes
when using coals having a high ash fusion tempera-
ture and slags with high critical viscosity temperature
(Tcv). The most common solution implemented is
flux addition (either CaO or FeO) in order to decrease
ash melting points and slag viscosity. The viscosity
models will give the optimum quantity of flux to add
to the coal in order to have a continuous flow. The
second solution is blending with a low ash fusion coal
to provide the necessary CaO and FeO. Blending
presents two advantages: The first one is that it
could help to overcome limitations arising from slag
crystallisation at the slagging temperature by choosing
the appropriate coal. The second one is economic as
blending can minimise or even avoid the use of flux.
The third solution would be to increase the gasifier
operating temperature above 15001600 8C to
achieve the necessary slag tap viscosity or to reduce
the rate of flux addition. However this solution would
necessitate an additional oxidant requirement that
would lead to a reduced cold gas efficiency and a
decrease in refractory life for gasifiers lined with a
refractory layer.
The optimum ash fusion temperature (AFT) and
critical temperature viscosity (Tcv) recommended for
smooth slag tapping in entrained flow gasification
processes differ depending on the operating tempera-
ture of the gasifier. In principle, the AFT of a coal
should be below the operating temperature of the
gasifier (14001600 8C). Tcv is the minimum gasifier
operating temperature required for safe operation with
slags that exhibit crystalline behaviour. Tcv depends
on slag composition (SiO
2
/Al
2
O
3
). A solution com-
monly applied to widen the range of coals that can be
processed in entrained flow slagging systems is to
either blend them with flux or with a coal having a
low AFT.
3.3.4. Ash fouling
Some of the minerals present in coals are entrained
in the gas stream and can lead to fouling at different
locations downstream of the gasifier. Fouling pro-
blems can often be characterised as the impaction of
particles into a sticky layer of material in piping that
could occur in the quench zone of the gasifier and/or
in the cooling sections downstream of the gasifier. As
an example, during the first commercial operating
year of the Wabash River repowering plant (E-
GASk technology) the cleaning device of the plant
experienced problems related to ash deposition at the
inlet of the firetube boiler and particulate break-
through in the particulate filter system. These pro-
blems necessitated a large-scale capital improvement
programme. The Polk Power station (Texaco Technol-
ogy) also experienced several convective syngas
cooler pluggings that led to serious damage of the
combustion turbine during the second and third years
of commercial operation (US DOE, 2000). This was
particularly due to the ash constituents of some of the
fuels tested.
Two major research and development programmes
on Coal Ash Behaviour in Reducing Environments
(CABRE I and II) were initiated by a consortium of
industries in partnership with the US DOE, the Neth-
erlands Energy Research Foundation (ECN) and the
Netherlands Agency for Energy and the Environment
(NOVEM) (Kiel and Bos, 1999). A series of tests was
performed with seven coals and a coal mixture cur-
rently used in industrial IGCC power plants. The fuels
were subjected to an initial particle temperature of
more than 2000 8C followed by a gasification tem-
perature of up to 1400 8C under 1.0 MPa pressure.
These conditions were considered as a realistic gas-
eous environment for entrained flow gasification
simulation. It was reported that in the presence of
H
2
S in the gas phase there were small deposits of
FeS on the surface of the ash (solidified Ca/Fe-con-
taining aluminosilicate spheres) collected in the
cyclone sample of the PEFG-simulator.
The authors explained that FeS formed in the
vapour-phase condensed on the ash sample during
quenching in the collection probe. All the experiments
and observations undertaken on the different ash sam-
ples led to the building of an ash deposition model
that is claimed to predict ash partitioning, ash fouling
and also ash slagging under gasification conditions in
entrained flow gasifiers (Kiel et al., 2000).
3.4. Sulphur and chlorine contents
During gasification sulphur originally present in
coal is converted to H
2
S which is highly corrosive
to syngas coolers and causes serious damage to heat
exchange systems as well as having an impact on the
cost of sulphur removal and recovery units. Sulphur
content in coals is reported by Shell (Ploeg, 1997) and
Texaco (McDaniel and Shelnut, 1998; McDaniel et
al., 1998) to be one of the major coal properties to
take into account for the design of a gasification plant.
Most coals also contain minor quantities of chlorine
with concentrations ranging from 0.05 wt.% to 0.5
wt.% with 0.10.2 wt.% being the most typical. As an
example, 0.1% Cl in coal will result in 200400 ppm
of HCl in the syngas. HCl can react with available
metal compounds present on flyash, which has accu-
mulated on syngas coolers. This results in local depos-
its containing up to 15% chlorides such as FeCl
2
,
NaCl, CaCl and causes other problems downstream
such as those at the Wabash River repowering plant
(E-GASk technology) which experienced during its
first commercial year of operation, the poisoning of
the COS catalyst by chloride vapours present in the
syngas (US DOE, 2002).
Alloy composition is one of the main factors influ-
encing corrosion behaviour and most of the research
in this area has focused on the development of new
materials with enhanced resistance to corrosion. Most
of the high temperature alloys used for syngas coolers
are made of Cr, Ni and Al with some minor elements
influencing their properties. Bakker (1997, 1998,
1999, 2000) studied mixed oxidant corrosion in gas
simulating conditions under a non-equilibrium state in
syngas coolers of coal gasifiers and reported that
corrosion losses were a function of the PS
2
/PO
2
ratio and defined three types of corrosion depending
on this ratio and the concentration of HCl in the
syngas.
3.5. Comments
All entrained flow gasifiers are slagging gasifiers
and each technology has slightly different require-
ments for coal properties depending on the design.
There is a minimum ash content required for gasifiers
with slag self-coating walls which have to be covered
by slag to function and minimise heat loss through the
wall. A maximum ash content is also usually fixed for
each type of entrained flow gasifier as the tolerance to
ash content depends on economic and technical fac-
tors. Gasifiers lined with a refractory are susceptible
to some of the compounds present in coal slag (SiO
2
,
CaO, iron oxides) which can penetrate deep into the
refractory and eventually give rise to cracks that lead
to material loss. The optimum ash fusion temperature
(AFT) and critical temperature viscosity (Tcv) recom-
mended for smooth slag tapping in entrained flow
gasification processes differ depending on the operat-
ing temperature of the gasifier. In principle, the AFT
of a coal should be below the operating temperature of
the gasifier (14001600 8C). Tcv is the minimum
gasifier operating temperature required for safe opera-
tion with slags that exhibit crystalline behaviour. Tcv
depends on slag composition (SiO
2
/Al
2
O
3
). A solu-
tion commonly applied to widen the range of coals
that can be processed in entrained flow slagging sys-
tems is to either blend them with flux or with a coal
having a low AFT. The tolerance of entrained flow
gasifiers to sulphur and halogens depends on the
composition and resistance of the material used in
the cooling, cleaning and tapping systems but also
on the operating conditions of the gasification process
(gasifier temperature), as well as the processing capa-
city of the downstream equipment, such as the sulphur
plant.
4. Fluidised bed gasifiers
Fluidised bed gasifiers, with the exception of the
Transport Reactor Gasifier which is midway between
a fluidised bed and an entrained flow gasifier, can
only operate with solid crushed fuels (coal: 0.55
mm, less than 50 Am for the Transport Reactor
Gasifier) that are introduced into an upward flow
of gas (either air or oxygen/steam) that fluidises
the bed of fuel while the reaction is taking place.
The bed is either formed of sand/coke/char/sorbent
or ash. Residence time of the feed in the gasifier is
typically in the order of 10100 s but can also be
much longer, with the feed experiencing a high
heating rate from the entry in the gasifier. High
levels of back-mixing ensure a uniform temperature
distribution in the gasifier. Fluidised bed gasifiers
usually operate at temperatures well below the ash
fusion temperatures of the fuels (9001050 8C) to
avoid ash melting, thereby avoiding clinker forma-
tion and loss of fluidity of the bed. A consequence
of the low operating temperatures is the incomplete
carbon conversion in a single stage and it is therefore
common for the residual char to be either removed
and burnt in a separate combustion unit (hybrid
cycle) or recirculated into the gasifier. Fluidised
bed gasifiers may differ in ash discharge conditions,
being dry or agglomerated. One of the main advan-
tages of this type of gasifier is that they can operate
at variable loads which gives them a high turndown
flexibility.
There are six types of gasification processes using
fluidised bed gasifiers. Only two of them have been
operated at industrial scale. Their main characteristics
are summarised in Tables 38.
4.1. Coal reactivity
As fluidised bed gasification is a low temperature
process (8001050 8C), the reactivity of the coal-
derived char must be sufficiently high. The reaction
which plays the biggest role in the coal conversion
rate is the endothermic carbon-steam reaction that
results from coal devolatilisation. The rate of this
reaction determines whether or not a coal is suffi-
ciently reactive for fluidised bed gasification. Some
examples of studies of coal reactivity impact on
fluidised bed gasification processes are given in the
following.
Clemens et al. (2000) have studied the applicability
of clean coal gasification technologies to New Zeal-
and coals using a laboratory-scale fluidised bed gasi-
fier and a pressurised thermogravimetric analyser
(PTGA). They determined the reactivities of New
Zealand coals, which include lignites and sub-bitumi-
nous coals, and compared them with those of overseas
coals known to have sufficient reactivity to be gasified
in fluidised bed gasifiers. A peculiarity of New Zeal-
and coals is their high content in alkaline elements
which can probably act as a catalyst and hence
Table 3
The BHEL fluidised bed gasifier
Feeding system and operating
conditions
Gasifier Ash discharge
mode
Cooling and cleaning
modes
Comments
Crushed coal injected
through lock hoppers.
Operates at a temperature
of 1000 8C and 1.3 MPa
pressure.
Refractory lined
reactor with 1.4 m
inside diameter
expanding to 2 m at
the upper section of
the gasifier.
Dry granular ash
withdrawn from the
bottom of the gasifier
through a water-cooled
screw extractor and
discharged through a
lock hopper.
Fines collected in three
cyclones can be recycled
in the gasifier.
168 t/d air-blown
gasifier designed for
the gasification of
Indian coals with high
ash content.
increase char gasification reactivity. Calcium, which is
present in significant proportions in New Zealand coal
ashes is one of the most efficient catalysts. Although
the overseas coals they studied had very different
characteristics (very high ash content in German
brown coals and very high water content in Australian
lignite), the authors concluded that New Zealand coals
were readily able to meet the reactivity criterion for
being processed successfully in future fluidised bed
IGCC plants.
A laboratory at Imperial College London (UK),
studied the impact of several coal characteristics on
the gasification reactivity of some internationally
traded coals in bench scale reactors that could
mimic the behaviour of single coal particles in the
ABGC (Megaritis et al., 1998; Collot, 1999; Messen-
bo ck et al., 2000; Zhuo et al., 2000a; Lemaignen et al.,
2002). The characteristics of coal studied included
coal maceral composition and coal mineral matter
composition. CO
2
-gasification experiments with
coals and their macerals revealed that it was difficult
to predict coal gasification reactivity in the ABGC
only from coal maceral composition, although predic-
tion of coal pyrolysis reactivity matched quite well
results obtained in the bench scale reactors. However
the authors (Zhuo et al., 2000b) concluded that the
nature and reactivity of the chars depend on a number
of factors which include not only the maceral content
of the coals but also the conditions of char formation,
such as temperature, pressure, residence time and
parent coal. These affect the two main processes that
seem to govern the reactivity, which are the deposition
of secondary carbon (by the intraparticle decomposi-
tion of volatiles) and change in the base char structure
(caused by the development of fluidity and escape of
volatiles from the melt and its re-solidification). Their
results showed that under conditions relevant to the
ABGC, vitrinite is a maceral that melts and swells,
liptinite also melts but does not swell or agglomerate
and loses a large proportion of its mass by pyrolysis
and the third maceral, inertite, does not melt, but only
loses a small proportion of its mass under pyrolysis
Table 4
The High Temperature Winkler (HTW) gasifier
Feeding system and
operating conditions
Gasifier Ash discharge mode Cooling and cleaning
modes
Comments
Coal dropped from a
bin via a gravity pipe
into the gasifier. Gasifier
is fluidised from the
bottom. Additional
gasification agent is
introduced at the
freeboard (900950 8C).
Operating pressure is
13 MPa
Bed is formed of
particles of ash,
semi-coke and coal
and is maintained at
800 8C.
Dry ash is removed
at the bottom of the
gasifier via a
discharge screw.
Raw gas is passed
through a cyclone
to remove particulates
that are recycled to the
gasifier. Either water
cooled or fire tube
syngas cooling system.
Successfully applied
for the synthesis of
methanol from lignites
between 1986 and
1997. Wide range of
coals tested. Plan
to replace old Lurgi
dry ash reactors by
HTW technology at
Vresova IGCC plant
(Czech republic)
Table 5
The Integrated Drying Gasification Combined Cycle (IDGC)
Feeding system and
Ash discharge
mode
modes
Comments
Feed coal is pressurised in
a lock hopper and fed into
a dryer where it is mixed
with the hot gas leaving
the gasifier. The gasifier
operates at 900 8C and
2.5 MPa pressure.
Char and ash are
collected at the
bottom of the
gasifier and burnt
in a separate boiler.
The heat of the gas
produced is used to
dry the coal whilst
the evaporation of
water from the coal
cools down the gas:
there is no need for
a syngas cooler.
Air-blown gasification
system specially
developed for the
gasification of high
moisture (up to 62%)
low rank coals.
and is unreactive towards the gasification agent, CO
2
.
The suite of coals tested were rich in vitrinite and the
authors claim that this maceral seemed to dominate
the morphological changes that occurred during char
formation. The second part of their study was on the
influence of mineral matter composition in coals.
Experiments consisted of the pyrolysis and CO
2
-gasi-
fication of two coals, which were first demineralised
and then impregnated with different salts, in a wire-
mesh reactor in which gasification conditions were
relevant to the ABGC. Results from their work
showed that although mineral matter contents clearly
affect coal conversion under pyrolysis and gasification
conditions, it was difficult to find systematic patterns
for the effect of specific inorganic components on
different coals. The authors also concluded that it
was almost impossible to develop a predictive tool
linking catalytic activity to amounts and composition
of particular inorganic components (Lemaignen et al.,
2002).
4.2. Bed agglomeration and in bed desulphurisation
In fluidised bed gasifiers, mineral matter is a major
constituent of the bed and, as a consequence, the
characteristics of coal ash can have a major impact
on the operation of the gasifier. Ash fusion tempera-
ture is, in particular, a parameter to study as some
components of the mineral matter can soften at the
bed temperature usually leading to agglomeration and
uneven fluidisation. Disturbances will thereby result
in problems of blockage in the bottom product dis-
Table 6
The Kellog Rust Westinghouse (KRW) gasifier
Feeding system and
modes
Comments
Crushed coal is fed
at the bottom
through lock
hoppers. Operates
at pressure up to
2 MPa.
Combustion of a portion
of the coal and
agglomeration of the ash
occurring at temperatures
of 11501260 8C around
the tip of the feed nozzle.
Large agglomerated
particles formed are
removed at the bottom of
the gasifier while finer
particles flow upwards to
the upper section where
gasification and sulphur
capture occur.
The separation of the
large agglomerated
particles formed of char,
ash and sorbent is done
through a char-ash separator
at a minimum fluidisation
velocity between that of the
char and ash so that the char
is kept in the bed while ash
and sorbent are removed
from the gasifier via an
ash feed hopper.
Raw gas (900 8C) passes
through a cyclone and
particles collected are
recycled to the gasifier.
The gas is cooled to
600 8C and enters a hot
gas cleaning system. A
portion of the gas is
re-circulated to the
gasifier to control the
temperature of the
agglomeration zone.
Air-blown system.
The Pinon Pine IGCC
plant was designed for
bituminous coal but
other coals were tested.
Table 7
The transport reactor gasifier
Feeding system and
modes
Comments
Coal is ground close to
50 Am. Coal and sorbent
are fed separately through
lock hoppers into the
mixing zone. Operates at
temperatures between
8701000 8C and pressures
of up to 1.5 Mpa
Operates with a much
higher circulation rate
and higher velocities than
conventional fluidised
bed gasifiers. Gas and
entrained particles move
up from the mixing zone
into the riser and enter a
disengager.
Both the char and ash
extracted from the
gasifiers, and collected
in the barrier filter,
are cooled, depressurised
in lock hoppers and
combined prior to
combustion in an
atmospheric fluidised
bed combustor.
The disengager removes
the larger particles by
gravity separation and the
remaining particles are
removed in a cyclone.
Solids collected are
recycled to the mixing
zone.
Designed to operate
as a gasifier or a
combustor. The reactor
is under commission
and is being tested
with several fluxes.
The multiple passes of
the coal/char through
the gasification zone
leads to a high carbon
conversion of 95%.
charge and also in the re-circulating system if there is
one.
West et al. (1994) studied the agglomeration prop-
erties of eight UK coals in a pressurised spouted
fluidised bed and an atmospheric fluidised bed
pilot plant. The authors observed the formation of
a FeSO coating on large clay-derived particles
present in coal and claimed that these particles
could be the precursors to agglomerate formation.
They concluded that iron present in coal as Fe
2
O
3
(pyrite) plays a crucial role in the formation of
agglomerates in fluidised bed gasifiers. Uemiya et
al. (1997), who studied the agglomeration formation
of coals with an Fe
2
O
3
content of 16% and 6.2% in
a jetting fluidised bed gasifier, reported that iron
compounds were concentrated near the surface of
the agglomerated particles.
Holden and Hodges (1997) studied ash clinker
formation during the gasification of Australian
brown coals in a fluidised bed gasifier (0.3 t/d) prior
to the development of the IDGCC. Their results
showed that the rate of clinker formation in the bed
and near the air nozzles was related to the bed tem-
perature as well as the amount of sodium and silica
(quartz and clay) in the feed coal. They claimed that
the reaction of gaseous sodium species with silica
particles could result in the formation of sodium
silicate phases, which melt at low temperature
(b1000 8C). When the operating temperature exceeds
the melting point of sodium silicate, particles become
sticky and can agglomerate on impact, resulting in the
formation of porous clinkers. More drastic gasifica-
tion conditions, such as higher gasification tempera-
ture or longer particle residence time, will produce a
molten or fused material, which can capture and flow
around ash particles, forming a consolidated clinker.
4.2.1. In bed-desulphurisation
In most of the fluidised bed gasification processes
sulphur released during gasification (essentially H
2
S
and COS) is retained in the bed in the form of
sulphides of calcium and/or iron when using lime-
stone or dolomite. Retention efficiency is usually
around 90%. Although gasifiers are usually insensi-
tive to sulphur coals with a higher sulphur content will
require a higher addition of sorbents which will con-
sequently increase the quantities of solids discharged
by the process and hence its overall cost. Alternatively
in bed-sulphur capture can also be adversely affected
by coal ash chemistry and particularly by the presence
of alkalis in coal that promote bed agglomeration.
Sulphur capture on limestone requires a bed tempera-
ture of 870 8C or higher for sorbent activation by
calcination. At this temperature alkalis are likely to
cause agglomeration in the fluidised bed. Thus the
gasification of high alkali coals requires careful con-
trol of the temperature in a range at which carbon
conversion can be maximised (Sondreal et al., 1997;
Rousaki and Couch, 2000).
4.2.2. High free swelling index
The caking and swelling characteristics of a coal
can be described by the high free swelling index
which is related to ash composition. During the heat-
ing phase (360450 8C), coal particles pass through a
plastic state and swollen particles can then combine to
form agglomerates. Agglomerate formation can be
reduced by passing the temperature range of the plas-
tic state rapidly and by mixing the swollen particles
with non swelling particles, such as demonstrated at
the HTW Wesseling gasification plant (Germany) in
which Pittsburgh No 8, a high swelling index coal,
could be processed successfully in the plant only if it
Table 8
The Air Blown Gasification Cycle (ABGC)
Feeding system and
modes
Comments
Coal is injected with
sorbent to retain sulphur
in bed. Operates at
temperatures up to
1000 8C and pressures
up to 2.5 MPa
Gasifier based on a
spouted bed. Only
7080% of the coal
is gasified.
Partially gasified char
and other residues are
transferred to an
atmospheric pressure
circulating fluidised bed
combustor operating at
1000 8C.
Syngas is first cleaned
in a cyclone then cooled
to 400 8C and cleaned by
a ceramic filter.
The preferred fuels are
high-volatile bituminous
coals or possibly lower
rank coals (subbituminous,
lignites/brown coals)
was mixed with a coked (non-swelling) fluidised bed
material prior to injection into the gasifier. However
test operations (air-blown and oxygen-blown) per-
formed at Wesseling showed that, even with a pneu-
matic feeding system, Pittsburgh No 8 input could not
be more than 1.5 t/h. Up to this coal feed rate, the
formation of agglomerates was controlled by strong
base fluidisation and stepped-bottom product dis-
charge. Changing the injection pipe into the flow
direction of the gas would have improved rapid mix-
ing of the feed coal with the fluidised bed material
(Adlhoch et al., 1993). The spouted bed designed for
the ABGC plant in the UK nearly eliminated the
agglomeration problem by introducing the coal
through the spout in a dilute phase hence limiting
coal particles interactions during the plastic phase.
However the rapid heating rate of the coal in the
spout reduces its swelling propensity implying a pre-
ference for the processing of low swelling coals in the
ABGC (Welford et al., 2000).
4.3. Gas cleaning system and corrosion
Most of the studies on corrosion have been per-
formed by simulation of syngas from dry fed
entrained flow gasifiers (see Section 3.4). However
Norton et al. (2000) recently studied the effect of a
CO-based gas mixture containing 0.1% H
2
S under
non-equilibrium conditions at 550 8C on a series of
five alloys used in syngas coolers. The low percentage
of H
2
S present in the syngas represented the average
concentration of H
2
S that can be found in syngas
produced in fluidised bed gasifiers, where coal is
gasified in the presence of limestone, which can cap-
ture up to 90% of the sulphur as solid CaS. The alloys
tested, although cheaper than the ones used in syngas
coolers of dry fed entrained flow gasifiers, resisted
corrosion well. According to Norton et al. (2000),
their corrosion resistance was improved by having
an ash deposit on their surface. The same authors
(Bakker, 1999, 2000) did some corrosion tests of
syngas with an even lower concentration of H
2
S
(0.05% instead of 0.8% for entrained flow gasifiers)
and HCl (0.01% instead of 0.04%) to simulate syngas
produced in hybrid coal gasification systems, such as
the ABGC which also uses dolomite and limestone for
in-bed desulphurisation. Their preliminary results
indicated that in-bed desulphurisation could signifi-
cantly reduce corrosion and may permit the use of less
expensive alloy (ferritic 12 Cr steels) for the building
of cleaning devices and heat exchangers. Corrosion at
low H
2
S levels is being further investigated by EPRI
and the EEC Institute for Advanced Material in the
Netherlands.
4.4. Comments
In fluidised bed processes it is necessary to process
coals with a higher ash fusion temperature (AFT) than
the operating temperature (N1000 8C) of the gasifier
to avoid ash agglomeration (which causes uneven
fluidisation in dry ash, fluidised bed gasifiers). The
presence of pyrite (Fe
2
O
3
) in coal as well as sodium
silicates formed during gasification are believed to be
among the factors that can cause agglomeration in
fluidised bed systems. Very careful control of the
gasifier operating temperature is therefore required
when processing coals with high alkali content. The
use of coals with a low swelling index (low caking
coals) are preferred to avoid bed agglomeration. Flui-
dised bed gasifiers are more tolerant to coals with high
sulphur content as sulphur can be partly retained in
the bed (up to 90%) by the use of sorbents.
5. Moving bed gasifiers
Moving bed gasifiers are only suitable for solid
fuels with a particle size in the range of 580 mm. A
mixture of steam and oxygen is introduced at the
bottom of the reactor and runs counter-flow to the
coal. Coal residence times in moving bed gasifiers
are of the order of 15 to 60 min for high pressure
steam/oxygen gasifiers and can be several hours for
atmospheric steam/air gasifiers. The pressure in the
bed is typically of the order of 3 MPa for commer-
cial gasifiers with tests realised at up to 10 MPa.
Coal enters the top of the gasifier and it is sequen-
tially preheated, dried, devolatilised/pyrolysed, gasi-
fied and combusted while moving towards the
bottom of the gasifier. Moisture is first driven off
in the drying zone then the coal is further heated and
devolatilised by the hotter product gas while moving
down to the gasification zone where it is gasified by
reacting with steam and carbon dioxide. The remain-
ing char is finally completely burnt in the combus-
tion zone where the bed reaches its highest tempera-
ture. Maximum temperatures in the combustion zone
are typically in the range of 15001800 8C for
slagging gasifiers and 1300 8C for dry ash gasifiers.
As the flow is counter-current, the gas leaving the
gasifier is cooled against the incoming feed and
typical gas exit temperatures are of the order of
400500 8C. Ash is removed either as a dry ash or
as a slag, depending on the gasifier type. Although
moving bed gasifiers are presently less used than
entrained flow gasifiers for the construction of new
power plants, these moving bed gasifiers present the
advantage of being a mature technology. Three gasi-
fication processes based on moving bed gasifiers are
detailed in Tables 9 and 10.
5.1. Bed permeability
The main requirements for moving bed gasifiers
are efficient heat and mass transfer between solids and
gases within the bed. This involves good bed perme-
ability and consequently the control of coal particle
size.
5.1.1. Coal particle size
Modern mining methods and mechanical cutting of
coal as well as wet coal, plugged coal screens and
aged/brittle coal, tend to reduce coal particle size to
the extent that run of mine coal can contain up to 40
50% fines by weight. Dittus and Johnson (2001)
pointed out that a high concentration of fines entering
the Lurgi dry ash gasifier with the coal feed will lead
to a disruption of the entire plant operation as the
operator will have to reduce the gas production by
decreasing coal loading at the top of the gasifier. The
authors fixed a design limit at a maximum of 5% coal
fines with less than 6 mm in size for the Lurgi dry ash
gasifier. A high concentration of fines in coal will lead
to unstable operation of the gasifier as it will cause
pressure drops in the bed. Pressure drop problems
induce the possibility of grate traction loss (due to
bed fluidisation), channel burning (leading to unac-
ceptable gas outlet temperatures) and solid elutriation.
At Sasol (Van Dyk et al., 2001), pressure drop is
estimated by the Ergun equation as a function of
bed voidage (e), viscosity (l), density (q), superficial
velocity U
s
and particle size diameter (d
p
).
P=L 150 1 e
2
lU
s
=e
3
d
2
p
1:75 1 e qU
2
s
=e
3
d
p
As it is a particle size distribution rather than a
uniform particle, d
p
is replaced by Ud
p
, where U is
the particle sphericity and d
p
, the average particle size
reflecting the mean surface area (also referred to as the
Sauter mean diameter). The Sauter mean diameter of a
coal sample with a specific particle size distribution is
calculated as follows:
d
p 1=U
i
x
i
=d
p;i
where i is the screen number x
i
the fraction (mass %)
on screen id
p
,
i
is the diameter (mm) of screen i.
According to Van Dyk et al. (2001), experience on
the Lurgi dry ash gasifiers at Sasol has shown that d
p
is a useful parameter to predict which particle size
distributions are more likely to result in gasifier
instability. They also reported that an inefficient
screening due to screen overload causes misplacement
of coal fines that can easily reduce the Sauter diameter
to unacceptably low values resulting in highly
unstable gasifier operation.
Lacey et al. (1992) reported a study on coal fines in
BGL gasifiers. Their results showed that the BGL
Table 9
The BHEL moving bed gasifier
Feeding mode and
Gasifier Ash removal system Cooling and cleaning
modes
Comments
Crushed coal (540 mm).
Operates at 1 MPa
High jacketed gasifier.
Air and steam are fed
through a grate, which
also enables ash removal.
Ash removal through
a grate.
A gas cooler is used to
produce steam for the
gasifier. Further gas
cooling and tar
condensation are done
by water quenching.
Particulates are removed
by Venturi scrubber
The development
was stopped due to
poor performance of
the gas cooler and the
gasifier was replaced
by a fluidised bed
(see Table 3)
gasifier can accommodate a reasonable quantity of
fines (b6 mm) in the lump feed. The authors per-
formed tests in the BGL gasifier from the Westfield
facility (500 t coal/d, 2.3 m diameter) with coal fines
at a pressure of 2.5 MPa. Two UK power plant coals,
one weakly caking (Kellingley) and the other medium
caking (Coventry) and two American coals (Pitts-
burgh No 8 and Illinois No 6) were tested. When an
excess of fines was injected at the top of the gasifier,
the free flow of coal and gas within the bed was
disturbed leading to unstable gasifier operation. This
was characterised by the fluctuation of the outlet
temperatures and a product gas with varying compo-
sitions. It was however possible to process at standard
load, Pittsburgh No 8 coal, a caking coal, with fine
contents of up to 30 to 40%, without adversely affect-
ing the stability of the gasifier. Gasification of Illinois
No 6 was also found to be satisfactory but the amount
of fines that could be tolerated in the coal feed was
lower than with Pittsburgh No 8. Other tests with the
two coals included the injection of their slurries (30%
coal/70% water) through the tuyeres while simulta-
neously feeding the top of the gasifier with 30% to
40% of their fines. This enabled the processing of
coals with up to 50% fines in the gasifier. Briquetting
is also an alternative to be considered for processing
coal fines but it is not a cheap process and can
introduce a cost penalty to the process. A joint pro-
gramme, supported by amongst others the UK Depart-
ment of Energy (now UK DTI) and the EC, tested the
performance of the BGL gasifier with oversize coals
collected from a screening plant and briquettes made
from the fines of British power plant coals (Coventry
and Kellingley). Stable operation of the gasifier was
achieved at standard load with the two coals (British
Gas/Lurgi slagging gasifier, 1993).
5.1.2. Thermal fragmentation
High concentrations of fines in the coal feed can
also cause carry over of fines to downstream equip-
ment. To estimate the quantity of fines carried over
downstream of the gasifier Van Dyk et al. (2001)
defined the term dthermal fragmentationT, as the dif-
ference between average particle size before and after
pyrolysis at a temperature of 700 8C. Thermal frag-
mentation is largely affected by the moisture in coal
but also by a complex interaction with other factors,
such as oxidation and weathering (Van Dyk, 1999).
Table 10
Lurgi moving bed gasification processes
Technology British Gas Lurgi (BGL) SasolLurgi dry bottom gasifier
Feeding mode and
Lumped coal together with a flux is discharged
at the top of the gasifier as a sequence of batches.
A distributor plate slowly rotates to ensure even
distribution of the coal at the top of the bed. For
caking coals, the distributor is connected to a stirrer
to prevent the bed from agglomerating.
Similar to BGL.
Gasifier Double-walled cylindrical reactor surrounded by a
steam jacket. O
2
and steam are added towards the
bottom of the bed through tuyeres. This results in high
internal temperature within the gasifier (2000 8C).
Gasifier is surrounded by a water
jacket that raises steam for use in
the gasifier. A high ratio of steam
to O
2
(55: 1) is blown up through
a grate at the bottom of the gasifier.
The combustion zone is at a
temperature (1000 8C) just below
the AFT.
Ash removal system Slagging gasifier. Molten ash is tapped off and
quenched with water.
Ash removed by a revolving grate
and depressurised in a lock hopper.
modes
Tars, high boiling points hydrocarbons and particulates
released during the devolatilisation step are removed
in a quench vessel and re-injected in the bed near
the tuyeres. The gas (450500 8C) is cooled and cleaned
by a water quench and scrubbed to remove H
2
S.
The gas (300500 C) is water
quenched.
Comments It is a slagging gasifier modified from the Lurgi dry ash
gasifier.
More suitable than BGL for use
with the more highly reactive coals.
5.1.3. Caking properties
Caking of coal within the gasifier can also cause
pressure drop fluctuations and channel burning, result-
ing again in unstable gasifier operations. In severe
cases oxygen break-through can occur, which can
cause a safety hazard because of the probability of
downstream explosions. Caking of coal particles can
be defined as the softening or plasticity property of
coal, which causes particles to melt together to form
larger particles when heated. In order to process cak-
ing coals, a stirrer connected to the coal plate distri-
butor has been added to the BGL gasifier. It ensures
that strongly caking coals are completely carbonised
and converted to free-flowing solids that pass to the
lower gasification bed (Lacey et al., 1992). Sasol has
developed an in-house technique to characterise cak-
ing propensity of coal processed under gasification
conditions existing in their plants. Details of the tech-
nique are given by Van Dyk et al. (2001). A solution
used at Sasol to avoid caking (Van Dyk et al., 2001),
is the blending of high caking coals with low caking
ones. Normal blends used for gasification at Secunda
have a caking property that can vary within +/20%
and coal blends used in the Sasolburg plant have no or
little caking.
5.1.4. Ash fusion temperature
Low ash fusion temperature (AFT) can result in the
formation of a large amount of fused ash or clinkers in
the ash bed of the dry ash Lurgi gasifiers. Ash clin-
kering can also cause channel burning, pressure drop
problems and unstable gasifier operation in both the
slagging and non slagging gasifiers. Ash composition,
especially calcium and iron content give an indication
of the expected ash fusion temperature (see Section
3.3). A coal rich in Fe or Ca has usually a low ash
fusion temperature due to the fluxing properties of the
Ca and Fe minerals. The ash fusion temperature gives
an indication of the extent of ash agglomeration and
clinkering within the gasifier and is used by Sasol to
estimate the risk of ash clinkering. The Dakota Gasi-
fication Co has experienced the formation of clinkers
that filled 20% of the gasifier. The gasifier had to be
shutdown and jack hammers used to break up the
clinker so it could be removed. Dakota Gasification
believe that sodium in the coals they process in their
gasifiers, is mainly responsible for ash clinkering and
they fixed the limit of sodium content at which clin-
kering can be avoided. Coal blending is also a solu-
tion to keep the sodium content constant.
5.2. Slag mobility in the BGL gasifier
The most recent published work on slagging prop-
erties in gasifiers concerned entrained flow gasifiers.
However it has been reported by Patterson and Hurst
(1996) that an optimum slag viscosity at tapping
temperature should be less than 5 Pa.s in the BGL
gasifier in comparison to less than 15 Pa.s in entrained
flow gasifiers. The same author also suggested a
tapping temperature of 1400 8C which is lower than
in most of the major entrained flow gasifiers. That
means that more flux may need to be used in order to
comply with those limits and as a consequence the
total cost of the system might be increased.
5.3. Comments
The main requirement of moving bed gasifiers is
good bed permeability to avoid pressure drops and
channel burning that can lead to unstable gas outlet
temperatures and composition as well as risk of a
downstream explosion. Depending on the gasifier
design and other characteristics of coal, such as cak-
ing propensity, the tolerance of the different gasifiers
to coal fines varies from 5% in the Lurgi dry ash
gasifier to up to 50% fines in the BGL gasifier. As
caking causes particles to melt and sinter together to
form larger particles when heated, caking coals can be
processed in Lurgi dry ash gasifiers only if they are
blended with non-caking coals. However, BGL gasi-
fiers are equipped with a stirrer connected to the coal
plate distributor to allow the processing of strongly
caking coals.
6. Conclusions
Hydrogen is currently and mainly used as an inter-
mediate for the synthesis of chemicals and clean fuels.
However with the move towards the dhydrogen econ-
omyT there is an incentive to use Hydrogen itself as an
energy carrier itself. New programmes and research
projects, which are particularly dedicated to the pro-
duction of Hydrogen from coal, are presently under-
way worldwide. In this paper some coal properties
that have an influence on gasifier design, operation
and performance have been reviewed. All types of
coal can be gasified and gasification appears to have a
promising future for the production of hydrogen from
coal. Gasification plants are also in the best position,
compared to other coal-based alternatives, to capture
CO
2
. The main technical challenge presently faced in
the production of hydrogen from coal is the separation
of hydrogen from the syngas and the capture and
sequestration of CO
2
.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Dr Geoffrey Mor-
rison, head of publication at the IEA Clean Coal
Centre for his help in preparing the manuscript.
References
Adlhoch, W., Bellin, A., Dehms, G., Shumacher, H.J., Schuma-
cher, I., 1993. Gasification of Pittsburgh No 8 in Rheinbrauns
Pressurized High-Temperature Winkler Pilot Plant. EPRI TR-
103367. EPRI Distribution Center, Pleasant Hill, CA, USA.
Alchemix Corporation, 2003. HydroMaxR: bridge to a hydro-
gen economy (downloaded from). http://www.alchemix.us/
TechnologyDescriptionweb710.pdf (Carefree, AZ, USA).
Amick, P., Breton, D., Geosits, R., Kramer, S., Tam, S., 2003.
Coproduction of F-T liquids and power by the gasification of
petroleum coke and coal. Twentieth Annual International Pitts-
burgh Conference. Pittsburgh Coal Conference, Pittsburgh, PA,
USA. paper 13-3, 23 pp.
Ashizawa, M., Hara, S., Ichikawa, K., Mimaki, T., Inumaru, J.,
Hamamatsu, T., 1993. Development of high-performance coal
gasification technology for high ash fusion temperature coals
evaluation of flux addition method and coal blending method.
EW92004. Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry
(CRIEPI), Tokyo, Japan.
Bailey, R.A., 2001. Projects in Development Kentucky Pioneer
Energy, Lima Energy. Gasification Technologies Conference.
Gasification Technologies Council, Arlington, VA, USA 11 pp.
Bakker, W.T., 1997. The effect of chlorine on corrosion of stainless
steels in gasifiers. Corrosion/97: Conference Papers. NACE
International, Houston, TX, USA. paper 134, 21 pp.
Bakker, W.T., 1998. Corrosion of iron aluminides in HCl contain-
ing coal gasification environments. Corrosion 98: Conference
Proceedings. NACE International, Houston, TX, USA. paper
185, 16 pp.
Bakker, W.T., 1999. Variables affecting mixed oxidant corrosion of
stainless steels in gasifiers. Corrosion 99: Conference Pro-
ceedings. NACE International, Houston, TX, USA. paper 65,
14 pp.
Bakker, W.T., 2000. Variables affecting mixed oxidant corrosion of
stainless steels in gasifiers. Materials and Corrosion 51 (4),
219223.
Boyd, R.K., Benyon, P.J., 1999. Coal property impacts on gasifica-
tion, Research symposium on entrained-flow gasification: pro-
ceedings. CRC Black Coal Utilisation, Advanced technology
Centre, Callaghan, NSW, Australia. 8 pp.
British Gas/Lurgi slagging gasifier, 1993. British Gas/Lurgi slag-
ging gasifier, final report. EU-14399-EN. Commission of the
European communities, Luxembourg. 31 pp.
Browning, G.J., Bryant, G.W., Lucas, J.A., Wall, T.F., 1999. The
effects of heterogeneous slag character on viscosity and slag
flow in IGCC gasifiers. http://www.journal.ifrf.net/library/
december1999/199901browning.pdf. IFRF Combustion Jour-
nal, article no 199901, 10 pp.
Clayton, S.J., Stiegel, G.J., Wimer, J.G., 2002. Gasification Markets
and Technologies-Present and Future, an Industry Perspective.
National Energy and Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA,
USA.
Clemens, A.H., Damiano, L.F., Gong, D., Matheson, T.W. Whitney,
R.S. (2000). Applicability of clean coal technologies to New
Zealand. Coal the future, Twelfth International Conference
on coal research: technical papers. South African Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy Johannesburg, South Africa 159162.
Collot, A.G., 1999. Co-processing of coal and biomass in a fixed-
bed reactor: products distribution and trace elements partition-
ing. Ph.D. Thesis, Imperial College of Science and Medicine,
University of London, UK.
Collot, A.G., 2002. Matching gasifiers to coals (CCC/65). IEA
Clean Coal Centre, London, UK.
Collot, A.G., 2003. Prospects for Hydrogen from Coal. IEA Clean
Coal Centre, London, UK.
Collot, A.G., 2004. Clean Fuels from Coal. IEA Clean Coal
Centre, London, UK.
Curran, P.F., 1989. Operating feedstock flexibility for Texaco gasi-
fication plants. 8th Annual EPRI Conference on Coal Gasifica-
tion. EPRI-GS-6485. EPRI Distribution Center, Pleasant Hill,
CA, USA, pp. 5/15/13.
Dittus, M., Johnson, D., 2001. The hidden value of lignite coal.
Gasification Technologies Conference Proceedings. Gasification
Technologies Council, Arlington, VA, USA. paper 2.2, 8 pp.
Dogan, C.P., Kwong, K.-S., Bennett, J.P., Chinn, R.E., 2001.
Improving refractory service life in slagging coal gasifiers.
Eighteenth Annual International Pittsburgh Conference. Pitts-
burgh Coal Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 10 pp.
Dooher, J., Malicki, N., Trudden, J., 1990. Physiochemical Prin-
ciples of Coal-Water Slurry Gasifier Feedstocks, EPRI GS/
ER-7068. EPRI Distribution Center, Pleasant Hill, CA, USA.
151 pp.
Harris, D.J., Roberts, D.G., Henderson, D.G., 2003. Gasification
behaviour of Australian coals. 12th International Conference on
Coal Science. Australian Institute of energy, Toukley, NSW,
Australia. paper 9C1, 10 pp.
Holden, J.L., Hodges, S., 1997. Ash clinker formation during
gasification of brown coals. 1996 Australian Coal Conference:
Conference Proceedings. Australian Institute of Energy, Gipps-
land Group, Morwell, Vic, Australia, pp. 305311.
Kanamori, S., Ito, K., Wada, Y., Shibata, K., 1990. Study on the
relationship between coal properties and characteristics of
CWM. Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference
on Coal and Slurry Technologies. Coal and Slurry Technology
Association, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 433444.
Kelly, M.D., Harris, D.J., Roberts, D.G., Mill, C.J., 2001. Volatile
release and reactivity characteristics of 13 Australian reference
coals at elevated temperatures and pressures. Eighteenth Annual
International Pittsburgh Coal Conference. Pittsburgh Coal Con-
ference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 15 pp.
Kiel, J.H.A., Bos, A., 1999. Coal Ash Behaviour in Reducing
Environments (CABRE). Novem, Sittar, The Netherlands.
Kiel, J.H.A., Bos, A., Korbee, R., Visser, H.J.M., 2000. Fuel and
ash behaviour in entrained flow gasification of coal and bio-
mass/waste. Gasification 4: the Future. Institution of Chemical
Engineers, Rugby, UK. 10 pp.
Kristiansen, A., 1996. Understanding Coal Gasification (IEACR/
86). IEA Coal Research, London, UK.
Lacey, J.A., Thompson, B.H., Twizell, G., Turna, O., Vierrath, H.,
1992. The application of the BGL gasifier for power generation.
Proceedings: Ninth EPRI Conference on Gasification Power
Plants. EPRI-TR-100466s. EPRI Distribution Center, Pleasant
Hill, CA, USA, pp. 10/110/17.
Lemaignen, L., Zhuo, Y., Reed, G.P., Dugwell, D.R., Kandiyoti, R.,
2002. Factors governing reactivity in low temperature coal
gasification. Part II. An attempt to correlate conversions with
inorganic and mineral constituents. Fuel 81 (3), 315326.
Lin, S., Harada, M., Suzuki, Y., Hatano, H., 2002. Hydrogen
production from coal by separating carbon dioxide during gasi-
fication. Fuel 81 (16), 20792085.
Lin, S., Harada, M., Suzuki, Y., Hatano, H., 2003. A continuous
experiment regarding hydrogen production by coal/CaO reac-
tion with steam (HYPR-RING). Twelfth International Confer-
ence on Coal Science. The Australian Institute of Energy,
Toukley, NSW, Australia. paper 11C5, 10 pp.
Lukes, A.C., Wallach, D.L., 2003. The Great Plains Synfuels
plantan evolution. Twentieth Annual Pittsburgh Coal Confer-
ence. Pittsburgh Coal Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. paper
14, 21 pp.
McDaniel, J.E., Shelnut, C.A., 1998. Tampa Electric Power Station,
IGCC project, project status. Gasification Technologies Confer-
ence. Gasification Technologies Council, Arlington, VA, USA
(paper 20, 17 pp.).
McDaniel, J.E., Shelnut, C.A., Berry, T.E., 1998. Tampa Electric
Company, Polk Power Station, IGCC project status. Gasification
Technologies Conference. Gasification Technologies Council,
Arlington, VA, USA (paper 3, 24 pp.).
Megaritis, A., Messenbo ck, R.C., Collot, A.G., Zhuo, Y., Dugwell,
D.R., Kandiyoti, R., 1998. Internal consistency of coal gasifica-
tion reactivities determined in bench-scale reactors: effect of
pyrolysis conditions on char reactivities under high-pressure
CO
2
. Fuel 77 (13), 14111420.
Messenbo ck, R.C., Paterson, N.P., Dugwell, D.R., Kandiyoti, R.,
2000. Factors governing reactivity in low temperature coal
gasification: Part 1. An attempt to correlate results from a
suite of coals with experiments on maceral concentrates. Fuel
79 (2), 109121.
Norton, J.F., Maier, M., Bakker, W.T., 2000. Corrosion of heat
exchangers alloys exposed to a non-equilibrated CO-based sul-
fidizing environment at 550 8C. Materials and Corrosion 51 (6),
424433.
Oh, M.S., Brooker, D.D., de Paz, E.F., Brady, J.J., Decker, T.R.,
1995. Effect of crystalline phase formation on coal slag viscos-
ity. Fuel Processing Technology 44 (3), 191199.
Ohno, Y., Omiya, M., 2003. Coal conversion into dimethyl ether as
an innovative clean fuel. Twelfth International Conference on
Coal Science. The Australian Institute of Energy, Toukley,
NSW, Australia. paper 11C4, 10 pp.
Patterson, J.H., Harris, D.J., 1998. Coal quality issues for Australian
bituminous coals in IGCC technologies. Fifteenth Annual Inter-
national Pittsburgh Coal Conference. Pittsburgh Coal Confer-
ence, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. paper 10-4, 15 pp.
Patterson, J.H., Hurst, H.J., 1996. Slag characteristics of Australian
bituminous coals for utilisation in slagging gasifiers. Practical
workshop on impact of coal quality on thermal coal utilisation.
CRC for Black Coal Utilisation, The University of Newcastle,
Callaghan, NSW, Australia. paper 9, 10 pp.
Patterson, J.H., Hurst, H.J., 2000. Ash and slag qualities of Aus-
tralian bituminous coals for use in slagging gasifiers. Fuel 79
(13), 16711678.
Patterson, J.H., Hurst, H.J., Quintanar, A., Boyd, R.K., Tran, H.,
2001. The slag flow characteristics of Australian bituminous
coals in entrained-flow slagging gasifiers. Eighteenth Annual
International Pittsburgh Coal Conference. Pittsburgh Coal Con-
ference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. paper 32.2, 23 pp.
Pearce, S., 2003. Hydrogen in NZthe Links, the Gaps and the
Way Forward, Coal Newsletter, vol. 49. CRL Energy Ltd,
Lower Hutt, New Zealand, pp. 67.
Ploeg, J.E.G., 1997. Coal ash minerals compositions their rele-
vance for the design and operation of the Shell Coal Gasifica-
tion. Proceedings of the Advanced Clean Coal Technology
International Symposium 97. Center for Coal Utilization
Japan, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 7989.
Ploeg, J.E.G., 2000. Gasification performance of the Demkolec
IGCC. Gasification 4: the Future, Proceedings. Institution of
Chemical Engineers, Rugby, UK. 11 pp.
Ploeg, J.E.G., 2001. New Shell coal gasification projects: impact
of feed composition and syngas application on plant design.
Eighteenth Annual International Pittsburgh Coal Conference.
Pittsburgh Coal Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. paper 8.4,
16 pp.
Postuma, A., Zuideveld, P.L., Ploeg, J.E.G., 2002. The Shell coal
gasification process. International Conference on Clean Coal
Technologies for our Future. IEA Clean Coal Centre, London,
UK. 12 pp.
Pratola, F., Pelliza, M.L., Repetto, F., Maggio, E., Amorino, C.,
2002. Integration of biomass gasification in a gasengine
cogeneration system. International Conference on Clean Coal
Technologies for our Future. IEA Clean Coal Centre, London,
UK. 7 pp.
Preston, W.E., 2003. ChevronTexaco worldwide gasification tech-
nology Inc. Transitions and visions going forward. Gasification
Technologies Conference. Gasification Technologies Council,
Arlington, VA, USA. paper 12, 18 pp.
Rich, J.W., Hoppe, R., Choi, G.N., Hennekes, R.J., Hooper, M.,
Wolff, J., 2003. From waste coal to clean fuel by Shell coal
gasification process. Twentieth Annual Pittsburgh Coal Confer-
ence. Pittsburgh Coal Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. paper
7-1, 11 pp.
Rizeq, G., West, J., Frydman, A., Subia, R., Zamansky, V., Loreth,
H., Stonawski, L., Wiltowski, T., Hippo, E., Lalvani, S., 2002.
Fuel-flexible gasification-combustion technology for production
of H2 and sequestration-ready CO2. Annual technical progress
report to the US DOE. DE-FC26-00FT40974, 39 pp.
Roberts, D.G., Harris, D.J., 2003. The role of bench-scale reactiv-
ity data in the assessment of coals for use in gasification.
Twelfth International Conference on Coal Science. The Aus-
tralian Institute of Energy, Toukley, NSW, Australia. paper
5D1, 10 pp.
Roberts, D.G., Harris, D.J., Mill, C.J., Wall, T.F., Stubington, J.F.,
Smitham, J., 2000. Coal gasification at high pressure: assessing
coal reactivity using bench-scale techniques. CoalThe future,
Twelfth International Conference on Coal Research. South Afri-
can Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Johannesburg, South
Africa, pp. 171176.
Rousaki, K., Couch, G., 2000. Advanced Clean Coal Technologies
and Low Value Coals (CCC/39). IEA Coal Research, London,
UK.
Sammells, A.F., Barton, T.F., 2003. Spontaneous direct coal gasi-
fication to synthesis gas in oxygen transport catalytic mem-
brane reactors. Twentieth Annual Pittsburgh Coal Conference.
Pittsburgh Coal Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. paper 19-4,
21 pp.
Scott, D.H., Carpenter, A.M., 1996. Advanced power systems and
coal quality. (IEACR/87). IEA Clean Coal Research, London,
UK.
Shah, L., Schrader, C., 2003. DOE Vision 21early entrance co-
production plant: early results of phase II research development
and testing. Twentieth Annual Pittsburgh Coal Conference.
Pittsburgh Coal Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. paper 13-2,
21 pp.
Sondreal, E.A., Benson, S.A., Jones, M.L., 1997. Issues in
application of advanced power systems to low rank coal.
Fourteenth Annual International Pittsburgh Conference: Pro-
ceedings. Pittsburgh Coal Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
paper 8.3, 26 pp.
Strickland, D., Tsang, A., 2003. Wabash River integrated methanol
and power production from clean coal technologies
(IMPPCCT). Quarterly technical progress report No 7 to the
US DOE: April 2001-June 2001. DE-FC26-99FT40659, 48 pp.
Thambimuthu, K., 1994. Developments in CoalLiquid Mixtures
(IEACR/69). IEA Coal Research, London, UK.
Trapp, B., 2001. Eastman and Gasification: the Next Step, Build-
ing and Past Success. Gasification Technologies Conference.
Gasification Technologies Council, Arlington, VA, USA. paper
2-3, 8 pp.
Trapp, B., 2002. Eastman coal gasification: 19 years of reliable
operation. Gasification, the Clean Choice for Carbon Manage-
ment. Institution of Chemical Engineers, Rugby, UK. 12 pp.
Trowbridge, T.D., Malone, D.P., Davis, B.H., 2002. The HyMeltR
process-revolutionary coal gasification/hydrogen production
technology. Nineteenth Annual Pittsburgh Coal. Pittsburgh
Coal Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. paper 31-4, 11 pp.
Uemiya, S., Aoki, K., Luo, C.H., Kojima, T., 1997. Reactivity and
agglomeration behaviour of various coal chars in a jetting
fluidised bed gasifier. Ninth International Conference on Coal
Science. DGMK, Hamburg, Germany, pp. 13271330. v. 3.
US DOE, 2000. Tampa Electric integrated gasification combined-
cycle project, an update. Clean Coal Technology topical report
19, US DOE, Office of Communications, Washington, DC,
USA. 24 pp.
US DOE,, 2002. Wabash River plant in Indiana to host 1st Clean
coal-powered fuel cell (Downloaded from). http://www.netl.doe.
gov/publications/press/2002/tl
_
cct
_
fuelcell.html.
US DOE, 2003. Techline. Abraham announces pollution-free power
plant of the future (Downloaded from). http://www.netl.doe.gov/
publications/press/2003/tl
_
futuregen1.html.
Vamvuka, D., 1999. Gasification of coal. Energy Exploration and
Exploitation 17 (6), 515581.
Van Dyk, J.C., 1999. Proposals for blending coal sources in such a
way as to minimise thermal fragmentation within the gasifier.
Coal Indaba 99. Mintek, Randburg, South Africa. 4 pp.
Van Dyk, J.C., Keyser, M.J., van Zyl, J.W., 2001. Suitability of
feedstocks for the SasolLurgi fixed bed dry bottom gasifica-
tion process. Gasification Technologies Conference. Gasifica-
tion Technologies Council, Arlington, VA, USA. paper 10-8,
11 pp.
Wasaka, S., Kubota, M., 2003. The development of the EAGLE
project. Twelfth International Conference on Coal Science. The
Australian Institute of Energy, Toukley, NSW, Australia. paper
11C1, 8 pp.
Weimer, T., Specht, M., Baumgart, F., Marquard-Mollenstedt, T.,
Sichler, P., 2002. Hydrogen/syngas generation by simultaneous
steam reforming and carbon dioxide absorption. Gasification,
the Clean Choice for Carbon Management. Institution of Che-
mical Engineers, Rugby, UK. 9 pp.
Welford, G.B., Melling, P., Livingston, W., Martin, A., Lu, S.,
Wood, F., Williams, B., Evans, R., Huang, Y., 2000. Gasifier
Developments and the Air Blown Gasification Cycle (Coal
R195, DTI/Pub URN 00/968). Energy Technology Support
Unit, Harwell, UK.
West, S.S., Williamson, J., Laughlin, M.K., 1994. Mineral interac-
tions during fluidised bed gasification of coals. The Impact of
Ash Deposition on Coal Fired Plants. Taylor and Francis, Bris-
tol, PA, USA, pp. 89100.
Zhuo, Y., Messenbo ck, R., Collot, A.-G., Megaritis, A., Paterson,
N., Dugwell, D.R., Kandiyoti, R., 2000a. Conversion of coal
particles in pyrolysis and gasification: comparison of conver-
sions in a pilot-scale gasifier and bench-scale test equipment.
Fuel 79 (7), 793802.
Zhuo, Y., Messenbo ck, R., Paterson, N., Dugwell, D.R., Kan-
diyoti, R., 2000b. High pressure gasification of coal in
bench scale reactors: the effect of pressure, gasifying medium
and maceral content. Industrial Furnaces and Boilers, Proceed-
ings of the 5th European Conference. INFUB, Rio Tinto,
Portugal, pp. 629638.
Ziock, H.J., Brosha, E.L., Garzon, F.H., Guthrie, G.D., Mukundan,
R., Robinson, T.W., Roop, B., Smith, B.F., Johnson, A.A.,
Lackner, K.S., Lau, F., Anthony, E.J., Wang, J., Ruby, J., 2002.
Technical progress in the development of zero emission coal
technologies. Nineteenth Annual Pittsburgh Coal Conference
Proceedings. Pittsburgh Coal Conference, Pittsburgh, PA,
USA. paper 25-2, 18 pp.
Ziock, H.J., Anthony, E.G., Brosha, E.L., Garzon, F.H.., Guthrie,
G.D., Johnson, A.A., Kramer, A., Lackner, K.S., Lau, F., Muku-
dan, R., Nawaz, M., Robinson, T.W., Roop, B., Ruby, J., Smith,
B.F., Wang, J., 2003. Technical progress in the development of
zero emission coal technologies. 28th International Technical
Conference on Coal Utilization and Fuel Systems. Coal Tech-
nology Association, Gaithersburg, MD, USA, pp. 11991210.
(http:/www.zeca.org/pdfs/Progress
_
ZEC
_
Techn
_
09-02.pdf ).
Zuideveld, P., 2003. Overview of shell global solutions. Worldwide
Gasification Developments. Gasification Technologies Confer-
ence. Gasification Technologies Council, Arlington, VA, USA.
paper 1-1, 7 pp.

Collot 2006

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Collot 2006

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Matching gasification technologies to coal properties

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi