ESL-IE-82-04-159

OPTIMLM DESIGN OF COAL GASIFICATION PLANTS

B. P. Pohani, H. P. Ray, H. Wen
Bechtel Petroleum, Inc.
Houston, Texas

ABSTRACT
This paper deals with the optimum design of
heat recovery systems using the Texaco Coal
Gasification Process (TffiP).
TffiP uses an
entra' ned type gasifier and produces hot gases at
approximately 2500 0 F with high heat flux.
This
heat is removed by using a combination of
radiant/convective waste heat boiler or by direct
water quench before processing of the raw gas.
The selection of an optimum heat recovery system
is a function of the product slate, overall
economics, and the technical risks associated with
the heat recovery equipment. An extensive use of
heat recovery equipment is not necessarily more
economical than a simpler system with modest
thermal efficiency.

system requires consideration of economic factors

and stoichiometric adjustment of gas composition
for final product slate. A coal gasification heat
recovery system optimized for fuel gas product,
therefore, may be inefficient and uneconomical for
chemical intermediates.
Three coal gasification process systems
using Texaco gasifier have been selected to
demonstrate the optimization of waste heat
recovery systems and their interrelationship with
the final product slate. These are:
o Coal gasification combined cycle (ffiCC)
o A synfuel plant designed for hydrogen
production
o A synfuel plant designed for power/methanol
co-production

A full heat recovery mode consisting of

radiant and convective boilers along
with
economizers is recommended for Coal Gasification
Combined Cycle to maximize energy efficiency. A
water quench mode is suggested for hydrogen
production because of the need to adjust the
H20/CO ratio for shift conversion.
A partial
heat-recovery
mode
is
recommended
for
power/methanol co-production plant.
These heat
recovery systems are discussed in detail along
with the economics associated with each system.

TEXACO COAL GASIFICATION PROCESS DESCRIPTION

The Texaco gasifier is a high temperature
and pressure p.ntrained flow gasifier. Feed coal
is ground and mixed with water to form a coal
slurry.
The slurry is pumped to a refractory
lined reactor where coal, water vapor, and oxygen
react to generate synthesis gas rich in hydrogen
The reaction is thermally
and carbon monoxide.
self-sustaining with the heat released by partial
oxidation of coal. Figure 1 depicts one version
of the Texaco gasifier with full heat recovery
setup.

INTRODLCTION
The use of coal derived synthesis gas for
alternative energy or raw material source for
chemicals has received considerable attention in
both electric utility and hydrocarbon processing
industries.
Unlike some existing producer gas
technologies
that
are
designed
for
small
industrial uses, the second and third generation
coal gasification processes are being developed to
use coal on a massive scale. These processes are
designed to operate under high pressure and
temperature conditions thereby resulting in better
conversion efficiency, higher throughput, and
minimal environmental effluents.

Hot
syngas,
at
approximately
2500 0 F,
(assumed for the purpose of this study) enters the
radiant waste heat boiler from the gasi fil~r
chamber. Here the syngas is cooled by generatilJn
of high pressure steam.
The syngas from the
radiant boiler is further cooled by the use of
convecti ve boilers and an economizer. More hiqh
pressure steam is generated in a convective boih!r
and the boiler feed water is preheated in an
economizer before entering convective and radiant
boilers for steam generation. The cooled syngas
then enters a carbon scrubber for further
processing. Table I shows a typical composition
of the synthesis gas after heat and water removal.

The operation of the gasifier at high

temperature, as in the case of the Texaco
gasifier, requires that the hot effluent gases
(syngas) from the gasifier be cooled either in a
waste recovery system or by direct quench before
the syngas can be processed further.
The
selection of an optimum syngas heat recovery

The molten slag from the gasifier flows

through the radiant boiler and is solidified. T e
slag is then quenched in a water pool located at
the bottom of the radiant boiler. The slag is

893

Proceedings from the Fourth Industrial Energy Technology Conference, Houston, TX, April 4-7, 1982

ESL-IE-82-04-159

arrangements except for the differences

described in the following sections.

removed via a lock-hopper system. This setup is

similar to other Texaco gasification plant

as

COAL---_
OXYGEN----.

PAHTlCUlATE-FR~E

SYNGAS

RADIANT

CDNV.

WHB

WHB

SCRUBBER

SLAG

FIG 1.

TEXACO COAL GASIFICATION PLANT WITH WASTE HEAT BOILERS

the investment in the pressure vessel is to
recover the heat in steps by the use of smaller
multiple
vessels.
A heat
recovery
train
consisting of a radiant boiler, a convective
boiler, and boiler feed water economizers,has been
developed to recover waste heat from the hot raw
syngas.

TABLE I

TYPICAL GAS COMPOSITIONS

Component
H2

CO
C02
CH4
~+Ar

H2S

COS
TOTAL

Vol. Percent
Raw Gas
Clean Gas
34.48
43.31
19.83
0.05
2.16
0.16
0.01
100.00

35.67
44.79
17.26
0.05
2.23
Negligible
60 ppmv
100.00

Radiant Boiler
The dense and hot syngas from the gasifier
A radiant
has a considerable high heat flux.
chamber, erclosed by water tube panels, is
designed to accommodate falling slag and to
provide sufficient hot gas residerce time for heat
dissipation. The radiant tube arrangement bears
resemblance to that of a cylindrical fired
heater.
The radiant heating surface of a
conventional coal-fired utility boiler is; usually
calculated to cool the gas temperature ~o below
17000 F to minimize the fouling of downstream
convection tube banks.
Because the fine slag
particles in the dense syngas environment are
expected to "float II longer than that of a
conventional boiler, a much lower radiant boiler
exit temperature is proposed to solidify the slag
particles.

COAL GASIFICATION FOR COMBINED CYCLE POWER PLANT

Combined cycle electricity generating plant
using medium BTU fuel gas is a potentially large
industrial application for coal gasification.
Figure 2 is a typical block flow diagram for a
(bCC plant using a Texaco gasifier. A process
setup arOlJnd the gasi fier and heat recovery
section is as shown in Figure 1.
The waste heat in the hot syngas accounts
for 20-24% of the heat content of feed coal (1,
2), and it is essential that all waste heat be
recovered if an acceptable heat rate is to be
achieved. Recent papers (4, 5, 6) have reported
that the overall thermal efficiercy at the busbar
is between 32.5% to 38%, depending upon process
arrangement and the extent of heat utilization.

In the radiant boiler a large portion of

heat is dissipated by gas radiation and only a
small percentage of heat is transferred by
convection. High radiant heat transfer rfites can
be obtained only when gas temperature 1s high.
The heat transfer rate decreases drastically as
the temperature drops since rate of heat transfer
is
proportional
to
the
fourth
power
of
temperature.
Figure 3 shows the predicted
temperature profile for a single pass radiant type
boiler. The effectiveness of heat transfer

To recover waste heat from pressurized

(above
600
psig)
and
high
temperature
(2200-30000 F) syngas, large heavy wall pressure
vessels are required to house steam generating
tube panels or tube banks. One way to minimize

894

Proceedings from the Fourth Industrial Energy Technology Conference, Houston, TX, April 4-7, 1982

ESL-IE-82-04-159

OJ

STACK

PUIIT

..

COAl

MRSG

SLURRY

PLAIT

I
I

ITEAli
TURIIIIE

I
I
I
J

COII0.....l

r------------

..l

'!!,A.!!.

'.'
GAl
TURIIIIE

ELECTRICITY

.--~.....,

ICRUI,

RAOIAIT

AID

ECOID,

WIll

CDOLlI.

"ZI
REMOVAL

IULfUR
LOCK

"Oml

ILAI

FIG. 2.

BLOCK FLOW DII(;RfM FOR ffiCC PLANT

deteriorates rapidly as the gas temperature drops

below 1600oF.
For example, a gas temperature
drop of 210 0 F can be achieved in the middle 20%
of the boiler heat transfer surface, but the same
heating surface area located at the bottom of the
boiler section can only reduce the gas temperature
by 80 oF.

between the optimum surface area criteria for the

design of radiant/convective boilers and the risk
associated
with
excessive
fouling
of
the
convective
boiler
as
the
entering
sy~~as
temperature increases.
There is substantial fleXibility in the
pressure level of steam generated
in
the
radiant/convective boilers.
The pressure level
affects the material of construction required for
the tube bundles.

Convective Boiler
The convective boiler is essentially a
pressure vessel filled with steam generating water
tube banks. As the efficiency of radiant boiler
declines, the use of convection type heat transfer
provides
economical
advantage.
The
syngas
temperature at the exit of the convective boiler
is designed to optimize the heat transfer area
before the syngas enters the economizer for
further cooling. It is expected that the syngas
temperature at the exit of the convective boiler
will be below 700oF.

Economizer
The Economizer is used to further cool the
syngas from the convective boiler by preheating
boiler feed water.
The syngas is cooled to
slightly above its dew point.
Either fire-tube or water-tube economizers
can be used.
Fire-tube design offers better
fouling resistance, but the water-tube design is
easier to clean with soot blowers. Because of the
low heat absorption rate, the economizer is the
least economical when compared to radiant and
convective boilers.
However, for a ffiCC plant
with a long investment payback period, the use of
economizers appears to be economically viable.

steam is generated in the convective boiler

at the same pressure as in the radiant boiler.
Approximately 64% of the total high pressure steam
is generated in the radiant boiler and the
remaining in the convect i ve boiler.
It is
important that proper balance be maintained

895
Proceedings from the Fourth Industrial Energy Technology Conference, Houston, TX, April 4-7, 1982

'.
;.

.'_.
','
~.. "

ESL-IE-82-04-159

CMounET

1l1li%

noa

110a

I--L....-----IL....-----IL...-----IL.-........_

11

20

30

4CI

1.

........' - -........_--I'-----II.---IL..

10

7D

II

'ERCEJIITAGE OF TOTAL HEATIMG SURFACE

FIG 3.

TEMPERATURE PROFILE IN SINGLE PASS RADIANT BOILER

Table II tabulates the equipment cost per

pound of steam generated for the radiant boiler,
the convective boiler and economizers. The unit
cost of heating surface area for the radiant
boiler is 3-4 times of that of convective boiler,
an optimization can be made by heat transfer load
distribution. Table III depicts the economics of
shifting some of the heat load from the radiant
boiler to the convective boiler. Two different
cases, with the same overall steam generation, but
different load distributions were compared. As it
can be seen from the comparison, the increase of
heat recovery load on the convection boiler
results in the savings in cost.

COAL GASIFICATION FOR HYDROGEN PRODUCTION

Hydrogen is an important product and is
currently used in many industrial processes such
as
ammonia
synthesis,
methanol,
refining
petrochemicals, hydrogenation of vegetable oils,
synthesizing
chemicals,
manufacturing
semi-conductors, and for general metallurgical and
other uses. Current U. S. hydrogen consumption is
about 1 Quad (8).
Demand for hydrogen in the non-eneJ;'gy field
is expected to grow substantially due; to the
changing
characteristics
of
the
refinery
feedstock. It is evident that today more,and more
crude is of the heavier type. This trend will
accelerate as more and more sources of heavy oil
are developed in places such as Venezuela and
California.

TABLE II
HEAT RECOVERY EQUIPMENT COST*
Equipment Type

$/lb Steam
Per Hr.

Radiant Boiler

30-40

Convective Boiler

20-25

Economizer

At the present time, hydrogen plays an

insigni ficant role in the energy sector in both
'direct' and 'indirect' uses. It is projected that
the 'indirect' use of hydrogen in the energy
sector, such as for refining and for production of
synfuels, will represent approximately 65% of the
total use by 2025. ' Di rect ' use of hydrogen in
the energy sector is expected to be as
transporation fuel, as a natural gas supplement,
and in fuel cells. The total demand for hydrogen
over the next 45 years is projected to increase by
a factor of 19-27. (8)

80-120
(water-Tube)
60-90
(Fire-Tube)

*Installation not included

Presently most of the hydrogen is produced

from natural gas and oil. Mature technologies,
such as Texaco gasification, are available for
hydrogen production via coal gasification on a
large sc ale.
896

Proceedings from the Fourth Industrial Energy Technology Conference, Houston, TX, April 4-7, 1982

ESL-IE-82-04-159

TABLE III

HEAT RECOVERY BOILER DESIGN VARIATIONS COMPARISON *

Case I

Case II

Load Distribution

64% Radiant
36% Convective

49% Radiant

51% Convective

Gas Temperature Entering

Radiant Boiler

2550 0 F

2550 0 F

Gas Temperature Entering

Convective Boiler

1370OF

1490 0 F

Radiant Heating Surface

Area

Base

70%

Radiant Boiler Cost**

$ 7.0 t+1

$5.53 MM

Convective Boiler Cost**

$ 3.2 t+1

$3.60 MM

Total

$10.2 t+1

$9.13 t+1

Saving

Base

$1.09 t+l

*For 1000 TPD Module

**Equipment cost only

To produce hydrogen, using the Texaco

Gasifier, the synthesis gas undergoes water shift
reaction to convert carbon monoxide to carbon
dioxide and hydrogen.
The carbon dioxide and
impurities are removed by acid gas clean-4)
processes, such as Rectisol or Selexol. The raw
hydrogen is then purified in a pressure swing
adsorption unit (PSA) to produce 99.9% pure
hydrogen. (3) Figure 4 is a simplified block flow
diagram for a hydrogen generating plant using a
quench type gasifier.

o Partial heat recovery mode using radiant

boiler with quench, and no convective
boiler or economizer. This mode results
in the adjustment of water vapor/dry gas
ratio with the disadvantage of additional
expenditure for a radiant boiler and an
advantage associated with the generation
of high pressure steam. This set-up, in
a short payback period, cannot justify
additional capital expenditure for the
advantage of generating high pressure
steam.

The raw syngas from the gasifier contains

approximately 26 vo1.% water vapor.
This water
vapor to dry syngls ratio is far too low for shift
conversion.
Additional steam must be added to
adjust
the
water
vapor
concentration
to
approximately 50%.

o Quench mode as shown in Figure 5 without

radiant/convective
boilers
and
economizer. In this set-up, the hot raw
syngas is discharged into a quench water
pool.
The syngas is cooled to a
temperature
equal
to
saturation
conditions. The temperature decrease is
accomplished
by
evaporating
water,
thereby producing quenched gas containing
65% water vapor. The excess water vapor
enhances the shift reaction for better
hydrogen yield.

The adjustment of water vapor/dry gas ratio

can be accomplished either at the gasification
cooling or at the shi ft stage. Three di fferent
cooling modes can be used at the gasification
stage. These are:
o Full heat recovery mode as specified for
CIiCC.
This mode
does
not
permit
adjustment of water vapor/dry gas ratio
at the syngas cooling stage.
All
adjustment must be carried out at the
time of shift conversion.

Downstream of the various cooling modes

outlined above, the cooled syngas undergoes water
shift reaction in a two-stage shift reactor.
Shift is a highly exothermic process.
Medium
pressure steam up to 250 psig can be produced by
cooling the gas from the shift converters.

897
Proceedings from the Fourth Industrial Energy Technology Conference, Houston, TX, April 4-7, 1982

ESL-IE-82-04-159

Gz

PLANT

COAL
SLURRY
PLANT

AU)(
STEAM
SYSTEM

__ _
r--------..
I

......... ..-.-.-.IUl'lHtfUTtO
........ -.... .....

GASIFIER

SI'EAM

....

Off-GAS
SUPER
HUHR

DIRECT
QUENCH

SCRUII.

HZS
COt
REMOVAL

HEAT
RECOVERY

SHIFT

PSA

LOCK
HOPPER

IlAO

FIG. 4 BLOCK FLOW DIAGRAM FOR HYDROGEN GENERATION UNIT

COAL

.,
OXYGEN

'ARIICULAH fREE

$VNGA$

GASIfIER WITH

QUENCH POOL

I
\

' ...... r r"'-'

II

I I

I I

SCHUBBfR

I I

-=.=.:;:=-~-I-r-

I I

CHARGE

PUMP

SLAG

FIG. 5 TEXACO COAL GASIFICATION WITH QUENCH COOLING

898

Proceedings from the Fourth Industrial Energy Technology Conference, Houston, TX, April 4-7, 1982

HI

ESL-IE-82-04-159

,,"

The right selection of the heat recovery

mode requires consideration of the economic
factors that are intrin3ic to the project. First,
a desired payback period must be established.
Payback periods are different for different final
products. The coal gasification plant designed
for the utility irdustry, for instance, can
amortize the investment over a long period of
time; while the plant designed for the chemical
industry has a shorter payback period. Because of
the different payback requirements, heat recovery
equipment is usually favorable in the utility
project, but hard to justify in a chemical plant.

To demonstrate the economics of heat

for
hydrogen
production
recovery
equipment
application, three design cases for a 1000 tpd
capacity,
as
defined
below,
have
been
investigated,
the
technical
and
investment
differences for each case are tabulated in Tab.e
IV.

Case 1 -

Full heat recovery with radiant

boiler, convective boiler and
economizer.

Case 2 -

Partial
heat
recovery
radiant boiler only.

Case 3 -

Direct Water Quench.

with

Case 3 requires the least amount of capital

investment.
The revenue from the steam export
from Case 1 or 2 does not justi fy the extra
expenditure.
TABLE IV
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION CASE CCMPARISONS
Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Full Heat Recovery

Partial Heat Recovery

(W/radiant boiler only)

Quench Unit

Installed Cost for

Gasifier and/or WHB

$27 t-t-1

$16 M'o1

$3 MM

Cost Diff. For Equipment

Offsite

+ $3 M'o1

+ $2 M'o1

Base

steam Generated from

waste Heat Boiler

300,000 lbs/hr

135,000 lbs/hr

None

Low Level steam from

Shift WHB

20,000 lbs/hr

21,000 lbs/hr

25,000 lbs.hr

Shift Reaction Steam

Required

142,000 lbs/hr

10,000 lbs/hr

None

Net H.P. Steam for

Export

158,000 lbs/hr

125,000 lbs/hr

None

Differential in
Electricity Requirement

+1.3 MW

+0.9 MW

Base

Diff. Electricity Cost

Per Year

+$0.48 MM

+$0.33 MM

Base

Revenue From Steam

Produced Per Year

$5.88 M'o1

$4 .65 M-.1

None

Total Diff. Investment

+27 MM

+15 M'o1

Base

Total Diff. Revenue/

Year

+5.4

+4.32 M'o1

Base

Notes:

(1) Costs are for 1000 TPD gasification module.

(2) Utilities listed

(3) Electricity cost
(4) Steam cost based
(5) On Stream factor

above are for gasification and shift units only.

based on 5~ per kwh.
on $5 per 1000 lbs.
is 310 days per year.

899
Proceedings from the Fourth Industrial Energy Technology Conference, Houston, TX, April 4-7, 1982

;'

ESL-IE-82-04-159

In addition to the economical disadvantages

the technical risks associated with the syngas
waste heat boiler system are higher than that for
a querch system at the present time. The radiant
boiler operates in a severe environment where the
heat is intense and
the
hydrogen
sulfide
concentration is high. The hydrogen and sulfide
attacks on boiler tubes and pressure shell could
shorten the life expectarcy of the equipment.
Moreover, there is an element of risk associated
with
the
fouling
of
tubes
in
the
radiant/convective boilers. These risks will be
more clear after data is available from a full
scale demonstration plant.

The production of methanol permits greater

flexibility in the operation of the power plant at
various load conditions caused by seasonal
climatic factors. Moreover methanol as a chemical
intermediate
and
potential
source
of
transportation energy source has a tremendous
growth potential. Methanol can be used directly
as transportation fuel as a direct additive to
gasoline, to produce high-octane gasoline by
Mobil-M process, or alternatively, to m'ake MTBE
which is an octane enhancer in gasoline. A future
potential also exists for methanol to be used
directly as fuel for automobiles and boilers
although this may not occur for about 10-15 years.

COAL GASIFICATION FOR POWER/METHANOL CO-PRODUCTION

PLANT

Figure 6 depicts a typical arrangement for

power
generation/methanol
co-production.
Two
different
heat
recovery
configurations
are
recommended.

One way to improve the utilization of a

synfuel plant is to have the flexibility to shift
from one product to another.
ffiCC power
generating plant with methanol co-production
offers much higher overall efficiercy and plant
utilization. The ffiCC plant can be designed for
maximum power output, but during off-peak periods,
the excess synthesis gas can be used for methanol
production. An ircrease of 9 percent in overall
thermal efficiercy can be achieved with a
co-production set-up in which complete integration
of the gasification and power plant heat recovery
system is employed.

o A full heat recovery for syngas going to

power generation.
o A radiant/quench set-up for syngas going
to methanol.
The production of methanol from synthesis
gas can be either by Lurgi or ICI low pressure
process. The reaction takes place according to
the following equation:

DxnEI

PLAIT

nAtl
nUM

f--------------------------------
I

r-----

I
I
I
I

f---------r----

r--------!~-----------J

,--""""'....0...,

MUHAIDL

lUI

FIG. 6

BLOCK FLOW

DIAGR~

FOR POWER/METHANOL CO-PRODUCTION UNIT

900

Proceedings from the Fourth Industrial Energy Technology Conference, Houston, TX, April 4-7, 1982

ESL-IE-82-04-159

Since the raw syngas does not have the

required hydrogen to carbon monoxide ratio, as
called for by the above equation, adjustment of
is
required.
This
is
hydrogen
quantity
accomplished by converting a portion of carbon
monoxide to hydrogen and carbon dioxide through
the use of water shi ft. The processing set-up
consists of splitting the raw syngas downstream of
the radiant boiler. The gas for power generation
is cooled further in a convective boiler and
economizer. The syngas required for methanol is
quenched before going through the shift.
The
shifted syngas goes through acid gas cleanup to
remove H2S and C02 and is then compressed and
charged into a reactor to produce methanol.

TABLE V
POWER/METHANOL CO-PRODUCTION PLANT COMPARISON*

To evaluate the cost impact of heat recovery

on the methanol generation unit, two cases have
been examined for cost differential. Case 1 is a
full heat recovery design. The required H20/CO
ratio is adjusted by direct steam injection at the
shift. Case 2 uses partial heat recovery with the
radiant boiler alone as shown in Figure 7, with
water vapor being added at the quench. Table V
tabulates the differences of both cases. For a
similar gas output and steam production, the
investment requirement for Case 2 is substantially
lower than that of Case 1.

Case 1

Case 2

Full heat
Recovery

Radiant Boiler
WQuench

Gasifier & WHB

$27 MM

$16 t+1

Diff. Offsites

$ 3 MM

$ 2 MM

Steam Generated

300,000 Ib/hr

135,000 Ib/hr

Steam Injection

125,000 Ib/hr

Steam Export

175,00 Ib/hr

135,000 Ib/hr

Soot Scrubber

$0.8 t+1

$0.5 MM

Quench Vessel

None

$0.4 MM

Total Investment

$30.8 MM

$18.9 MM

Diff Revenue

+1.49 MM

Base

.I.

*Cost & utilities are for a 1000 TPD Module.

Costs shown are on an installed basis.

II

,un
MoOH

f'

COAL
IlURRY

'UN'

HID

t
DIlI'RIIlID

1AIIIIlR

I
RADIAN'
WHI

IlETHUOl
".THUII

I-

WATER
DUINCH

foo-

KRUI

IHIf'

II

t
HII
AlIlOVAl

..,

I
LOCI
HD"U

IlAi

FIG. 7 BLOCK FLOW DIAGRAM FOR METHANOL PRODUCTION UNIT

901
Proceedings from the Fourth Industrial Energy Technology Conference, Houston, TX, April 4-7, 1982

ESL-IE-82-04-159

COI'CLUSION
An optimized coal gasification waste heat
recovery system design has an important influence
on
the
overall
thermal
efficiency
and
cost-effectiveness of a synfuel plant. Al though
the design criteria and investment cost may vary
for different types of final products, some basic
gasification heat recovery systems can be
generalized.
o For ffiCC, the system design should
include maximum waste heat recovery
equipment in order to obtain an overall
thermal efficiency that is comparable to
that of a conventional coal-fired power
plant.
o For hydrogen generation purposes, a
gasification system employing a radiant
waste heat boiler and quench is thermally
efficient, but a direct quench system
with heat recovery after shift conversion
is more cost-effective.
o For
electric
power
and
methanol
co-production plants, a side stream for
partial quench offers good overall
thermal
efficiency
and
product
flexibility.
REFERENCES
1.

B. Cornils, et aI, nRCH/RPG's version of

Texaco
Coal Gasification",
Hydrocarbon
Processing, January 1981.

2.

H. Wen, S. C. Lou, "Heat Recovery From Coal

Gasifiers", Proceedings of 1981, Industrial
Energy Conservation Technology Conference.

3.

F. Corr, F. Droop and E, Rudelstorfer, "PSA

Produces
Low-cost,
High-purity
H2'
Hydrocarbon Processing, March 1979.

4.

F. B. Walter, H. C. Kaufman, T. L. Reed,

"Cool water Coal Gasification", Chemical
Engineering Progress, May, 1981.

5.

I. N. Banchik, W. R. Bohannan, K. Stork,

"Gas
Turbines
Increases
The
Energy
Efficiency
of
Industrial
Processes",
Proceedings of 1981 Industrial Energy
Conservation Technology Conference.

6.

F. Gigliotti, R. 1'-1,. Starsky, M. Carrington,

"The Westinghouse Coal Gasification Combined
Cycle
Steam
For
Electric
utility
Application", Coal Technology, 1981.

7.

T. P. O'Shea, S. B. Alpert, M. J. Gluckman,

N. A. Holt, "First U.S. Coal Gasification
Combined Cycle Power Plant, SCE Texaco Cool
water Project",
7th Energy Technology
Conference, March, 1980.

8.

J. H. Kelley, W. J. D. Escher, W. Vam

Deaken, "Hydrogen Uses and Demands Through
The year 2025", CEP, January, 1982.
902
Proceedings from the Fourth Industrial Energy Technology Conference, Houston, TX, April 4-7, 1982