Random Article:

Singapore-MIT Alliance Scholarship (3)

Home » Artikel » Teknologi

IGCC: Technology Overview (1)

The world today is having some serious problems regarding to energy crisis. The energy demand is increasing in alarming rate with average 1.3 percent per year to 2030. The increase will be underpinned by economic and population growth[9]. Power generation to meet electricity needs will be the biggest driver of higher energy demand representing more than 40 percent of the increase while fossil-base fuels will continue to provide the supplies for this demand with oil and gas close to 60 percent. Demand for coal will grow as the demand of electricity in developing country rise. Figure 1 shows the world energy demand by sector to 2030.

Figure 1. The world energy demand by sector [1]

The need for mitigating the effect of greenhouse gases emissions and the rapid increase of oil price make us to start thinking possible solutions to address the problem. One solution which have been the main long-term goal of The European Union is the conversion of the fossil-based fuel to sustainable energy, gaining higher energy efficiency and reducing its emissions. Even if we put higher energy efficiency into consideration, it is still not enough to fulfill the growing world’s energy demand. Thus, addressing the need of affordable and reliable energy supplies will not be easy. An effective combination of access, investment, technology, and trade is necessary to deliver reliable supplies[1].

Nowadays, oil holds an important role in world’s energy system since it is used widely in industrial, residential, and transportation sectors. In future projection, the use of oil will be limited to transportation sector while natural gas and coal will be utilized in electricity generation. Although the efficiency of coal-fired unit with modern combustion technology is considerably high, this fact has caused some concerns in terms of conservation of resources and CO2 emissions. Over the last 20 years, a great amount of work has been done to improve existing combustion technologies as well as investigating the alternatives. Of all the potential alternatives, coal gasification has come up with a very good chance to develop in the future with its Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)[4].

IGCC produces electricity from solid or liquid fuels. The scientific community and major electricity corporation consider this technology as promising to produce cleaner electrical power in the future. First, fuel is converted to synthesis gas (syn-gas), a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide, through gasification. Second, the synthesis gas is converted to electricity using a power generating unit that consist of gas and steam turbines which also include a heat recovery steam generator[3].

Coal-based IGCC plants are not fully commercial. Although each major components of IGCC have been widely utilized in the industry or in power generation, the integration of a gasification and combined cycle power plant is considerably new. The objective of this technology is to achieve a better environmental performance at low marginal cost[3]. Several IGCC pilot plants have been built recently to assess the possibility in commercializing the technology.

IGCC Process Description

IGCC technology is a power generation process that integrates gasification process with combined cycle power plant. The gasification system converts coal into synthesis gas which consists primarily by hydrogen (H2) and carbon monoxide (CO). The synthesis gas is then used as fuel on a combined cycle power plant for electricity generation[1]. Figure 2 shows the flow diagram of IGCC technology without CCS (carbon capture and storage).

IGCC system mainly consists of 4 major sections, air separation, gasification, cooling and clean up system, and combined cycle power plant. Air separation unit is responsible for separating air into its constituents and supplying pure oxygen into the gasifier. This process is held on a pressurized and cryogenic condition.

Figure 2. Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle technology[1]

Coal gasification takes place in the presence of controlled air/oxygen and steam which maintain a reducing condition. Gasification is a partial oxidation of the feedstock which produces heat and series of chemical reactions. The process is carried out in an enclosed pressurized reactor. Most gasifiers have been oxygen blown because of the cost of handling large amounts of nitrogen and the effect it has in diluting the product. The air blown gasifier is less preferable since its product has low calorific value which is not desirable. But the oxygen blown itself also has some disadvantages, it requires higher degree of plant integration. This means that controlling and operating the plant is more like running the whole chemical complex plant than a traditional power station (UK Clean Coal Center).

In addition to its chemical energy (heating value), the hot raw synthesis gas contains sensible heat which may be recovered in heat exchangers to produce steam for the steam turbine. The use of synthesis gas coolers for this purpose increases efficiency, but adds capital costs. In theory, it would be desirable to clean the raw synthesis gas without cooling (as the sensible heat would be utilized most efficiently when delivered to the gas turbine), but the proven technologies for gas clean up operate at near ambient temperatures. In the gas clean up process, particles, sulfur and other impurities are removed. At this point, CO2 may also be captured. Because of the high partial pressures of the species and the low volume flow of synthesis gas, the gas clean up process is very efficient and low cost compared to traditional flue gas cleaning[3].

Recent studies have shown that an IGCC plant with CCS (carbon capture and storage) requires two additional pre-combustion stages than the conventional IGCC cycle plant (Figure 2) as illustrated in Figure 3. The two additional stages are the water gas shift reaction and the acid gas removal for the removal of CO2 from the synthesis gas. In addition, a CO2 compression stage is necessary to make transportation and storage of the sequestered quantity of CO2 feasible. The addition of CCS technology decreases the overall process efficiency due to the power for compressing the CO2. Another reason for the decrease efficiency is the installation of two additional stages, the amount of coal feed required needs to be increase. On the other hand, this can result in lower steam/carbon ratio in gasifier which will need additional supply of steam, thus lower the plant output power[2].

Figure 3. Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle incorporating CCS[1]

The clean gas is then fed to the combined cycle power plant. Combined cycle power plant consists of a combustion turbine/generator, a heat recovery steam generator, and a steam turbine/generator. The exhaust heat from the combustion turbine is recovered in the heat recovery steam generator to produce steam. This steam then passes through a steam turbine to power another generator, which produces more electricity. Combined cycle is more efficient than conventional power generating systems because it re-uses waste heat to produce more electricity (www.wci-coal.com).

(To be continued: Major IGCC Blocks)

References:
[1] Christou C., Hadjipaschalis I., Poullikkas A, J. Rser. 2007 June.
[2] Descamps C., Boualloua C., Kanniche M., J. Energy. 2007 July.
[3] Maurstad O. An Overview of Coal Based IGCC Technology. 2005
[4] Higman C. and van der Burgt M, Gasification. 2003.
[5] Yong K.H., J. Hydrogen Energy. 2007 32 5088-5093.
[6] http://www.aiche.org/uploadedFiles/Energy_Website/Publications/051206_IGCC.pdf
[7] http://www.netequity.biz/docs/BioChip/SiemansGasification.pdf
[8] http://www.bv.com/Downloads/Resources/energy_brochures/goc/rsrc_gasificationIGCC.pdf
[9] http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate
[10] http://www.worldenergysource.com/articles/pdf/longwell_WE_v5n3.pdf

Topik:
(1 votes, 2/5)

10 Comments »

  • Carol A. Overland said:

    Before you jump on any IGCC bandwagon, take a look at the results of months of intense factfinding — the record and results of the first IGCC proceeding to wind its way through the regulatory process. IGCC is not what it’s touted as. Here’s the Administrative Law Judges’ recommendation that Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project PPA be rejected: http://legalectric.org/weblog/1579/alj-recommendation-denial-of-ppa/
    Look at the costs, regarded as too high (remember these costs are from 2006):
    http://www.mncoalgasplant.com/puc/05-1993%20pub%20rebuttal.pdf
    And check the emissions analysis from the MPCA that lead to the finding of the ALJ that IGCC didn’t provide any significant environmental benefit: http://legalectric.org/weblog/1672/mpca-excelsior-final-emission-comparison/

    All this information, and more, is available on the Minnesota Public Utilities eDockets site. Go to http://www.puc.state.mn.us and then to “eDockets” and then “Search Documents” and search for docket 05-1993. Also take a look at my client’s site, http://www.mncoalgasplant.com.

    IGCC is a pipedream of green and clean.

    Carol A. Overland
    Attorney for mncoalgasplant.com against Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project
    http://www.legalectric.org

  • Ratih Wulandari (majari) said:

    thank you for your comment.. hehe.. maybe all those things are the reason why this technology have to be assesed over and over again before it’s being commersialized.. But looking that this supposed to be a part of clean coal technology, I think the environmental benefit is one thing to put up front..

    anyway, thankss

  • Carol A. Overland said:

    …errrrrrrr… the LACK of environmental benefit! There are two coal plants that Minnesota is evaluating now, and let’s look at just one emissions example. Mesaba, puts out 5.4 million tons of CO2 annually compared with Big Stone II that puts out 4.6 million tons annually. Capture - what a farce, it’s “capture ready,” not actually going to capture any. No plant is doing it on a commercial scale, it’s further back on the drawing table than IGCC. IGCC last had a big push for commercial viability back in the late 1970s, it didn’t make it then either. The US has pretty much come to grips with the reality, much as they don’t like it, that coal isn’t in our future, if we want to have a future. The financial institutions are saying coal investment is too risky, and particularly IGCC, and the federal and state financing schemes are backing off, leaving IGCC to sink of its own weight. But the marketers and developers are promoting it heavily outside the US, and how dare they! It doesn’t fly here, it’s no good here, it’s too risky here, so send it overseas! Just watch for a big World Bank financing scam for IGCC, investment in infrastructure y’all don’t want or need, just the thing to push everyone over the brink!

  • michaeljubel (majari) said:

    To Carol:
    wow, this is interesting. are you saying that the whole CCS concept isn’t implemented in the commercial scale? why not? in addition to IGCC, do you have any information about PFBCC (pressured fluidized bed combined cycle)? both technologies are considered as the most feasible clean coal technology.

    so, if IGCC is not really the best solution, based on your experience seeing ‘real’ things in USA, what is actually the best?

    and I also have one question. I’m sorry if this might be a bit out-of-topic, but I wonder if I can hear your opinion about USA having the largest amount of coal reserve in the world but prefer to keep it underground instead of utilizing it. And in fact, USA is one of the top 10 coal importers in the world. Weird.

    anyway, thanks for your visit Carol. It’s a pleasure for us to have you here.

  • Carol A. Overland said:

    Let’s see… it’s not implemented on a commercial scale because it doesn’t exist. This is just like nuclear, wanting to build plants but not sure what to do with byproduct/waste. Not reasonable to build a single plant until they figure this out (which is a long way off, if ever).

    They are doing experiments, i.e. Buelah, ND synfuels plant, captures some and pipes up to Saskatchewan oil fields for enhanced oil recovery, but it’s a nominal amount. Lots of money is going into this, new experiments, but it is so far out that DOE says we can’t count on it.

    There are several problems:

    1. carbon capture sucks efficiency right out of the plant — capture alone takes at least 25% of efficiency, i.e. 600MW becomes 450MW (and reality is a lot more, but we had to sign confidentiality agreements)
    2. cost is another 45-50% or so, for the $2.155 billion Mesaba project, developer estimated it would cost another billion.
    3. has to be piped somewhere and re-pressurized every 100 miles along the way — parasitic load takes about 7-10 MW for each pressurization station
    4. cost of pipeline and pressurization (can’t recall off hand, I think it’s like $600k-$1 million/mile)
    5. long term storage — where, how? Very few locations, a client of mine lives on top of natural gas underground storage and her water is contaminated with constant sucking pumping like a plunger in a toilet.
    6. cost — out of this world, can’t estimate.

    Read “Gas Migration” the tome of gas - gas migrates, that’s what it does, an inherent characteristic, so expect that to happen.

    Yes, we’re a large importer, yet they say, like wind, that “we’re the Saudi Arabia of coal.” What they don’t address is peak coal, and the difficulties of mining and transport. Cost has risen, 3-4 times what it was 8 years ago:

    You may read about that here and here.

    I’m going to forward some sources for a little light reading…

  • Carol A. Overland said:

    IGCC Technology problems:

    1. Pinon Pines - IGCC plant that never ran. Read here.
    2. DOE site: here and here.
    3. NETL site - GOOD STUFF: here.
    4. Wabash River, the IGCC project that took a fleet of full time engineers to cobble it together:
      DOE/NETL site: read here.
    5. This report details the water contamination - water permit was in “routine violation”: here.
  • david said:

    hi..
    i’m interest about technology..
    join to your blog is… wow…

Leave your comment!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled website. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.com.

3 Trackback/Pingback »

Browse categories

Most Popular

Most Discussed

Most Emailed