JOEI560_proof ■ 5 February 2019 ■ 1/6

Journal of the Energy Institute xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of the Energy Institute

journal homepage: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-the-energy-
institute

1 Co-gasification reactivity of petroleum coke with coal and coal

2
3 liquefaction residue
4
5 Q3 Q1 Liwei Ren a, b, Ruidi Wei a, *, Tingchun Zhu a
6 a
Hebei Key Laboratory of Heterocyclic Compounds, Handan University, Handan, Hebei, 056005, PR China
7 b
State Key Laboratory of Coal Conversion, Institute of Coal Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Taiyuan, Shanxi, 030001, PR China
8
9
10
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
11
12 Article history: In this work, experimental study on co-gasification of petroleum coke with coal and coal liquefaction
13 Received 21 September 2018 residue (CLR) under CO2 atmosphere was investigated in a temperature-programmed reactor. The effect
14 Received in revised form of ashes from coal/CLR and metallic oxide on gasification reactivity of petroleum coke was also inves-
15 22 January 2019
tigated. The calculated and experimental gasification conversion was compared to analysis the synergetic
Accepted 23 January 2019
16 effect during co-gasification. The results indicated that the petroleum coke has a much lower reactivity
Available online xxx
17 than that of coal/CLR chars, while it can be greatly improved by co-gasifying with coal/CLR. The syner-
18 getic effect on co-gasification of petroleum coke with coal/CLR was presented as the progress of co-
Keywords:
19 Co-gasification reactivity gasification reaction. It was found that the synergetic effect can be enhanced with increasing coal pro-
20 Petroleum coke portion. However, as the increase of coal rank, the synergetic effect gradually weakened during the co-
Coal gasification process. In the selected coal/CLR samples, the low rank coal and CLR exhibited a better effect
21
Synergetic effect when co-gasifying with petroleum coke. The difference of synergetic effect was probably attributed to
22 Mineral matter the catalytic effect of mineral matters in different coal/CLR. According to composition analyses of various
23
ashes and the co-gasification reactivity of samples, it can be concluded that high content of active
24 components such as Ca- and Fe-in coal/CLR was beneficial to co-gasifying with petroleum coke, while
25 high content of inert Si- and Al- components in coal tended to resist the reaction.
26 © 2019 Energy Institute. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
27
28
29
30
31 1. Introduction
32
33 With the increasing demand of petroleum and the installation of more petroleum deep conversion process units, the output of petroleum
34 coke has increased rapidly [1]. Petroleum coke has low ash content, high carbon content and calorific value. It is usually used as fuel to
35 combust, inevitably with low efficiency and high pollution especially for the high-sulfur petroleum coke. Fortunately, it is increasingly
36 considered as an attractive feedstock for gasification to produce hydrogen, power, and steam in the petroleum industry [2]. The reactivity of
37 petroleum coke is much lower than that of coal, so that either a higher temperature, a larger residence time or other methods to improve the
38 low reactivity is required to achieve a high carbon conversion ratio [3]. Moreover, the low ash content of petroleum coke is not suitable for
39 entrained-flow slagging gasifiers with a cooled membrane wall. It is essential to add ash; otherwise the build-up of a proper slag layer on the
40 wall will not be successful. The low reactivity and ash content of petroleum coke has greatly restricted its applicability for gasification [4,5].
41 Coal is the most common feedstock used for gasification. Coal reactivity often varies with its rank, which decreases from low rank coal to
42 high rank coal. The low rank coal usually has a high reactivity as its high content of volatile and mineral matter [6]. However, it is not often
43 used as feedstock in most entrained-flow gasifiers which is because of its high moisture, low calorific value and low concentration in coal-
44 water slurry [7]. How to utilize the large deposits of low rank coal remains a serious problem, especially in China.
45 On the other hand, direct coal liquefaction technology is a method of converting coal to liquid fuels which will play an increasingly
46 important role to lessen the deficiency in petroleum supply [8,9]. However, the direct coal liquefaction processes produce a large amount of
47 coal liquefaction residue (CLR), which accounts for 25e30 wt% of the feed and consists of 30e50 wt% coal liquids [10]. Its effective utilization
48 is directly related with the economics of the liquefaction process. Gasification is a better way to deal with the CLR to produce hydrogen
49
50
51 * Corresponding author.
E-mail address: weiruidi0205@163.com (R. Wei).
52
53
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2019.01.013
54 1743-9671/© 2019 Energy Institute. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: L. Ren et al., Co-gasification reactivity of petroleum coke with coal and coal liquefaction residue, Journal of the Energy
Institute, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2019.01.013
 JOEI560_proof ■ 5 February 2019 ■ 2/6

2 L. Ren et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute xxx (xxxx) xxx

1 reused in liquefaction process [11]. But the enriched heavy liquid and mineral matter of CLR will reduce the gasification efficiency like low
2 rank coals.
3 Considering the characteristics of petroleum coke, low rank coal and CLR, co-gasification will be a better method to improve the low
4 reactivity of petroleum coke and also offer a suitable way to utilize the large amount of low rank coal and CLR. Fermoso et al. [12,13]
5 investigated the effect of operation variables (temperature, pressure, gasifying agent composition) on gas production and other process
6 parameters during co-gasification of coal with petroleum coke/biomass using a fixed bed reactor, results revealed that the gasification
7 temperature and gasifying agent concentration were the most influential variables during co-gasification process. Yoon et al. [14] carried out
8 the co-gasification reactivity of petroleum coke and coal using a TGA, it was found that the reaction activation energy can be improved by co-
9 gasifying petcoke and coal which confirmed that a synergistic effect was existed during co-gasification of coal and petroleum coke. Liu et al.
10 [15] carried out petroleum coke and coal liquefaction residue co-gasification in carbon dioxide employing TGA, the results confirmed that
11 the gasification reactivity of petroleum coke can be improved greatly by co-gasifying with coal liquefaction residue. Wei et al. [3] inves-
12 tigated the effect of effect of temperature and blended ratio on co-gasification reactivity of petroleum coke and biomass by using a TGA, the
13 results indicated that synergistic effect on co-gasification reactivity was presented mainly due to the biomass ash. Based on the existing
14 literature, it is undoubted that the mineral matter in coal/CLR/biomass has a certain catalytic effect on gasification, and synergetic effect may
15 occur during co-gasification of petroleum coke with coal/CLR/biomass.
16 In addition, the researchers have studied the co-gasification of petroleum coke and coal from different perspectives. The co-gasification
17 reactivity of petroleum coke and low rank coal can be influenced by blending methods significantly [16]. In the co-gasification of petroleum
18 coke and low rank coal, higher syngas heating value and cold gas efficiency was obtained due to the synergy effect [17]. In our previous work
19 [18], it was found that the synergetic effect really exist in the co-gasification of petroleum coke with coal not only at low temperature, but
20 also at high temperature. However, as the properties of petroleum coke, coal and CLR are very complex and different, the complicated
21 mechanisms of co-gasification is still not clear. It is worth to verify which component in coal/CLR is active on co-gasification reactivity.
22 In this work, the effect of coal type and CLR on co-gasification reactivity of petroleum coke and coal/CLR were studied by using a fixed bed
23 reactor. A temperature-programmed reactor coupled with a mass spectrum (MS) was used to analyze the gasification rate. The effect of
24 ashes from coals/CLR and pure metallic oxide (i.e. CaO and Fe2O3) on petroleum coke reactivity was also investigated to clear the active
25 components in mineral matters. In addition, the calculated gasification conversion and the experimental gasification conversion was
26 compared to analysis the synergetic effect during co-gasification of petroleum coke and coal/CLR.
27
28 2. Experimental section
29
30 2.1. Samples
31
32 Three coals, from different rank (Low rank coal: Xiaolongtan coal from Yunnan, China, abbreviated as XLT; middle rank coal: Xichagou
33 coal from Shaanxi, China, abbreviated as XCG; high rank coal: Gaoping coal from Shanxi, China, abbreviated as GP), one direct coal
34 liquefaction residue (From a 0.1 ton/day continuous DCL unit operated at China Coal Research Institute, abbreviated as CLR) and one pe-
35 troleum coke (From Beijing Yanshan petrochemical co. LTD, abbreviated as YS) were selected. The samples were pulverized to pass through a
36 100-mesh screen (0.149 mm) and dried in vacuum oven at 110
C for 24 h prior to use as the raw sample. The results of the proximate and
37 ultimate analyses of the raw samples are listed in Table 1.
38 The petroleum coke with coal and CLR were mixed and ground together with a certain ratio in a mortar. These blends and both the pure
39 raw samples were pyrolyzed in a temperature-programmed reactor under argon atmosphere with a flow rate of 500 mL/min to become
40 chars. The reactor was heated up from room temperature to 1200
C with a heating rate of 5
C/min. The residence time at the final
41 temperature (1200
C) is 30 min. The char samples from XLT and YS are marked as XLT1200 and YS1200, respectively. Co-pyrolysis char
42 sample from the blends (50%XLTþ50%YS, weighted based on non-volatile) is marked as 50%XLT-50%YS1200, and the other co-pyrolysis
43 chars are marked in the same manner.
44
45 2.2. Gasification experiments
46
47 The gasification experiments were performed in the temperature-programmed reactor. It is known that CO2 gasification reaction is
48 simpler than steam gasification reaction, which is complicated by further reactions involving products. Hence, CO2 is often used as gasi-
49 fication agent for gasification reactivity evaluation in laboratory scale experiments [19]. In this study, the gasification of various samples was
50 under CO2 (atmospheric pressure) with a flow rate of 200 mL/min. About 50 mg char sample was weighted into an open quartz boat
51 (135  24  10 mm). Then, the boat was put into the tube reactor and CO2 was introduced to purge the system for 20 min and ensure that
52 there were no other gases in the tube reactor. The reactor was heated up from room temperature to 1200
C with a heating rate of 5
C/min.
53 The gaseous products were immediately swept into an online gas analyzer (MS, OmniStar GSD320 Mass Spectrometry of PFEIFFER-
54
55
56 Table 1
Proximate and ultimate analyses of the samples.
57
58 Samples Proximate (wt%) Ultimate (wt%, daf)
59 Ad Vd FCd C H O* N St
60
XLT 10.34 42.86 46.80 77.20 4.81 15.51 1.26 1.22
61 XCG 4.11 34.84 61.05 81.73 4.73 12.06 1.23 0.25
62 GP 22.84 9.14 68.02 88.06 3.81 6.30 1.36 0.47
63 CLR 21.80 33.87 44.33 74.84 4.69 15.08 1.23 1.74
64 YS 0.88 7.99 91.13 88.97 3.12 5.54 1.01 1.36
65 A: Ash; V: Volatile matter; FC: Fixed carbon; d: Dry basis; daf: Dry ash-free basis; *: By difference.

Please cite this article as: L. Ren et al., Co-gasification reactivity of petroleum coke with coal and coal liquefaction residue, Journal of the Energy
Institute, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2019.01.013
 JOEI560_proof ■ 5 February 2019 ■ 3/6

L. Ren et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute xxx (xxxx) xxx 3

1 VACUUM) by the gas flow and monitored continuously. The stainless steel pipeline between MS and reactor was heated by the heating
2 jacket to keep the temperature around 150
C. In fact, as the gaseous products required by the online gas analyzer is very limited, the large
3 amount of the remaining gaseous products was vented into the ventilation system with the gas flow through a bypass valve.
4
5
2.3. Data processing
6
7
The carbon conversion ratio is calculated based on the production of CO obtained by transforming the data from MS. It can be assumed
8
that the peak area of the CO profile is proportional to the amount of CO produced during the reaction. The carbon conversion ratio can be
9
calculated by eq (1) which can be seen in our previous work, where the repeatability of the method was also confirmed [20].
10
11 nt;CO kCO ,St;CO St;CO
12 X¼ ¼ ¼ (1)
ntotal;CO kCO ,Stotal;CO Stotal;CO
13
14 where X is carbon conversion ratio; ntotal;CO is the total amount of CO produced; nt;CO is the amount of CO produced from time 0 to time t;
15 Stotal;CO is the total peak area of CO profile; St;CO is the peak area of CO profile from time 0 to time t; and KCO is the corresponding coefficients
16 for the peak area of CO. The gasification rate, r, is defined as the differential of the carbon conversion ratio with respect to time and can be
17 derived from eq (1) as:
18
19 dX 1 dSt;CO
r¼ ¼ , (2)
20 dt Stotal;CO dt
21
22 The calculated conversion, Xc (the sum carbon conversion of single petroleum coke and single coal/CLR char, when assumed that there is
23 no synergistic effect during co-gasification), was calculated by eq (3) [21]:
24
Xc ¼ v1 X1t þ v2 X2t (3)
25
26 where v1 and v2 are the percentage content of coal/CLR and petroleum coke in the blends; X1t and X2t are the carbon conversion of single
27 petroleum coke and coal/CLR char at time t, respectively. The carbon conversion of single petroleum coke and coal/CLR char was obtained
28 under the experimental conditions mentioned in section 2.2.
29
30
31 3. Results and discussion
32
33 3.1. The influence of blending ratio
34
35 The effect of blending ratio on the co-gasification reactivity was investigate. The blending ratio of coal to petroleum coke is 100:0, 75:25,
36 50:50, 25:75, and 0:100 (weighted based on non-volatile). The mixtures were prepared to co-pyrolysis char samples in the temperature-
37 programmed reactor (section 2.1). The gasification reactivity of co-pyrolysis chars of XLT with YS is presented in Fig. 1. The co-pyrolysis
38 chars of XCG/GP/CLR with YS show the similar results which are not given for simplicity.
39 From Fig. 1, it was observed that the petroleum coke has a much lower reactivity than that of low rank coal char: the petroleum coke start
40 to react with CO2 at about 900
C, while the XLT char has finished the gasification at 900
C. The initial reaction temperature of YS1200 was
41 also much lower than that of XLT-YS1200 blend chars. The great differences may result from experimental error. Hence, the repeated
42 gasification experiments were carried out and the result shows that the repeatability of the method was well.
43 Indeed, the blending ratio has significant effects on co-gasification reactivity of petroleum coke and coal. The high blending ratio of XLT-
44 YS is favor to the co-gasification reactivity. The gasification rate of the co-pyrolysis char reached to its peak value at lower temperature than
45 that of pure petroleum coke. For example, the gasification rate of 50%XLT-50%YS1200 char peaked at 900
C, while the petroleum coke
46 peaked at 1025
C. Compared with the pure petroleum coke, the required complete gasification temperature of co-pyrolysis char decreased
47 as the increases of the blending ratio of XLT-YS. The gasification of co-pyrolysis chars can be completed at temperatures about 120
C lower
48 than that of pure petroleum coke (1170
C). In a word, the reactivity of petroleum coke can be improved by co-gasification with XLT coal, and
49 the co-gasification reactivity increased as the increases of blending ratio of XLT-YS.
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 Fig. 1. Gasification reactivity of co-pyrolysis chars of XLT-YS with different blending ratio: carbon conversion versus temperature (a) and gasification rate versus temperature (b).

Please cite this article as: L. Ren et al., Co-gasification reactivity of petroleum coke with coal and coal liquefaction residue, Journal of the Energy
Institute, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2019.01.013
 JOEI560_proof ■ 5 February 2019 ■ 4/6

4 L. Ren et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute xxx (xxxx) xxx

1 In addition, the calculated carbon conversion values of blended samples were obtained in terms of eq. (3) and also give in Fig. 1(a).
2 Synergy behaviour could be determined by comparing the experimental and calculated carbon conversion values with respect to tem-
3 perature during the co-gasification of petroleum coke and coal/CLR. Higher experimental data indicated synergetic effect and higher
4 calculated data indicated inhibition effect [19]. From Fig. 1, it can be seen that the experimental carbon conversion was obviously higher than
5 that of the calculated data at the same reaction time when temperature is higher than 890
C. This result indicates that the reactivity of
6 petroleum coke is improved by the synergistic effect during co-gasification with XLT. The synergistic effects may include the catalytic effect
7 of mineral matter and carbon structure change of petroleum coke after co-pyrolysis.
8 Generally, the gasification rate of coals and other carbonaceous feedstocks can be affect by the mineral matter, especially for low rank
9 coals [22,23]. For petroleum coke, however, it can be seen that the mineral matter content is very low (Table 1); hence, the catalytic effect is
10 limited. For XLT coal, there are plenty of mineral matters results in high gasification rate. The higher co-gasification rate of the co-pyrolysis
11 chars than pure petroleum coke may mainly attribute to the catalytic effect of mineral matter in XLT coal. In order to investigate the effect of
12 ash on co-gasification reactivity and to clear the co-gasification mechanism, a series of experiments were performed for mixtures of pe-
13 troleum coke with different loading of ash serving as the catalytic agent. The ash samples were prepared at 815
C according to the Chinese
14 national standard of GB/T 1574e2001.
15 Fig. 2 shows the effect of the ash loading on co-gasification reactivity. Clearly, the gasification reactivity of the petroleum coke depends on
16 the XLT ash loading. The high loading of ash could increase the catalytic components which is favor to the reaction. Therefore, the gasifi-
17 cation reactivity of the mixture of petroleum coke and ash was obviously higher than that of pure petroleum coke. The reactivity increased
18 as the increase of ash loading, but the degree of increase become slight at high ash loading.
19 In addition, the surface morphology and BET area are all important factors that influence the reactivity [24e26]. In our previous work
20 [20], it was found that the petroleum coke had a high degree of compact structure, dense in texture, and some regular in arrangement; while
21 the XLT coal char had a relatively porous and loose structure. It is known that the more compact the carbon is, the hard the gas to reach is. It
22 results in a less reactivity. Hence, the compact structure of petroleum coke is one reason that led to the low reactivity.
23
24
25 3.2. The influence of coal type and CLR
26
27 To compare the influence of coal type and CLR on co-gasification with petroleum coke, three coals in different rank and one CLR was
28 chosen. The blending ratio is 1:1 for petroleum coke and coals or CLR. Fig. 3 shows the gasification reactivity of co-pyrolysis chars. The
29 calculated carbon conversion values of blended samples were obtained in terms of eq. (3) and also give in Fig. 3(a).
30 It can be seen that the experimental carbon conversion values were higher than that of the calculated values at the same reaction time in
31 large temperature range. This demonstrated coals and CLR can improve the reactivity of petroleum coke during co-gasification. The syn-
32 ergistic effect really existed in the co-gasification reaction of petroleum coke with coal/CLR. The order of gasification reactivity is as follow:
33 50%XLT-50%YS1200 > 50%CLR-50%YS1200 > 50%XCG-50%YS1200 > 50%GP-50%YS1200 > YS1200.
34 As shown in Fig. 3, the pure petroleum coke did not show significant gasification rate until 915
C, which peaked at 1025
C. The 50%XLT-
35 50%YS1200, 50%XCG-50%YS1200, 50%GP-50%YS1200 and 50%CLR-50%YS1200 chars started to react with CO2 at 760
C, 800
C, 850
C and
36 870
C, and peaked around 900
C, 925
C, 970
C and 990
C, respectively. It can be seen that both the coals and CLR can improve the
37 reactivity of petroleum coke. However, the effect of XLT and CLR was much higher than that of other ones. This may be caused by the
38 difference in mineral matter content and composition. It is interesting that the 50%GP-50%YS1200 char started to react with CO2 at lower
39 temperature, but need higher temperature to complete the gasification reaction than YS1200. It is probably due to the inhibition of the inert
40 components in mineral matter which may hinder the proceeding of the gasification reaction.
41 As discussed above, the mineral matter may play an important role on co-gasification. It is necessary to investigate the effect of ash type
42 on co-gasification reactivity for a better understanding of co-gasification mechanism. The gasification behaviors of petroleum coke with four
43 type of ash with a loading of 10% were compared which was shown in Fig. 4. From Fig. 4, it can be seen that the catalytic effect of the XLT ash
44 and CLR ash is much higher than that of XCG ash and GP ash. The XLT ash and CLR ash have the similar catalytic effect on petroleum coke
45 gasification. The petroleum coke can react with CO2 at about 815
C with the catalytic effect of XLT/CLR ash, which is about 100
C lower than
46 that of pure petroleum coke. In addition, the gasification of YS1200-10%CLR ash and YS1200-10%XLT ash can complete at temperatures about
47 100
C lower than that of the pure petroleum coke (1170
C).
48 When it comes to XCG/GP ash, however, the catalytic effect on petroleum coke gasification is very limited. With the effect of XCG/GP ash,
49 the initial gasification temperature was about 40
C lower than that of petroleum coke. However, the completed gasification temperature of
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 Fig. 2. Gasification reactivity of YS1200 with different loading of XLT ash: carbon conversion versus temperature (a) and gasification rate versus temperature (b).

Please cite this article as: L. Ren et al., Co-gasification reactivity of petroleum coke with coal and coal liquefaction residue, Journal of the Energy
Institute, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2019.01.013
 JOEI560_proof ■ 5 February 2019 ■ 5/6

L. Ren et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute xxx (xxxx) xxx 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Fig. 3. Gasification reactivity of co-pyrolysis chars with a blending ratio of 50:50: carbon conversion versus temperature (a) and gasification rate versus temperature (b).
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Fig. 4. Gasification reactivity of YS1200 with different ash: carbon conversion versus temperature (a) and gasification rate versus temperature (b).
34
35
36 Table 2
37 Q4 Composition analyses of the ash of carbonaceous feedstocks.
38 Samples SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO MgO TiO2 SO3 K2O Na2O P2O5
39
XLT (LRC) 33.97 10.88 11.67 27.90 2.80 0.70 9.72 0.43 0.08 0.27
40 XCG (MRC) 61.08 18.10 5.25 7.48 2.12 0.97 2.04 1.76 0.46 0.12
41 GP(HRC) 51.22 33.44 3.29 5.04 0.99 1.13 2.03 1.04 0.57 0.23
42 CLR 12.73 7.59 33.67 17.99 4.11 0.42 21.31 0.23 1.17 0.32
43 YS(PC) 8.47 e 25.33 e e 0.63 1.34 e e 0.42
44 -: Not be detected.
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 Fig. 5. Gasification reactivity of YS1200 with Fe2O3 and CaO: carbon conversion versus temperature (a) and gasification rate versus temperature (b).
61
62 petroleum coke with XCG/GP ash was 30
C higher than that of petroleum coke (Fig. 4(b)). These results indicate that the effect of coal ash on
63 gasification reactivity is depended on the type of coal ash.
64 The effect of coal ash on gasification reactivity is related the components in ash. Table 2 gives the composition analyses of the ashes. From
65 Table 2, it can be seen that the ash of XLT and CLR has a much higher content of Ca, Mg and Fe elements than that of XCG ash and GP ash.

Please cite this article as: L. Ren et al., Co-gasification reactivity of petroleum coke with coal and coal liquefaction residue, Journal of the Energy
Institute, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2019.01.013
 JOEI560_proof ■ 5 February 2019 ■ 6/6

6 L. Ren et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute xxx (xxxx) xxx

1 These active components are effective catalysts for gasification of coals and petroleum coke [15,27e29]. However, for the ash of XCG and GP,
2 there are large amounts of inert Si and Al compounds but lack of active elements, which are bound to limit the catalytic effect. The inert
3 components can cover the carbon surface and the reactant gas was hard to contact with carbon [30]. Therefore, the existence of inert
4 components in GP ash tended to suppress the gasification reaction and led to a low reactivity.
5 In order to verify the catalytic effect of metal oxides (such as Fe2O3 and CaO) for gasification of petroleum coke, the gasification reactivity
6 of petroleum coke with metal oxides with a loading of 10% were tested and shown in Fig. 5. From Fig. 5, it can be seen that the catalytic effect
7 of Fe2O3 and CaO was particularly obvious. The gasification reactivity of the mixture of petroleum coke with Fe2O3 or CaO was obviously
8 higher than that of pure petroleum coke. With the catalytic effect of metal oxides, the reactivity is close to the co-gasification reactivity of
9 petroleum coke with coal/CLR.
10
11 4. Conclusions
12
13 The co-gasification reactivity of petroleum coke with coal/CLR was investigated by using a temperature-programmed reactor. The
14 gasification reactivity of petroleum coke was much lower than that of coal/CLR. The low reactivity of petroleum coke can be improved
15 greatly by co-gasifying with coal/CLR. The co-gasification of blends can be completed at temperatures about 120
C lower than that of the
16 pure petroleum coke (1170
C). As the progress of co-gasification, the synergetic effect was presented and can be enhanced with increasing
17 coal proportion. In the selected coal/CLR samples, the low rank coal and CLR exhibited a better synergetic effect when co-gasifying with
18 petroleum coke. This was probably attributed to the catalytic effect of mineral matters in coal/CLR. During co-gasification of petroleum coke
19 with coal/CLR, high content of active components such as Ca- and Fe-led to high co-gasification reactivity, while high content of inert Si- and
20 Al- components also tended to suppress the gasification reaction.
21
22 Acknowledgements
23
24 The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from National Natural Science Foundation of China (21706047), Natural Science
25 Foundation of Hebei in China (B2015109004), the Major Scientific Research Program of Handan University (2017106), Science and Tech-
26 nology Research and Development Program of Handan from Hebei in China (1821204007ZC) and the National Basic Research Program of
27 Q2 China (2010CB227003).
28
29 References
30
31 [1] J. Wang, E.J. Anthony, J.C. Abanades, Clean and efficient use of petroleum coke for combustion and power generation, Fuel 83 (2004) 1341e1348.
[2] L. Ding, J. Wei, Z. Dai, Q. Guo, G. Yu, Study on rapid pyrolysis and in-situ char gasification characteristics of coal and petroleum coke, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 41 (2016)
32 16823e16834.
33 [3] J. Wei, Q. Guo, Y. Gong, L. Ding, G. Yu, Synergistic effect on co-gasification reactivity of biomass-petroleum coke blended char, Bioresour. Technol. 234 (2017) 33e39.
34 [4] R. Azargohar, R. Gerspacher, A.K. Dalai, D.-Y. Peng, Co-gasification of petroleum coke with lignite coal using fluidized bed gasifier, Fuel Process. Technol. 134 (2015)
310e316.
35 [5] K. Jayaraman, I. Gokalp, Gasification characteristics of petcoke and coal blended petcoke using thermogravimetry and mass spectrometry analysis, Appl. Therm. Eng. 80
36 (2015) 10e19.
37 [6] C. Li, Some recent advances in the understanding of the pyrolysis and gasification behaviour of Victorian brown coal, Fuel 86 (2007) 1664e1683.
[7] F. Boylu, H. Dincer, G. Ateşok, Effect of coal particle size distribution, volume fraction and rank on the rheology of coalewater slurries, Fuel Process. Technol. 85 (2004)
38
241e250.
39 [8] S. Vasireddy, B. Morreale, A. Cugini, C. Song, J.J. Spivey, Clean liquid fuels from direct coal liquefaction: chemistry, catalysis, technological status and challenges, Energy
40 Environ. Sci. 4 (2011) 311e345.
[9] Z. Liu, S. Shi, Y. Li, Coal liquefaction technologies–Development in China and challenges in chemical reaction engineering, Chem. Eng. Sci. 65 (2010) 12e17.
41
[10] J. Yang, Z. Wang, Z. Liu, Y. Zhang, Novel use of residue from direct coal liquefaction process, Energy Fuel. 23 (2009) 4717e4722.
42 [11] X. Chu, W. Li, B. Li, H. Chen, Sulfur transfers from pyrolysis and gasification of direct liquefaction residue of Shenhua coal, Fuel 87 (2008) 211e215.
43 [12] J. Fermoso, B. Arias, M.V. Gil, M.G. Plaza, C. Pevida, J.J. Pis, F. Rubiera, Co-gasification of different rank coals with biomass and petroleum coke in a high-pressure reactor
44 for H2-rich gas production, Bioresour. Technol. 101 (2010) 3230e3235.
[13] J. Fermoso, B. Arias, M.G. Plaza, C. Pevida, F. Rubiera, J.J. Pis, F. Garcia-Pena, P. Casero, High-pressure co-gasification of coal with biomass and petroleum coke, Fuel
45 Process. Technol. 90 (2009) 926e932.
46 [14] S.J. Yoon, Y.C. Choi, S.H. Lee, J.G. Lee, Thermogravimetric study of coal and petroleum coke for co-gasification, Kor. J. Chem. Eng. 24 (2007) 512e517.
47 [15] X. Liu, Z. Zhou, Q. Hu, Z. Dai, F. Wang, Experimental study on Co-gasification of coal liquefaction residue and petroleum coke, Energy Fuel. 25 (2011) 3377e3381.
[16] X. Zhan, J. Jia, Z. Zhou, F. Wang, Influence of blending methods on the co-gasification reactivity of petroleum coke and lignite, Energy Convers. Manag. 52 (2011)
48 1810e1814.
49 [17] S. Lee, S. Yoon, H. Ra, Y. Son, J. Hong, J. Lee, Gasification characteristics of coke and mixture with coal in an entrained-flow gasifier, Energy 35 (2010) 3239e3244.
50 [18] L. Ren, R. Wei, Y. Gao, Co-gasification reactivity of petcoke and coal at high temperature, Fuel 190 (2017) 245e252.
[19] J. Wei, Q. Guo, L. Ding, K. Yoshikaw, G. Yu, Synergy mechanism analysis of petroleum coke and municipal solid waste (MSW)-derived hydrochar co-gasification, Appl.
51 Energy 206 (2017) 1354e1363.
52 [20] L. Ren, J. Yang, F. Gao, J. Yan, Laboratory study on gasification reactivity of coals and petcokes in CO2/steam at high temperatures, Energy Fuel. 27 (2013) 5054e5068.
53 [21] Z. Qian, Q. Li, H. Wang, Z. Wang, Z. Yu, L. Zhang, H. Wei, Y. Fang, Experimental study on co-pyrolysis and gasification behaviors of petroleum residue with lignite, Chem.
Eng. J. 343 (2018) 108e117.
54
[22] G. Skodras, G. Sakellaropoulos, Mineral matter effects in lignite gasification, Fuel Process. Technol. 77 (2002) 151e158.
55 [23] J. Bai, W. Li, Z. Bai, Effect of mineral matter and coal blending on gasification, Energy Fuel. 25 (2011) 1127e1131.
56 [24] J. Gu, S. Wu, X. Zhang, Y. Wu, CO2-Gasification reactivity of different carbonaceous materials at elevated temperatures, Energy Sources 31 (2009) 232e243. Part A.
[25] E. Hodge, D. Roberts, D. Harris, J. Stubington, The significance of char morphology to the analysis of high-temperature char- CO2 reaction rates, Energy Fuel. 24 (2010)
57
100e107.
58 [26] S. Kajitani, S. Hara, H. Matsuda, Gasification rate analysis of coal char with a pressurized drop tube furnace, Fuel 81 (2002) 539e546.
59 [27] K. Miura, K. Hashimoto, P. Silveston, Factors affecting the reactivity of coal chars during gasification, and indices representing reactivity, Fuel 68 (1989) 1461e1475.
60 [28] T. Takarada, Y. Tamai, A. Tomita, Reactivity of 34 coals under steam gasification, Fuel 64 (1985) 1438e1442.
[29] Z. Ma, J. Bai, Z. Bai, L. Kong, Z. Guo, J. Yan, W. Li, Mineral transformation in char and its effect on coal char gasification reactivity at high temperatures, Part 2: char
61 gasification, Energy Fuel. 28 (2014) 1846e1853.
62 [30] Y. Sekine, K. Ishikawa, E. Kikuchi, M. Matsukata, A. Akimoto, Reactivity and structural change of coal char during steam gasification, Fuel 85 (2006) 122e126.
63
64
65

Please cite this article as: L. Ren et al., Co-gasification reactivity of petroleum coke with coal and coal liquefaction residue, Journal of the Energy
Institute, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2019.01.013