international journal of hydrogen energy 34 (2009) 6114–6119

Available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

Review

Coal steam-gasification model in chemical regime to

produce hydrogen in a gas–solid moving bed reactor
using nuclear heat

A. Belghit*, E.D. Gordillo, S. El Issami

University of La Rochelle, Laboratory ‘‘Transfer Phenomena and Instantaneity in Agro-industry and Building’’ (LEPTIAB),
17042 La Rochelle Cedex 1, France

article info abstract

Article history: A theoretical model of the coal gasification with steam in a chemical moving bed reactor is
Received 8 December 2008 developed. A very high temperature nuclear reactor provides the energy for accomplishing
Received in revised form the endothermic gasification reactions. The model is developed in chemical regime giving
22 April 2009 information about the temperature profiles, the coal conversion and the specific produc-
Accepted 3 May 2009 tivity in the gasification process. For the heat transfer, the three resistances have been
Available online 28 June 2009 included (conduction, convection and radiation). The results have shown that the coal
conversion in the heterogenic water ‘‘shift’’ reaction is smaller than the ones in mass
Keywords: transfer control. The gas velocity can change strongly the conversion, for velocities under
Steam-gasification 0.06 m/s, for bigger quantities the change is negligible. An increase in the gas temperature
Hydrogen production at the reactor input leads to an increase in the coal conversion; an increase in the
Modeling temperature from 900 K to 1300 K increases the conversion 40%.
High temperature ª 2009 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights
Nuclear reactors reserved.
Radiative transfer

1. Introduction biomass, organic garbage, etc.), this is an endothermic process

Lately, the world is talking about reaching a ‘‘hydrogen
economy’’ as described by Jhon Bockris at the beginning of the
twentieth century. Therefore, research has been done in order
to produce, stock and consume this product. The countries
leading this works are USA, Japan and EU [1,2].
The great advantage of using hydrogen as energy source is
that the only combustion product is steam; consequently the
carbon dioxide emissions are reduced to zero [3].
It is well known that there is the possibility of producing
a combustible gas from carbonaceous compounds (coal,
and is named gasification. Since the beginning of the last
century there have been different designs for the utilization of
this gas in diesel engines [4].
The first attempts in gasification led to a production of
a mixture of CO and H2 known as ‘‘syngas’’, consequently
carbon dioxide was produced when the gas was burnt.
Thus, the research was concentrated in a hydrogen rich gas
production. Some authors agree that when the gasification is
done with steam the hydrogen yield increases (e.g. [5–10]).
In order to provide the energy for the endothermic process,
different sources have been used. It can be supplied by

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ33 546 45 72 40; fax: þ33 546 45 82 41.
E-mail address: abelghit@univ-lr.fr (A. Belghit).
0360-3199/$ – see front matter ª 2009 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.05.065
 international journal of hydrogen energy 34 (2009) 6114–6119
Nomenclature
A particles surface/packed bed volume, m1
C water molar fraction in the gas phase, mol/m3
C0 water molar fraction in the gas phase at the
reactor input, mol/m3
Cp specific heat, J/kg K
d particle diameter (d ¼ 2rC), m
D diffusion coefficient, m2/s
h convection coefficient, W/m2 K
DH molar reaction enthalpy, J/gmol
Ke extinction coefficient, m1
L reactor length, m
M molecular weight, kg/kmol
Ps specific productivity, kg/m2 h
Qr flux radiative, W/m2
a partial combustion of the carbonaceous compound,
concentrated solar energy or high temperature nuclear
reactors.
Several authors have used combustion of a part of the
carbonaceous compound inside the reactor as energy source;
the principal problem was the increasing carbon dioxide yield,
increasing nitrogen concentration (when used air as oxygen
source), reducing the hydrogen yields.
Pröll and Hofbauer [7] developed a dual fluidized bed reactor
where the combustion was done in a different chamber,
avoiding the contact of the syngas with the combustion gases.
Z’Graggen and Standfield (2006) [11] used concentrated
solar radiation as source of energy resulting in a higher yield
in hydrogen while reducing the carbon dioxide emissions.
Very high temperature nuclear reactors (VHTR) have the
same advantages that concentrated solar radiation, this
means, the use of carbonaceous compounds only for gasifi-
cation, the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, higher
gasification efficiencies and lowers costs of gas production
[12], but without the problems of the source availability, the
fluctuations, that could be present with a solar radiation
source.
The material properties (composition, structure, void, .)
vary strongly between the carbonaceous compounds; the
gasification conditions (temperature, steam to carbonaceous
compound ratio, residence time, etc.) are strongly related to
these properties. Consequently the agreement between the
theoretical models and the experimental results is still
inconclusive.
For example, this is the case of Sadaka et al. (2002) [9]. Their
model was based in the free energy minimization, so the gas
yields were calculated at the thermodynamic equilibrium. As
studied before [5–10] the thermodynamic equilibrium is not
reached, and this assumption leads to an overestimation in
some of the products and underestimation in the others.
Yoshida et al. (2008) [10] suggested that the more important
factor in order to have a good agreement for gasification
models is the accurate estimation of carbon conversion. Thus,
it is necessary to concentrate in the carbon gasification and in
the mechanisms that transfer the carbon in the solid matrix to
the gas phase.
6115
rC coal particle radius, m
Tg gas temperature, K
Ts solid temperature, K
t time, s
X water conversion (or coal)
xi molar fraction of the gas i
Greek symbols
3 packed bed void
3p emissivity of the packed bed
s Boltzmann’s constant
ls coal effective conductivity, W/m K
r density, kg/m2
w0 gas velocity at the reactor input, m/s
w gas velocity inside the reactor w0 =3, m/s
ws solid velocity, m/s
In the gasification process, there are different resistances
due to the mass transfer. These resistances are in series and
hence the lowest one will control the gasification process.
Depending on the gasification conditions, these resistances
will change their velocity and either the chemical process or
the mass transfer would control the whole process.
Dupont et al. (2007) [13] have done a time characteristic
analysis and they found that for particles under 1 mm and
temperatures between 1023 and 1273 K, the ratio between the
chemical control and the mass transfer control is in the order
of 103 s. This means that under these conditions the chemical
regime would be the controlling factor.
The models developed in steam-gasification generally have
not included the performance in dynamic state and the effects
of radiative heat transfer.
Belghit and Issami (2001) [14] developed a coal steam-
gasification in the mass transfer regime model in steady state
in a moving bed reactor with nuclear heat as the source of
energy. This work complements the works of Belghit and
Issami in developing a model in the chemical regime pre-
dicting the performance in dynamic and steady state. The
radiative heat transfer effects are included.
2. Model development
A gas cooled Generation IV reactor, is an optimal option to
provide the high temperature energy needed in the gasifica-
tion process [15]. In order to provide this gasification heat
a nuclear hydrogen plant is proposed as shown in Fig. 1. The
nuclear heat is transferred from VHTR to a He stream, which is
mixed with the steam before entering to the gasifier.
The reactor is considered as a packed bed full of spherical
coal particles in which the helium and steam mixture flow is
introduced in the top of the reactor.
To simplify the mass and heat transfer equations, consid-
ering the fact that the accurate estimation of carbon conver-
sion is a significant aspect for having a good agreement
between the model and experimental results, we have
assumed that the particles were pure carbon.
6116 international journal of hydrogen energy 34 (2009) 6114–6119

2.1.1. Solid phase equations

The equations (1)–(3) describe the mass, continuity and heat
transfers equation respectively.
rs vrc rs vrc
þ ws ¼ Vreac (1)
Ms vt Ms vt

vws 6
rs ¼  MH2 O Vreac (2)
vx d
 
vTs vTs v  vTs 6   6
rs Cps þ rs Cps ws ¼ ls þ Qr  h Ts  Tg  DHVreac
vt vx vx vx d d
(3)

The first term in the right in equation (3) is the transfer due
to the effective conductivity of the packed bed. Qr is the
Fig. 1 – Nuclear hydrogen plant. radiative transfer in the solid phase and it is done by Rosse-
land’s [16] equation:

So, the reaction describing the reactor performance is the 16sT3s vTs
Qr ðxÞ ¼  (4)
3Ke vx
heterogenic water ‘‘shift’’ reaction:
where s is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant and Ke is the
C þ H2O(g) / CO þ H2 DH ¼ 131.4 kJ/gmol extinction coefficient.
Gadsby [17] derived the following equation to represent the
The transfer equations were developed using a volume of
reaction kinetics:
control where there are two phases as shown in Fig. 2. The gas
phase is formed by molecules of H2O, H2, CO and He. 1 dnc KA pH2 O
Vreac ¼  ¼ (5)
A dt 1 þ KB pH2 þ KC pH2 O

2.1. Heat and mass equations The terms KA, KB and KC are calculated with the Arrhenius
equation. The details are given elsewhere [14].
The transfer equations were considered in macroscale. Thus,
the void 3 and the reaction surface are the characteristics 2.1.2. Gas phase equations
parameters [12]. The mass and heat transfer equation can be written as
The water conversion can be written as follows: follows:
 
ðC0  CÞ vX vX v vX 6ð1  3Þ
X¼ þw ¼ D þ Vreac (6)
C0 vt vx vx vx 3d

This represents the ratio between the water molecules (or  

v  v  v  vTg 6ð1  3Þ  
coal molecules) consumed to those in the reactor input. rCpTg þ w rCpTg ¼ Tg þ h Ts  Tg (7)
vt vx vx vx 3d

The density and the pressure drop (Ergun’s correlation [19])

can be calculated as follows:

P X
r¼ xi Mi (8)
RTg

DP ð1  3Þ2 mw0 ð1  3Þ w2
¼ 150 þ 1:75 3 r 0 (9)
L 33 d2 3 d
The convective heat transfer coefficient is calculated with
empirical equations and the Cp values were calculated with
polynomial equations using those from [14].

2.2. Boundary and initial conditions

In the beginning we assumed that the particles temperature

equals the ambient temperature (300 K), the gas temperature
is Tgo and the conversion is zero.
8
>
> Ts ¼ Tamb ¼ 300 K
>
>
< Tg ¼ Tg0
at t ¼ 0 X ¼ 0
>
>
> rC ¼ rL
>
:
Fig. 2 – Control volume in the moving bed reactor. ws ¼ 0
 international journal of hydrogen energy 34 (2009) 6114–6119 6117

Fig. 3 – Conversion evolution with time. (Tg0 [ 1000 K,

w0 [0:06 m=s, dL [ 3 mm, L [ 10 cm, Ke [ 2000 mL1 and Fig. 5 – Solid and gas temperatures profiles in the reactor.
3 [ 0.45). (Tg0 [ 1000 K, w0 [0:06 m=s, dL [ 3 mm, L [ 10 cm,
Ke [ 2000 mL1 and 3 [ 0.45).

At the reactor input, the boundary conditions for the

equations (2),(6)–(9) are, respectively: [18] method has been used in order to have a numerical
8 solution.
< Tg ¼ Tg0 This method is based in the finite difference method which
x¼0 X¼0 is in perfect agreement for the differential equation systems
:
ws ¼ 0
coupled and strongly non-linear solution.
The solid temperature at the reactor input is calculated as For the steady state solution, a discretization of the
follows: dynamic state equations is done. They are submitted to an
under-relaxation procedure. Integration of the equations
Dx vTs Dx vTs vTs  
rs Cps þ rs Cps ws ¼ ls  h Ts  Tg leads to algebraic equations with a tridiagonal matrix which is
2 vt 2 vx vx
 solved by the TDMA method [18].
DHVreac  3g s T4s  T4g

where 3g is the total emissivity and it depends on the packed

bed emissivity as follows: 4. Results and discussion

3g ¼ 30:485
p The coal simulated is supposed to be 100% carbon. For the
results presentation, the next adimensional variables are used:
For a packed bed void that equals 0.4.
The boundary conditions at the reactor output are: Xþ ¼ x=dL ; rþ þ
C ¼ 2rC =dL ; T ¼ Ts =Tg0

8 vX vTg vTs In order to be able to compare the results obtained before

< ¼ ¼ ¼0
x ¼ L Pvx¼ P vx vx with the ones in this paper, similar conditions are used:
: atm
rC ¼ rL Tg0 ¼ 1000 K; w0 ¼ 0:06 m=s; dL ¼ 3 mm; L ¼ 10 cm;
Ke ¼ 2000 m1 and e ¼ 0:45:

3. Numerical method
4.1. Dynamic state

The model equations are presented in a complicated way due

We can see in Fig. 3 the conversion in three different points as
to their coupling and their non-linear behavior. The Pantakar
a function of time. These differences throughout the reactor

Fig. 4 – Solid temperature evolution with time. Fig. 6 – Conversion versus reactor height. (Tg0 [ 1000 K,
(Tg0 [ 1000 K, w0 [0:06 m=s, dL [ 3 mm, L [ 10 cm, w0 [0:06 m=s, dL [ 3 mm, L [ 10 cm, Ke [ 2000 mL1 and
Ke [ 2000 mL1 and 3 [ 0.45). 3 [ 0.45).
6118 international journal of hydrogen energy 34 (2009) 6114–6119
Fig. 7 – Change in the conversion with the position in the
reactor for different gas velocities. (Tg0 [ 1000 K,
dL [ 3 mm, L [ 10 cm, Ke [ 2000 mL1 and 3 [ 0.45).
before 16 min are negligible. When the solids in the upper
positions begin to achieve the temperature needed for the
gasification, a conversion profile is developed. For example,
the difference in the conversion between 4 cm and 10 cm
begins about 1500 s where Tþ is over 0.3 (Fig. 4). However, the
conversions in the chemical regime are smaller than those
that could be achieved when the mass transfer controls the
process [14].
Anyway, there is an important inertia in heating the solid.
As it can be seen for x ¼ 4 cm, the solid temperature changes
from 300 K to 950 K in a period of 50 min, and the changes in
the temperature for x ¼ 10 cm begin after 25 min.
4.2. Steady state
The specific productivity has to be defined in order to present
the performance in steady state. This is the coal quantity
treated per unit of time and surface, it is calculated as follows:
Ps ¼ rs ð1  3Þws
As shown in Fig. 5 the conditions simulated produce an
excellent heat transfer ratio between the gas and the solid,
since the temperature differences throughout the reactor are
small, the temperature decreases with the reactor height. This
is due to the energy used in the endothermic reaction as well
as the heat transfer between the hot zones and the cold zones.
Fig. 8 – Change in the specific productivity with the gas
velocity. (Tg0 [ 1000 K, dL [ 3 mm, L [ 10 cm,
Ke [ 2000 mL1 and 3 [ 0.45).
Fig. 9 – Change in the conversion with the position in the
reactor for different water molar fractions. (Tg0 [ 1000 K,
w0 [0:06 m=s, dL [ 3 mm, L [ 10 cm, Ke [ 2000 mL1 and
3 [ 0.45).
Therefore there is a conversion profile, where the conver-
sion increases with the reactor height, as shown in Fig. 6.
Nevertheless, when the process control is due to the
chemical reaction, the conversion is lower than that when the
mass transfer controls (z9% for chemical control versus 80%
in mass transfer control) [14].
4.2.1. Effect of gas velocity in the reactor performance
Fig. 7 shows the variation in the conversion with the reactor
height for different gas velocities. The figure indicates that the
conversion decreases with higher velocities, which is due to
a lower residence time of the gas and consequently less time
to develop the reaction. For velocities higher than 0.06 m/s the
changes are negligible.
On the other hand, the specific productivity increases
exponentially with the gas velocity as shown in Fig. 8. Thus,
higher mass carbon treated per hour for lower residence time
of the gas.
4.2.2. Effect of the H2O/He ratio at the reactor input
Fig. 9 shows that with an increase in the water molar fraction
at the reactor input, the conversion decreases. This
phenomenon is explained by the water inhibition in the
kinetics of the reaction. The reaction sensibility to this
parameter increases with weak molar fractions, for example
Fig. 10 – Change in the specific productivity with the water
molar fraction at the reactor input. (Tg0 [ 1000 K,
w0 [0:06 m=s, dL [ 3 mm, L [ 10 cm, Ke [ 2000 mL1 and
3 [ 0.45).
 international journal of hydrogen energy 34 (2009) 6114–6119
Fig. 11 – Change in the conversion with the gas
temperature at the reactor input. (w0 [0:06 m=s,
dL [ 3 mm, L [ 10 cm, Ke [ 2000 mL1 and 3 [ 0.45).
the difference between 10% and 20% is more than twice than
that of 20% and 30% for positions over 0.02 m.
Otherwise, the specific productivity increases with the
water molar fraction at the reactor input due to major avail-
ability of steam for the reaction, as shown in Fig. 10.
4.2.3. Effect of the gas temperature at the reactor input
As expected, the conversion is greatly increased with the gas
temperature. For example, when the temperature increases from
800 K to 1300 K, the conversion changes 40%, as shown in Fig. 11.
5. Conclusions
A theoretical model of the heat and mass transfers for the coal
steam-gasification in a moving bed reactor has been
developed.
The equations’ numerical solution in the chemical regime
allowed the examination of several parameters, such as the
gas temperature, the water molar fraction, and the gas
velocity in the reaction conversion.
The effective conductivity and the extinction coefficient
effects on the reactor performance have been included.
The principal conclusions of this work are:
 The conversion in chemical regime is significantly smaller
than the one in mass transfer control, thus the chemical
regime has to be avoided at the reactor design or operation.
 The reaction conversion is really sensitive to the changes in
the gas temperature at the reactor input.
 The gas velocity has an important influence when it is
inferior to 0.06 m/s.
 The increase in the water molar fraction at the reactor input
leads to the decrease in the conversion, in contrast,
increases the specific productivity in the reactor.
 The conversion can be greatly increased by increasing the
input gas temperature, over 40% for 1300 K.
6119
references
[1] Wietsche M, Seydel P. Economic impacts of hydrogen as an
energy carrier in European countries. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2007;32:3201–11.
[2] Seymour EH, Borges FC, Fernandes R. Indicators of European
public research in hydrogen and fuel cell – an input–output
analysis. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2007;32:3212–22.
[3] Lisbona P, Romeo LM. Enhanced coal gasification heated
by unmixed combustion integrated with an hybrid
system of SOFC/GT. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008;33:
5755–64.
[4] Nicolino F. La faim, la bagnole, le blé et nous. Fayard; 2007.
[5] Yan Qiuhui, Guo Liejin, Lu Youjun. Thermodynamics
analysis of hydrogen production from biomass gasification
in supercritical water. Energy Convers Manage 2006;46:
1515–28.
[6] Mahishi Madhukar R, Goswami DY. Thermodynamic
optimization of biomass for hydrogen production. Int
J Hydrogen Energy 2007;32:3831–40.
[7] Pröll T, Hofbauer H. H2 rich syngas by selective CO2 removal
from biomass gasification in a dual fluidized bed system –
process modeling approach. Fuel Process Technol 2008;89:
651–9.
[8] Haryanto A, Fernando S, Adhikari S. Ultrahigh temperature
water gas shift catalysts to increase hydrogen yield from
biomass gasification. Catal Today 2007;129:269–74.
[9] Sadaka Samy S, Ghaly AE, Sabbah MA. Two phase biomass
air-steam gasification model for fluidized bed reactors:
part I - model development. Biomass Bioenergy 2002;22:
439–62.
[10] Yoshida H, Kiyono F, Tajima H, Yamasaki A, Ogasawara K,
Masuyama T. Two-stage equilibrium model for a coal gasifier
to predict the accurate carbón conversión in hydrogen
production. Fuel 2008;87:2186–93.
[11] Z’Graggen A, Standfield A. A two-phase reactor model for
steam gasification of carbonaceous materials under
concentrated thermal radiation. Chem Eng Process 2008;47:
655–62.
[12] Belghit A, Daguenet M, Reddy A. Heat and mass transfer in
a high temperature packed moving bed subject to an
external radiative source. Chem Eng Sci 2000;55:3967–78.
[13] Dupont C, Boissonnet G, Seiler J, Gauthier P, Schweich D.
Study about the kinetic processes of biomass steam
gasification. Fuel 2007;86:32–40.
[14] Belghit A, El Issami S. Hydrogen production by steam
gasification of coal in gas–solid moving bed using nuclear
heat. Energy Convers Manage 2001;42:81–99.
[15] Elder R, Allen R. Nuclear heat for hydrogen production:
coupling a very high/high temperature reactor to
a hydrogen production plant. Progr Nucl Energy 2009;51:
500–25.
[16] Rosseland. Theorical astrophyxies. Claredon: Oxford
University Press; 1936.
[17] Gadsby J, Hinshelwood CN, Sykes KW. The kinetics of the
reactions of the steam-carbon system. Proc Roy Soc 1946:
A129–187.
[18] Pantakar VS. Numerical heat and fluid flow. London: Mc
Graw Hill; 1980.
[19] Bird RB, Stewart WE, Lightfoot EN. Transport phenomena.
New York: Wiley; 1960.