Thermal Power Engineering

Project Report
ON

FEASIBILITY STUDY OF IGCC FOR

HIGH ASH CONTENT INDIAN COAL

Submitted By: Group-23

Prithvi Jawahar
Rahul Jhingonia
Nagendra Bandi
Vinod Kumar

PROJECT TOPIC
Feasibility study of Integrated Gasification combined cycle (IGCC) in terms of the following
parameters: Technology, Reliability and Economy for high highash content Indian Coal. (Project
no. : 3)

ABSTRACT
In India, coal plays a very important role for power generation. Essentially, all the power generated
from coal is based on the PC (pulverized coal) plant. As both the economy and power demand in India
have grown rapidly in recent years, the Government of India is looking for alternatives to the PC plant to
use coal more efficiently and cleanly. The Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant has been
identified as one of these alternatives.
Due to the advantages such as high efficiency of electricity generation and high degree of
cleanness, Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plant represents the direction of
development for all fired power plants in India.
India faces a problem in adopting the IGCC technology due to high ash content present in coal
available in the country. There are a very few demonstration plants in India of low capacity and
applicability and reliability of high capacity systems are not yet demonstrated. Attempts of imitating
foreign technology have failed due to the high ash content in Indian coal. There is a need for either
development of indigenous technologies or implement processes such that the developed technology
can be adopted to suit Indian needs. This report analyzes the technical and economic attributes in terms
of risk, reliability and feasibility of the IGCC power generation plan.
It is both necessary and possible for India to develop IGCC power plant, but not with the current
technology available. The biggest obstacle facing the development of IGCC is the lack of proven
technology for utilization of high ash coal and huge amount of investment needed.

COAL GASIFICATION & IGCC

Coal gasification is a process that converts coal from a solid to a gaseous fuel through partial
oxidation. Once the fuel is in the gaseous state, undesirable substances, such as sulfur compounds
and coal ash, may be removed from the gas by established techniques. The net result is a clean,
transportable gaseous energy source.
In contrast to combustion process which works with excess air, gasification process works on
partial combustion of coal with the oxygen supply controlled (generally 20 to 70% of the amount
of O2 theoretically required for complete combustion) such that both heat and a new gaseous
fuel are produced as the coal is consumed.
C + O2 (gasification) CO
C + H2O (gasification) CO + H2

The integrated gasification combined cycle is a process in which the fuel is gasified in an
oxygen or air-blown gasifier operating at high pressure. The raw gas thus produced is cleaned of
most pollutants (almost 99 % of its sulphur and 90 % of nitrogen pollutants). It is then burned in
the combustion chamber of the gas turbine generator for power generation. The heat from the
raw gas and hot exhaust gas from the turbine is used to generate steam which is fed into the
steam turbine for power generation.
The process is called a combined cycle as high temperature power plant is superimposed as
topping unit to the steam plant. Combined plants may be of many types of which gas turbinesteam turbine plant is most popular system.

PROCESSES INVOLOVED IN IGCC

The main subsystems of a power plant with integrated gasification are:
Gasification plant
Raw gas heat recovery systems
Gas purification with sulphur recovery
Air separation plant (only for oxygen blown gasification)
Gas turbine with heat recovery steam generator
Steam turbine generator

Fig. 1 Schematic of IGCC Process Source: www.mhi-global.com

The feedstock which is fed into the gasifier is more or less completely gasified to synthesis gas
(syngas) with the addition of steam and enriched oxygen or air. The gasifier can be fixed bed,
entrained or fluidised bed. The selection of the gasifier to achieve best cost efficiency and
emission levels depends upon the type of fuel. In the gas purification system, initial dust is
removed from the cooled raw gas. Chemical pollutants such as hydrogen sulphide, hydrogen
chloride and others are also removed. Downstream of the gas purification system, the purified
gas is reheated, saturated with water if necessary (for reduction of the oxides of nitrogen) and
supplied to the gas turbine combustion chamber. The IGCC technology scores over others as it is
not sensitive with regard to fuel quality. Depending on the type of gasifier, liquid residues,
slurries or a mixture of petcoke and coal can be used. In fact, the IGCC technology was
developed to take advantage of combined cycle efficiency of such low-grade fuels.

SECTIONS OF IGCC SYSTEM:

In order to study the feasibility of implementing IGCC on a large scale in India, it is important to
analyses all the aspects and properties involved in these systems. The figure below (Fig. 2)
shows a typical configuration of an IGCC plant.
1. Preparation section:
Slurry is formed by grinding the coal with water in the feed preparation section which
is mixed with 62-68 wt% dry solids for feed to the slurry-fed GE or E-Gas plant. Slurry is
stored in storage tanks before pumping into gasifiers.
2. Gasification section:
Slurry feed is pumped to the refractory-lined gasifier where coal is gasified with oxygen
from the air separation unit (ASU) to generate a raw syngas {majorly H2+ CO}. The raw
syngas is sent to the downstream High Temperature Gas Cooling (HTGC) section for heat
recovery whereas, the heat in gasifier liquefies the coal ashes which are quenched and
crushed at the bottom of gasifier.
3. High Temperature Gas Cooling (HTGC)
Raw syngas from the gasifier is cooled to about 650-700C in HTGC section by generating
high pressure saturated steam in a radiant syngas. The cooled syngas is then sent to
particulate removal section.
4. Particulate Removal
Syngas from HTGC is quenched and scrubbed with water to remove particulates, hydrogen
chloride, and ammonia.

5. COS Hydrolysis
Syngas exiting from the Particulate Removal section is reheated to about 205C before
entering a COS hydrolysis reactor where about 90% of the carbonyl sulfide (COS) reacts
with water to form hydrogen sulfide and carbon di oxide.

Fig. 2 Typical IGCC configuration Source: http://www.joban-power.co.jp/

6. Low Temperature Gas Cooling (LTGC) and Mercury Removal

Gas from the COS Hydrolysis section is cooled to about 38C through a in the LTGC section
series of heat exchangers and knockout drums, where about 90% of the mercury is
removed due to adsorption on to carbon beds.
7. Acid Gas Removal (AGR)
Lean solvent absorbs H2S and small amount of the CO2 from the cooled particulate free
syngas. H2S free syngas exiting the absorber is stripped with nitrogen to remove excess
CO2 and other non-sulfur bearing gases such as H2 and CO. The flashed rich solvent is sent
to the regenerator where the H2S and CO2 are removed with reboiler steam. Acid gas
from regenerator is sent to Sulfur Recovery Unit.

8. Sulfur Recovery Unit (SRU) & Tail Gas Treating Unit (TGTU)
One-third of the H2S is burned with oxygen from the air separating unit (ASU) (used in
gasification section) to form SO2. The SO2 is combined with the remaining two-thirds of
the H2S before being catalytically converted into sulfur via the Claus reaction
(SO2+2H2S3S+2H2O). Tail gas from the SRU is normally hydrogenated to convert
unreacted SO2 and entrained sulfur into H2S before being compressed for recycle to the
AGR.
9. Clean Gas Humidification and Reheat
Clean syngas from AGR is humidified by washing against hot circulating water to add
steam and to recover some of the low level waste heat. The humidified syngas is reheated
through heat exchange against raw syngas before being sent to be burned in the gas
turbine.
10. Gas turbine
Clean syngas is burned with compressed air in the gas turbine to generate power. Syngas
with up to approximately 60% hydrogen and the balance being nitrogen or/and water as
the diluent can be burnt in currently available commercial turbines. The gas turbine can
also provide a portion of the compressed air to the air separation unit (ASU). This
increases the overall IGCC plant efficiency and reduces the capital cost and power
consumption of the ASU.
11. Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) and Steam Turbine Generator (STG)
Super-heated high pressure steam is generated by the hot exhaust from the gas turbine
through the heat recovery steam generator (HRGS) which can also reheat intermediate
pressure steam to without any firing. The HP and IP superheated steam are routed to the
steam turbine generator to generate additional electric power. Thus the whole system
would form a gas turbine steam turbine combined cycle.

ADVANTAGES OF IGCC

Flexibiliy in fuels:
It is an advanced technology that represents the cleanest of currently available coal
technologies. Higher fuel flexibility IGCC plants can use any high hydrocarbon fuel, such as low
and high-sulfur coal, anthracite, and biomass. Thus IGCC plants may find application from
small scale fertilizer units to large scale power generation plants.

Higher efficiencies:
The electricity generation efficiency of the IGCC process can be higher than 45% (HHV) without
CO2 capture. With the development of gas turbines, future net efficiency developments
should take efficiencies beyond 50%.

Lower emission:
The plant is inherently lower emission of SOx, NOx and particulate matter (PM) than
conventional coal based power plants.

Marketable by-products:
During the gasification and gas clean-up process, mineral material (ashes and other inert
species) is transformed into slag as a kind of by-product, which may commercial value in
nearby industries. The slag can be used in construction and building applications. The
gasification process in IGCC enables the production of not only electricity, but a range of
chemicals, by-products for industrial use, and transport fuels. In addition to electricity
generation, hydrogen produced from the process can potentially be used as a transport fuel,
in fuel cells.

IGCC TECHNOLOGY SCENARIO OF THE WORLD

Coal contributes about 61% of total fossil fuel proved reserve in whole world. The US holds
the largest individual coal reserves, followed by Russia and China. The bad impact of burning of
coal can be reduced by the clean-coal-technology which is a collection of technologies being
developed to mitigate the environmental impact of coal energy generation. Clean coal
technologies are being developed to remove or reduce pollutant emissions to the atmosphere
and IGCC technology is considered as one of them.
Table 1 shows specifications of six prime coal based IGCC power plants of the world observed
that efficiencies of 41% - 44% can obtained using IGCC which is very difficult to achieve with the
help of plants which use pulverized coal (PC). It is important to note that these plants employ
high quality coal which has relatively low ash content.

Table 1 Operating conditions of BHEL plants Source: December 2005 report, Office of PSA

The gasification database (April 2014) of National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), USA,
shows that total 98 gasification projects worldwide having commercial potential where, 35 are
IGCC(Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle).
Small number of new projects have been initiated worldwide, each at some stage of planning or
construction. According to NETL, already 35 projects have proposed in worldwide to generate

20,730MW electricity by IGCC plant where the US proposed the maximum individual IGCC plant
(11,775MW by 20 projects), followed by UK (2,540MW by 4 projects), Saudi Arabia (2,400MW by
1 project) and China (1,0505MW by 2 projects). China plans to build 50 coal gasification plants in
less populated north-western parts of the country, using the gas produced to generate electricity
in the more populated areas, where smog is prevalent. Future concepts that incorporate a fuel
cell or a fuel cell-gas turbine hybrid could achieve efficiencies nearly twice today's typical coal
combustion plants. If any of the remaining heat can be channeled into process steam or heat,
perhaps for nearby factories or district heating plants, the overall fuel use efficiency of future
gasification plants could reach 70 to 80 percent.
Coal based
IGCC plant

WillemAlexander Wabash
(Netherland)
River

Tampa

Puertollano Vresova Nakoso

(USA)

(Spain)

250
Black
coal

300
430
Black coal + Lignite
Petroleum
coke

(USA)

Capacity(MW) 253
Fuel feed
Black coal +
Biomass

Gasifier type

O2 -blown
Dry-feed
Prenflo

262
Black
coal+
Petroleum
coke
O2 -blown
Dry-feed
E-Gas

Coal
consumption
Net efficiency

2000 TPD

2500 TPD 2600 TPD 2500 TPD

43%

39%

O2 -blown O2 -blown
Slurryfeed Slurry-feed
Shell
GE

41%

42%

(China
(Japan)
republic)

O2 blown
Dry-feed
GSP
2000
TPD
44%

250
Black
coal

Airblown
Dry-feed
HMI
1700
TPD
42%

Table 1 Operating conditions of plants across the world Source: December 2005 report, Office of PSA

There are many research agencies and institute worldwide, developing coal gasification
technologies to minimize the environmental impact and improve the process efficiency for maximum
energy utilization. Some of them are, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) USA,
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO)Australia, World Coal
Association (WCA)-UK, International Energy Agency- IEA Clean Coal Centre (CCC)-UK, Institute of Clean
Coal Technology (ICCT)-China, Canadian Centre for Clean Coal/Carbon and Mineral processing
Technologies (C5MPT)-Canada.
Compared to pulverized coal power plants, IGCC power plants have significantly higher
efficiency. According to World Coal Association (WCA) London, the average global efficiency of
traditional coal-fired plants is currently 33% compared to 45% for the most efficient plants like
IGCC, due to the coupling of the gas and steam turbine process to the generation can be achieved.
From the practical experience, average net efficiency of six existing IGCC plant is 41.8% with the
maximum efficiency in 430MW Vresova IGCC plant by 44% and the minimum efficiency found in
262MW Wabash River IGCC plant, Indiana USA by 39%. In IGCC power plant, efficiencies of over

55% can be achieved in the future. Compare to other advanced power plant processes, IGCC
technology exhibits the highest efficiency and thus the lowest specific CO2 accrual.
In future, work on clean electricity generation by coal gasification technology will focus on
improving the reliability & performance of the gasifier and finding the best process for Syngas
cooling, Water gas shift reaction (WGSR), Acid gas removal (AGR) mechanism, etc. Technical
trends, which help gasification, include improving gas turbines and poly-generation. Each increase
in combined-cycle efficiency directly reduces the size and cost of the gasification facility required
to fire that combined cycle. Advanced intercooled, recuperated, reheat gas turbines have the
potential of power-to-cogeneration heat ratio that is an order of magnitude higher than that
possible with steam turbines. Poly-generation is unique to gasification and, with deregulation, this
concept will develop.

IGCC TECHNOLOGY SCENARIO OF INDIA

The involvement of IGCC technology for power generation in India is negligible when
compared to the total installed capacity. India lies among the top coal reserves holding countries
of the world. Essentially, all the power generated from coal is based on PC (pulverized coal) plant.
Despite having adequate supply of coal, difficulties are faced in implementing IGCC technologies
for power generation. The prime reason which hinders the implementation is the high ash content
presence in Indian coal. The ash content typically ranges from 40% - 50% whereas all typical IGCC
plants across the globe work on coal which has an ash content ranging from 1% to 16%.
The technical challenges of the electricity sector in India include low efficiencies of thermal
power plants, continued reliance on coal plants, and inadequate transmission and distribution
networks. Due to the high ash content of Indian coal, oxyfueling and postcombustion CO2
capture would appear to be suitable options for India.
The first IGCC plant of India was commissioned in the year 1989. It was a 6.2MW
demonstration power plant which was developed by Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) in
Tiruchchirappalli, Tamil Nadu. This plant was Asias first and the worlds second coal based IGCC
installation and is currently in successful operation. It was set up soon after the successful
operation of the first commercial-scale IGCC demonstration plant in the world, the Cool Water
Plant in California (1984-88). The project then had a cost of Rs.15 crore. This installation runs on
air-blown fluidized-bed gasifier which is capable of testing coal of about 40% ash content at
0.8MPa between 960oC and 1050oC.

Fig. 3 Schematic of 6.2MW IGCC plant Source: Workshop on Clean Coal Technologies, BHEL,
February 2012

A 6.4 MW IGCC pilot unit has been operating by BHEL since 1989, based on Siemens and
Alstom technology. Construction of a 200 MW IGCC demonstration plant in Vijayawada in Andhra
was begun in summer 2010 by a consortium of BHEL, Andhra Pradesh Power Generation
Corporation Limited (APGENCO) and the Department of Science. The Indian highash coal requires
the use of fluidizedbed gasifiers, which is a different type to the wellestablished entrainedflow
gasifier used for lowash coals.
In June 1991, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) along with United States
Trade and Development Program published a 34o page report on Feasibility Assessment of Coal
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Power Technology for India. The study gives a clear
comparison between Pulverized Coal plants (PC plants) and IGCC plants. It includes various studies
and evaluations on IGCC plants and analysis of various aspects of practical implementation of IGCC
technology in India. Later, no great emphasis was laid on developing technology and
implementing scaled up systems of IGCC in India. There were a good number of discussions
between the government and private corporations for setting up plants which did not turn out to
be successful due to various issues.
The office of Principal Scientific Advisor (PSA) in 2001 tried to bring BHEL and the NTPC
together to work on development of a 100 MW IGCC demonstration plant. There was a great need
to develop indigenous technology which could function with high ash content coal. BHEL would

10

play an important role in this. BHEL had already set-up three R&D plants based on PFB [200mm
diameter Advanced Pressurized Fluidized Bed Gasifier (APFBG) (coal feed:1.2T/day); a 450mm
diameter Performance Evaluation and Demonstration Unit(PEDU) (18T/day) and 1.1m diameter
Combined Cycle Demonstration Plant (CCDP) (150 T/day, 6.2 MWe)]. The table below (Table 1)
shows the operating conditions for existing BHEL plants. Also, partnering a corporation like the
NTPC was important so that the plant could be operated as a regular power plant and power could
be supplied to the grid.

Table 2 Operating conditions of BHEL plants Source: December 2005 report, Office of PSA

In 2003 a committee was set up by the office of PSA for the feasibility study of setting up of
this 100MW demonstration plant. In December 2005, the committee published a report
Development of the Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Technology as suited to
Power Generation using Indian Coals.
Table 2. Gives the experimental and simulated data carried out by the committee on BHELs
CCDP.
Ultimately, the report estimated a carbon conversion efficiency of 85%, cold gas efficiency of
71%, gas calorific value of 1000-1100 kcal/cu. m and a gross efficiency of 39% for the 100MW
plant to be set up.
NTPC opted out of the project as NTPC was not agreeable to the financial terms even though
it had originally agreed to invest Rs.4 crore per MW. The technology was yet to prove its
relevance in the Indian context, hence NTPC was not very keen in investing in this technology.
There were also clashes on the Intellectual Property between BHEL and NTPC. As a whole the
aimed project turned into a failure and was ultimately called off.

11

Table 3. Analysis on experimental data on BHELs CCDP Source: December 2005 report, Office of PSA

In May 2008, the power generation company of Andhra Pradesh, APGENCO, signed up with BHEL
to put up a 125-MW IGCC plant. But again, the project was not successful. This was due to
problems in funding and allocation Rs300 crore promised by the government.
In 2011 there was proposal for setting up a 100MW IGCC technology demonstration plant by
NTPC at National Capital Thermal Power Station at Dadri in Uttar Pradesh. There would be no
additional land required as the plant would be set in already existing plants in Dadri. The project
aims at demonstrating the use of gasifier and other technology and commercial viability, so that
it could be replicated at already existing powerplants in India. The cost estimate of the project
was about Rs 600 crores.
Again in April 2013, BHEL and NTPC involved in talks to form a joint venture for establishing
100MW power project based on new gasification technology. It was estimated that the project
would cost around Rs700 crore and the efficiency of the plant would be around 40%.
Any further official statements with regard to this project are not yet out.

12

FEASIBILITY OF IGCC IN INDIA

Since the evolution of gasifiers and IGCC technology all developed countries which had
access to high quality coal concentrated on research and development of processes
corresponding to the readily accessible high quality coal. GE, E-Gas and Shell gasifiers play a
dominant role in all major IGCC plants.
The following table shows a few famous IGCC plants across the world. The first six plants
shown in the table employ a high temperature entrained flow gasification which is suitable
for low ash content coal and not for the category of Indian coal.

Table 4. A few IGCC power plants Source: NETL, Office of Fossil Energy, U.S.A

To harness the potential of coal reserves through implementation of IGCC, there is a pressing
need to develop indigenous technology rapidly or adopt and alter the available international
technology such that it is adaptable in the Indian scenario. The following information provides
insights of feasibility of coal based IGCC implementation in India.

RESOURCE DATA OF COAL:

All the data below is for coal from open mine of Dakra seam in North Karnpura field. This can be
considered as typical Indian coal as its properties match with the coal from various mines across the
country.

13

Proximate analysis:

Moisture
Ash
Crystal water
CO2 in
carbonates
Volatile matter
Fixed carbon

As Received Basis,
wt%
18.0
34.8
3.5
0.5

Dry Basis,
wt%
--42.5
4.3
0.6

17.1
26.1

20.8
31.8

Table 5. Proximate analysis of coal Source: IGCC Power Technology for India, CSIR report

Calorific value:

HHV
LHV

As Received Basis
(kcal/J)
3322
3168

Dry Basis
(kcal/J)
4058
3857

Table 6. Calorific value Source: IGCC Power Technology for India, CSIR report

Ultimate analysis:

Moisture
Ash
Crystal water
CO2 in
carbonates
C
H
N
S
O
Cl

As Received Basis,
wt%
18.0
34.8
3.5
0.5

Dry Basis,
wt%
--42.5
4.3
0.6

35.8
2.1
0.8
0.3
4.2
Trace

43.6
2.5
0.9
0.4
5.2
Trace

Table 7. Ultimate analysis of coal Source: IGCC Power Technology for India, CSIR report

Ash fusion temperature:

The ash fusion temperature of Indian coal is very high. The initial deformation temperature is about
1400oC, while the hemispherical and flow temperatures are around 1500oC.

14

TECHNOLOGY SELECTION CRITERIA:

APPROACH 1:

If the intention is to use Indian technology for gasification of coal, BHELs air blown fluidized
bed gasifier would be the only hope.
Other technologies are currently still in nascent stages and need time and investment to
develop and become practically viable.
Scaling up models of BHELs 6.2MW plant (as done for BHEL 125MW project) could be used
to analyze and implement IGCC plants of high capacity which could range from 100MW 300MW capacity. An intended scale up process of BHEL is shown in Fig 4.

Fig. 4 BHELs Scale up of gasifier Source: Workshop on Clean Coal Technologies, BHEL, February 2012

The setting up of a plant could be done in two stages.

Phase 1: The first phase involves design, development, procurement, installation and
stabilized operation of gasifier along with hot gas cleanup facility specific to Indian coal.
Phase 2: Phase two would involve development of a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) and
integrating it with the established gasifier and gas cleanup system.

15

A set of extensive studies were carried out by NTPC and other related organizations to find
out the gasifier suitability. Samples of Run-of-mine (ROM) coal and washed coal, conventionally
being used for power generation at power plants in Dadri were sent to various test locations for
analyzing technology suitability. The proximate analysis of coal used and the details of test
location are provided in Table 8 and Table 9 respectively.

Table 8. Proximate analysis of coal used Source: Conference on Clean Coal Technology with focus on Coal
Gasification, February 2012

Table 9. Test location details Source: Conference on Clean Coal Technology with focus on Coal Gasification,
February 2012

A few important conclusions that were made from this coal characterization tests were:
i. Fluid bed and transport gasifiers can gasify Indian coals very well due to their high reactivity. This
was checked at test locations of GTI, BHEL and EERC.

16

ii. No significant improvement was shown by Washed coal as compared to ROM coal in terms of
gasification.
iii. Fluidized bed gasifier demonstrated a carbon conversion of 85%-90%. This could be further
improved by parametric optimization.
iv. Tests at Sansol showed fixed bed gasifier as well was suitable for gasification of Indian coals.
BHEL gives a set of advantages of using a Pressurized Fluidized Bed Gasifier (PFBG) for gasifying Indian
coal in its Workshop on Clean Coal Technologies, (February 2012).
i. Higher unit capacity per unit area
ii. In-bed sulfur removal option
iii. Easy gas cleaning
iv. No liquid effluent formation
v. Ability to accept finer coals

vi. Capability to accept wide range of fuels

vii. Better reliability and control
viii. Operates in non-slagging mode
ix. Dry granular ash discharge
x. Reliable large fluidized bed combustion
systems

There could be a few gap areas in implementing the IGCC in India by the use of above specified
technologies. These are specified in Table 9 below.
Scale up process
uncertainties

Low calorific value gas

Component reliability

Equipment integration

Resource and Development

Process parameters
- Composition
- Carbon conversion
- Coal fines properties
The suitability of gas turbines for low CV gases should
be taken into consideration
- Lock hopper
- Refractory
- Air Separating Unit (ASU)
- Acid gas recovery
- Process controls
- Economics
- Redundancies
- Integration
- Equipment such as hot gas filter
- Materials
- Process establishment

Table 10. Gap areas of implementing IGCC in India

17

APPROACH 2:

Another option is to select systems based on technologies available across the world and try
to map them to the Indian requirement.
Design considerations and technology selection should be done for both process area and
power generation area.

Gasifier selection:
The following five processes represent state of art gasification technology available:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.

Shell
Texaco
KRW
DOW
BGL
Shell
Texaco
BGL
KRW
Bed
Entrained Entrained
Moving Fluidized
Feeding
Dry
Slurry
Wet
Wet
Temperature, C
2000
1250
2000
870
1550
1040
Pressure, Mpa
3
4.1
2.5
2.1
Coal size, mm
<0.1
<0.1
45
<5
Typical Operating Parameters of gasifier

Design consideration for Shell gasifiers:

Pressurized coal, oxygen and steam enter the gasifier through pairs of burnersopposed to
each other. The gasifier consists of an outer pressure vessel and an inner water cooled membrane
wall. The raw gas (mainly H2 and CO) leaves the reactor at temperature close to the gasification
temperature. It is then quenched by cold gas gas before entering the convective cooler where
superheated steam generation takes place. After leaving the syngas cooler, the cooled gas passes
through a filter where about 98% of slag is removed. The remainder of the gas passes through the
scrubber to get rid of particulates, ammonia and salts. The gas is then passed through a catalytic
reactor for about 95% of COS hydrolysis.
Design consideration for Texaco gasifiers:
With limited capacity of the slag lockhooper valve available and high ash content of coal, a large
number of gasifiers would be required when compared to other gasifier technologies. Hence
boiler mode of Texaco gasifier cannot be used.
Even in quench mode, the gasifier is penalized thermally by ash content more than others due to
slurry feed system. High temperature operation as well cannot help in this case. This gasifier can
become competitive only if ash content is reduced by washing the coal first.

18

 Design consideration for KRW gasifiers:

The carbon conversion in KRW gasifiers is not very certain. Also there is a possibility that ash may
not agglomerate because of very high fusion temperature. The failure of agglomeration wouls
lead to elutriation and would be difficult to be retrieved.
Design consideration for moving bed gasifiers:
Moving bed gasifier is commercially tested for high ash Indian coal with successful results. But
problems are faced in economically using coal fines rejected and treatment of water effluent.
Sulfur recovery:

For Shell gasifier, acid gas produced will have sufficient sulfur concentration to use Claus unit
for recovery of sulfur.
For Texaco and moving bed gasifiers, the sulfur concentration is very low to recover sulfur
through the Claus unit. Sulfur combustion should be done catalytically at reduced
temperatures.
KRW gasifier uses in-bed sulfur capture techniques and hence does not require acid gas
removal or sulfur recovery facilities.

Gas turbine (GT) selection:

The turbines to be used should be selected from the set of existing turbines. Gas turbine selection
is limited by 50 cycles electrical system in India.
Advanced gas turbines with higher firing temperature can be used to take advantage of turbine
efficiency improvement and demonstrate full potential of the IGCC plant.

RELIABILITY, COST AND RISK FACTORS:

Though coal based IGCC technology is in general labeled as green energy conversion and high
efficiency process, its compatibility in India is to be thoroughly understood. IGCC systems have a few
setbacks in Indian scenario as far as implementation is concerned.
The total efficiency of a plant employing IGCC which uses Indian coal was theoretically
estimated at about 42%-43% initially. It is now evident that such high efficiencies could not be
obtained practically in any of the demonstration plants within the country. The maximum efficiency
was limited 38% - 40% whereas efficiencies of 40% - 44% could be demonstrated at various power
plants across the world.
IGCC technology has its own set of advantages as described in technology section above.
Considering efficiencies, efficiency of IGCC plants is comparable to that of pulverized coal (PC) fired
power plants (34% - 38%) and conventional combined cycle (CC) power plants (40%). But it is
important to note that the cost of implementing IGCC could be 1.5 2 times that of PC plants, which

19

is very high. Table 11 gives the relative cost of generation between IGCC and PC plants 1989 estimated
Indian cost for a 600MW plant.
If a plant aims at having a processes such as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), there would
be a further decrease in overall plant efficiency and the cost of plant would increase further. But
growing environmental concerns makes it important to follow such processes for sustainability.
IGCC plant
PC plant
Without
With
Moving
Shell
Texaco
KRW
bed
FGD
FGD
577.
Net output, MW
564.4
496.2
2
585.7
558.0
549.0
Total capital
require,
1,46
( Rs Crores)
2,055
2,059
0
1,529
1,065
1,278
Unit capital,
Rs/kW
36,41
25,2
net
8
41,500
92
26,103
19,084
23,275
Relative unit
captal
1.56
1.78
1.09
1.12
0.82
Base
Cost of
generation,
Paise/kWh
@5500 h/y
103.
operation
146.0
170.2
8
115.5
86.7
102.2
@6000 h/y
operation
135.4
158.1
96.5
107.6
81.4
95.6
@7000 h/y
operation
118.8
139.2
85.0
95.3
73.0
85.4
@8000 h/y
operation
113.4
133.0
81.3
91.3
70.3
82.1
Relative cost of
generation
1.43
1.67
1.02
1.13
0.85
Base
Table 11. Cost comparison between IGCC and PC plants, Source: IGCC Power Technology for India, CSIR report

The plant life of coal based IGCC would be about 25 35 years. This could be clearly observed
from the long established plants in other countries and as well from BHELs 6.2MW demonstration
plant set up way back long. Though costlier than other systems, the IGCC system in India, with proper
integration of developed applicable technology, is very reliable in terms of longer applicability and
operation, lower water consumption, better sulfur separation, economical CCS and other
environmental aspects.

20

There are a few risks involved with implementation of IGCC with respect to Indian context.
HIGH ASH CONTENT:
In Indian coal, mineral matter is intrinsically mixed with the carbonaceous matter. As result ash
produced during the process would be mostly fine particles. Most of the available gasifier
technologies fail to agglomerate them into large particles and separate them from the gasifier
system.
A porous filter designed in the USA can handle particulates at around 650 Celsius. US based IGCC
units use low ash coal, which doesn't require filtration (very less particulates) before being sent
to the gas turbine unit.
These fine ash particles might get elutriated and might enter the turbine systems if not properly
retrieved posing threat to the gas turbine functioning.
Even if India is going to use this kind of filters before the IGCC gas turbine unit, it should bring
down the syngas temperature from around 1200 C to around 650 C before using the filter. This
would reduce the thermal efficiency of the IGCC.
GASEOUS EXTRACTION:
Gasifier air extraction from gas turbine, in-bed sulfur capture and hot gas particulate removal are
technically difficult processes and there is a factor of risk involved with these.
There are relatively lesser technological risks associated with moving bed gasifier because it is the
most commercially exploited process and its suitability for Indian high ash coals has been established.
Sulphur release does not have much commercial use, unlike the case in USA that encourages the
use of IGCC there.
Similarly, for the utilization of released hydrogen, plan for using it in fuel cells and related
transportation energy needs have to be put in place.

COST ANALYSIS CASE

Following is a case study based on the estimated cost of a moving bed gasifier IGCC plant as per
the 1989 pricing based on report on Feasibility Assessment of Coal Integrated Gasification
Combined Cycle (IGCC) Power Technology for India published by Council for Scientific and
Industrial Research (CSIR) along with United States Trade and Development Program in 1991.
Cost of the entire moving bed case were directly estimated under the Indian conditions. Costs of
the off sites and supporting facilities such as coal transportation system, raw water supply and treatment,
solid waste disposal system, and electrical system were factored from the PC plant. This is to establish a
consistent basis for comparison between the IGCC plant and PC plant.

The bases used for converting U.S. costs into India costs and other cost estimate bases are as
follows:
Exchange rate: An exchange rate of Rs 17 per US dollar is assumed.

21

Direct field material:

i. To convert from the U.S. direct field material cost to India, the bulk material for civil and
structural is taken out first because it can be procured in India.
ii. For all plant units except the air separation, combined cycle, and fuel oil and LPG units, it is
assumed that 30% of the remaining direct field material will be imported and the other 70%
will be procured in India.
iii. For the combined cycle unit, it is assumed that only the gas turbine will be imported and the
remaining equipment and material will be procured in India.
iv. For the fuel oil and LPG unit, the entire unit will be procured in India.
v. For equipment and material to be procured in India, it is assumed the India costs will be
25% higher than the U.S. costs (10% for ocean freight and marine insurance and 15% for overall
higher cost markup in India).
Direct field material: To adjust the labor cost, the labor productivity in India is assumed to be 40% of
t h a t in US. The labor rate in India is assumed to be Rs 17/h.
Direct field subcontract: The major item under this category is the air separation plant. For this plant
unit, it is assumed that 70% of its cost is equipment and 30% is labor. All the equipment is to be
imported as a package unit and all the labor is to be indigenous supply.
The subcontract costs in other plant units are assumed to be all indigenous supply and also have a
70/30 split between equipment and labor. The labor adjustments are the same as those described
above for the direct field labor
Indirect cost: This cost is broken down to 70% material and 30% labor, all assumed to be indigenous
supply. The labor adjustments are the same as those described above for the direct field labor.
Engineering services: It was assumed that the basic design package would be prepared by a foreign
engineering company and the detailed engineering would be performed by an Indian engineering
company but checked by the former. The total engineering cost is estimated to be 5% of the total field
cost and the split between the foreign and Indian engineering companies is 30 and 70%. The license
and know how would be obtained from appropriate foreign process licensors. The total licensing fee
is assumed to be $3.5 million.
Working capital: This cost was estimated based on the following provisions:
1. Coal: 15 days
2. Limestone: 60 days
3. Consumables: 60 days
4. Salary and wages: 60 days
Spare parts: The cost to provide a three-year supply of both foreign and Indian spare parts is
estimated to be 5% of the equipment cost.
Interest during construction: An equity/debt ratio of 1:1 is used to calculate this cost. It is also
assumed that the equity portion would be spent first before the loan portion is used. The total project

22

duration is 4 years. The interest rate is assumed to be 15% per year.

Contingency: This is calculated at 5% of the capital cost.
Duties and taxes: The duties and taxes rate assumed are as following:
1. Ocean freight and marine insurance: 10% of FOB cost
2. Custom duty: 30% of CIF cost (cost include ocean freight)
3. Sales tax: 4% of FOR cost (freight on rail)
4. Excise duty: 15.75% of FOR and sales tax
5. Inland transport: 4% of FOR
6. Insurance: 1.5% of FOR
7. Income tax on foreign license and engineering: 30%
8. R&D on foreign license and engineering: 7%
Land: The total land requirement is 1505 acres. The land is assumed to be available at no cost.
Project lead time: The total project lead time from project award to commercial operation is
estimated to be 4 years. This includes permitting, engineering, procurement, plant construction, and
start up. But it excludes plant licensing.
Cost of generation: These costs are shown for 5500, 6000, 7000, and 7400 hours per year of plant
operation. The bases used to derive these costs are described below.
Labor and overheads: This cost is estimated based on a total plant staff of 1400. The average salary
and benefit is assumed to be Rs. 50,000 per year.
Maintenance Materials: Total annual maintenance materials estimated to be 2% of the total plant
cost including contingency.
Depreciation: This cost is calculated based on 3.6% of the total capital excluding the working capital.

Plant Name

Coal Transportation System

Coal Handling System
Gasification, Gas Cooling, & Gas
Liquor
Separation
Acid Gas Removal
Sulphur Recovery
Tar and Oil fired Boiler
Combined Cycle

Foreign
Component
(Rs. Lakhs)
6977

388
145
14561

Indian
component
(Rs. Lakhs)
3030
2200
25241

Total
(Rs. Lakhs)

1808
685
2710
17833

2196
830
2710
32394

3030
2200
32191

23

Solid Waste Disposal

Relief and Blowdown
Interconnecting Piping
Compressed Air System
Fuel Oil and LPG System
Electrical System
Instrumentation and Controls
Cooling water system
Raw water supply and Treatment
Fire Protection
Waste Water Treating

49
359
653
-

General Service & Mobile

equipment
Site Prep., Improvement &
Buildings
Total Field Cost
Engineering Fee
Total Plant Cost
Contingency (5%)
Initial Catalysts & Chemicals
Plant Facilities Investment
Owners Cost
Total Capital Requirements
Duties & Taxes
Total Capital w/Duties & Taxes

4800
190
1776
150
218
5872
360
3572
1690
1960
339

4800
239
2135
150
218
5872
1013
3572
1690
1960
339

1400

1400

23132
1617
24749
1237
600
26568
2388
28974
28974

8880
84687
3774
88461
4423
209
93093
14655
107748
16161
123909

8880
113210
5391
113210
5661
809
119680
17043
136723
16161
152884

Table 12. Capital cost requirement for moving bed based IGCC plant, Source: IGCC Power Technology for India,
CSIR report

Gross Power Produced, MW

Net Power Produced, MW
Aux. Power Consumption, % of Gross Power

640.1
585.7
8.5

Project Capital Requirement

Total Capital, Rs lakhs
Rs/kw Gross Power Generated

152884
23884

Annual (5500h/y) Coal Consumption, kg/kW gross

Heat Rate (HHV basis), KcalkWh net power
Specific Coal Consumption, kg/kWh net power

3855
2611
0.766

24

Fixed Costs, Rs/y/kW gross power

Labor and Overhead
Maintenance Material
Chemicals & Catalysts
Depreciation
Interest on Long Term Loan
Return on Equity
Interest on Working Capital Loan
Total Fixed Costs

109.36
424.43
289.49
853.25
1791.32
1194.22
93.22
4755.29

Variable Costs (5500 h/y), Rs/y/kw gross power

Coal
Limestone
Raw Water
Ammonium Sulfate Credit
Sulfur Credit

1079.44
14.59
9.85
26.06

Total Variable Costs

1058.12

Total Fixed and Variable Costs, Rs/y/kW

5813.41

Table 13. Cost of generation for moving bed based IGCC plant, Source: IGCC Power Technology for India, CSIR report

Electricity cost, Paise/kWh net power,

@5500 hr/y operation
@6000 hr/y operation
@7000 hr/y operation
@7400 hr/y operation

115.5
107.6
= 95.3
= 91.3

CONCLUSION
India should look at establishing coal gasification, possibly including underground coal
gasification. However, the lack of positive policies and the use of ineffective state-run industries
in the past to try and implement some initiatives have prevented any significant activity being
established. There is evidence of the changing situation with a few coal-to-chemicals projects
being developed by private companies. However, the enormous potential in India is far from
being realized.
IGCC is essentially a combined cycle of steam based and the natural-gas-based electricity
generation, using coal and natural gas as fuels respectively. The gasification route offers various
advantages over combustion route as mentioned below:

25

Higher overall efficiency due to combined cycle

Cleaner power generation due to very low emissions

Suitability for carbon capture (pre-combustion)
Possibility of poly-generation i.e. producing various chemical products along with power
generation.

However, the technology is not yet commercialized and there are only a few demonstration
plants available worldwide. The technology also has some drawbacks which need to be catered
during commercialization of the technology22.
High technological complexity
Higher capital costs
Technology not yet matured/commercialized and there are only few vendors
Very less work done globally on fluidized bed gasifier based IGCC technology, which is
suitable to high ash Indian coals
Technology developed outside India is not directly applicable as observed, hence needs
modification to suit Indian needs. There is a huge scope for development of technologies based
on moving bed and pressurized fluid bet combustion systems, which are highly compatible with
high-ash content coal. Every system which could be implemented has its own set of gap
requirements and risks which are to be addressed through proper estimated study of each process
involved in whole IGCC power plant system.

REFERENCES
1. Feasibility Assessment of Coal Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Power Technology for India,
United States Trade and Development Program and Council of Scientific and Industrial Research
(CSIR), June 1991
2. Development of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) as suited to power generation using
Indian Coals, Office of PSA, Government of India , December 2005
3. IGCC Technology and Indian Energy Security, Arunn Narsimhan,
4. IGCC Technology Overview, Presentation to World Bank, Feb. 22, 2007, Dr. Tan-Ping Chen, Sr. Vice
President, Energy Technology, Nexant, Inc.
5. Technological options for promoting Energy efficiency in Power Plants, D. K Jain, Executive Director
(Engineering), NTPC Ltd.
6. Energy Efficient Coal Gassification for IGCC Power Plant, Haarsh Rai, Abhinav Bharti, Rakesh Singh,
Neeraj Kr., International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE)
7. Challenges and Opportuities for Coal Gassification in Developing Countries, IEA Clean Coal Centre,
December2013
8. Frontline, Vol 25, Issue 22, Oct 25

26