Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2006tf Rubin, Group Against Smog & Poll (C) PDF
2006tf Rubin, Group Against Smog & Poll (C) PDF
Edward S. Rubin
Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Presentation to the
Group Against Smog and Pollution (GASP)
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
April 6, 2006
Outline of Talk
Thermal decomposition
HC + heat = H2 + C + organics
Reaction with oxygen (partial oxidation)
HC + O = H2 + CO + heat
Reaction with steam (reforming)
HC + H2O + heat = 3/2H2 + CO
Reaction with hydrogen (hydrogasification)
HC + H2 = CH4 + heat
A Typical Coal Gasifier
CO + H2
Lubricants &
Wax 1,4-Butanediol
Hydrogen
Ethanol & Isobutanol
Sulphuric Acid
Ammonium Nitrate
Urea
Ammonium Sulphate
Source: Gunal-Akgol, U.Waterloo
Why the Current Interest?
Process Considerations
• Offers a way to utilize low-value feedstocks or
wastes (such as petroleum coke) in a variety of
refinery and petrochemical processes
• Can produce multiple products (polygeneration)
• Growing interest for industrial application in the
face of high natural prices in recent years
Worldwide Gasification Capacity
CO2
Alternatives: Electricity
Syngas
• Natural Gas Steam HRSG
Turbine
• Any Oil
GAS
• Tar/Asphalt Syngas SEPARATION • Hydrogen
• Chemicals
• Petroleum Coke Syngas
H2S • Ammonia
• Coal
• Fuel Cells
• Wastes/ SULFUR • Fischer-
by-Products RECOVERY Tropsch
• Biomass
Co-products:
Sulfur
Solids
Source: Adapted from Chevron-Texaco, 2003
Polk Power Station
IGCC Plant
(Tampa Electric, 250 MW)
Integrated Coal Gasification
Combined Cycle (IGCC) Plant
Wabash River, Indiana
CO2 to storage
Selexol for Sulfur removal
CO2 capture and recovery
Combined cycle GT
ST HRSG
To stack
Industrial CO2 Capture Systems
(Source: Mitsubishi Heavy Industries)
Regina
Dakota Coal Gasification Plant
Weyburn
Saskatchewan Canada
USA
North Dakota
Bismarck
CO2
Sources: USDOE; NRDC
Geological Storage Projects
Sleipner (Norway)
Source: Statoil
Wind, Biomass
100 Coal Plants
(combustion,
Coal and Gas gasification)
80 Plants with
CO2 Capture
IGCC
60
Natural Gas
Combined
40 Cycle
PC
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
CO2 Emission Rate (kg / MWh)
Conclusion
• Growing interest in IGCC for power generation, and
in gasification to produce liquids and natural gas
• Several proposed new power plants in the U.S.
• Cost and reliability are the main issues
• Potential for lower cost of CO2 capture wrt PC plants
• DOE “FutureGen” project moving ahead to
demonstrate and improve IGCC with CCS