ARTICLE IN PRESS

I N T E R N AT I O N A L J O U R N A L O F H Y D R O G E N E N E R G Y 33 (2008) 1286– 1294

Available at www.sciencedirect.com

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

Innovative concepts for hydrogen production processes

based on coal gasification with CO2 capture

Calin-Cristian Cormos, Fred Starr, Evangelos Tzimas, Stathis Peteves

European Commission, DG Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy, P.O. Box 2, 1755 ZG Petten, The Netherlands

ar t ic l e i n f o abs tra ct

Article history: This paper investigates the technical aspects of innovative hydrogen production concepts
Received 15 June 2007 based on coal gasification with CO2 capture. More specifically, it focuses on the technical
Received in revised form evaluation and the assessment of performance of a number of plant configurations
28 October 2007 based on standard entrained-flow gasification processes (dry feed and slurry feed
Accepted 19 December 2007 types) producing hydrogen at pipeline pressure, which incorporate improvements for
Available online 11 February 2008 increasing hydrogen purity and pressure. The dry feed type of entrained-flow gasifier is
currently considered to be the most efficient means of producing hydrogen from coal.
Keywords:
The main shortcomings are relatively low hydrogen purity due to the need of using
Hydrogen production
nitrogen as a transport gas for the coal and a pressure limitation of this type of design. The
Coal gasification
purity issue can be solved by using captured CO2 to transport the coal in the gasifier.
CO2 capture
The pressure limitation can be overcome by using in-plant compression of the raw
H2 pressure and purity
syngas. Simulations, made using commercial process flow modelling packages (ChemCAD),
show that these changes can be made without compromising plant efficiency;
on the contrary, the efficiency slightly increases because of the better thermal integration
of the plant.
& 2008 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights
reserved.

1. Introduction Among these feedstock types, in the near and medium

The introduction of hydrogen in the energy system as an
energy carrier complementary to electricity is exciting much
interest in Europe, as this offers significant advantages
including reduction of greenhouse gas emissions at the point
of end use, enhancement of the security of energy supply and
improvement of economic competitiveness. Hydrogen can be
produced from different feedstocks, such as natural gas, oil
derived products, coal and water [1,2]. At the present time,
most of the hydrogen produced uses natural gas as feedstock.
Usually the hydrogen is used in the chemical and petrochemi-
cal sectors, e.g. for ammonia and methanol synthesis,
hydrogenation, hydrocracking and hydrodesulphurization
processes.
term future, coal is likely to play a key role for large-scale
hydrogen production, as required for the deployment
of the hydrogen economy [3–5]. Coal-fuelled production
processes are likely to be based on entrained-flow gasification
as this also permits the capture of CO2 whereby it can be
stored in geological reservoirs or used for enhanced oil
recovery (EOR) or enhanced coal bed methane recovery
(ECBM) [6–8].
A condition for the successful penetration of hydrogen in
the energy system is the ability to supply it from the
production facility at high pressure and purity. High pressure
will ensure its long distance transmission and distribution to
the consumers via pipelines with the minimum additional
effort for recompressing the gas along the pipeline [9]. Ideally,

Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 224 565001; fax: +31 224 565630.
E-mail addresses: calin-cristian.cormos@jrc.nl, cormos@chem.ubbcluj.ro (C.-C. Cormos).
0360-3199/$ - see front matter & 2008 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2007.12.048
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
I N T E R N AT I O N A L J O U R N A L O F H Y D R O G E N E N E R G Y
the hydrogen transmission pressure should be similar to that
of natural gas, i.e. 60–70 bar [10].
A second key aspect is that of the purity of hydrogen
produced by the gasification plant. It is expected that
hydrogen will be produced at a purity of 99.99% (vol.), to be
suitable for proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell
applications for the transport sector, which could represent
the first large-scale utilization of hydrogen. To take advantage
of economies of scale, it is reasonable to assume that such
highly pure hydrogen will be produced centrally, rather than
being purified at the point of end use, when the demand of
hydrogen will be significant.
2. Shortcomings of current designs of
entrained-flow gasifiers
There are, basically, two ways in which coal is transported
into an entrained-flow gasifier: (i) via water slurry (slurry feed
gasifier), and (ii) via a gas, typically nitrogen (dry feed gasifier).
For the slurry feed gasifier, the need to bring water
in the slurry up to gasifier temperatures results in some of
the coal having to be combusted, producing CO2 ,
as this reaction provides much more energy than the reaction
of coal with oxygen to produce CO. The effect of this
is to reduce the amount of hydrogen that can be produced,
since the CO can subsequently react with steam to form
hydrogen in a shift reactor located downstream of the gasifier
[11–14].
Despite this disadvantage in terms of hydrogen yield, the
hydrogen that is produced from slurry feed gasifiers contains
less nitrogen than dry feed gasifiers, since the latter utilizes
nitrogen to transport the coal into the gasifier. The level of
nitrogen contamination of the hydrogen could be reduced
even more, if the purity of the oxygen fed to the gasifier is
increased from the typical level of 95% to 99% (vol.). Nitrogen
contamination is important since its presence requires a
more rigorous treatment of the produced raw hydrogen and
this implies an actual loss of hydrogen.
Increased oxygen purity could also be beneficial to the dry
feed gasifiers. However, a more significant difference to the
level of nitrogen contamination in these gasifiers can be made
by replacing the nitrogen by carbon dioxide as a transport gas.
This gas can be subsequently removed by the acid gas
removal (AGR) and pressure swing adsorption (PSA) systems
much more easily than nitrogen. There is also no problem
with the supply of carbon dioxide since it can be taken from
the pipeline that is used to transport this gas, which has been
captured downstream, to the storage site.
Regarding the pressure, only slurry feed gasifiers are able to
produce hydrogen at sufficiently high pressure (60–70 bar)
[13]. Dry feed gasifiers, in contrast, are currently limited to
30–40 bar [12,13]. It is therefore proposed in this paper to
compress the syngas at a suitable point in the plant so that
the outlet pressure can be increased.
The aim of this paper is to analyse an innovative modifica-
tion of a dry feed gasifier in which:
 Carbon dioxide is used as a coal transport gas.
 In-plant compression is used to boost the syngas pressure.
33 (2008) 1286 – 1294 1287
 99% (vol.) oxygen purity is used instead of 95% as gasifier
oxidant.
Clearly, all these modifications could penalize a dry feed
design. Hence, it is important to asses any reduction in
performance compared to the standard type of dry feed
gasifier, and if there is a difference to see whether the
efficiency margin of this modified dry feed design is main-
tained over the slurry feed system. As noted above, the CO2
which is needed to transport the coal will be taken from the
stream of captured CO2 .
All systems analysed in the paper produce hydrogen only,
but the ancillary power for the air separation unit (ASU) and
other plant equipment is generated on site using a combined
cycle gas turbine (CCGT), to whose steam is integrated with
that coming from gasifier process steam boilers. The elec-
tricity for the ancillaries is produced by steam turbines
and gas turbines, the later being supplied with hydrogen plus
the tail gas from PSA. To summarize, although the plant
requires a medium CCGT, all the electricity is consumed
by the plant and the plant has no net power output. In
all plant configurations, the coal input was maintained the
same (equivalent to 550 MWth based on coal lower heating
value—LHV).
3. Basic outline of innovation and
methodology
3.1. Plant configuration with in-plant compression
In a conventional entrained-flow gasifier, used for the
production of hydrogen, the hot raw syngas from the gasifier
is cooled down to a suitable temperature using quench gas,
water quench or a radiant boiler, depending on the gasifica-
tion process [11–16]. The raw syngas is then cleaned of
particulates and passed through a series of CO shift con-
verters, where CO in the raw syngas reacts with steam to
produce hydrogen and carbon dioxide [13]. The H2 S and CO2
are then removed in an acid gas removal system [16–19]. The
hydrogen, if necessary, is further purified in a PSA unit.
In the innovative concept presented here, to overcome the
pressure limitation associated with dry feed gasifiers, an in-
plant compressor is positioned after the gas quench and
before shift conversion (see Fig. 1). The temperature and the
pressure of the syngas at this point are 150 1C and 35 bar,
respectively. After the compression, the temperature and the
pressure of the gas are raised to 250–270 1C and 72 bar,
respectively.
An advantage of this configuration is that the heat
generated during compression is used to promote the shift
reaction and to raise steam, this having a positive influence
on the overall plant efficiency. The gas is dry at the inlet of the
in-plant compressor; hence, steam must be added to the
syngas at the compressor outlet to promote the shift reaction.
For the capture of CO2 , a physical solvent ðSelexols Þ was
considered. The decision to use a physical solvent was based
on the advantages that this kind of solvent has over chemical
solvents (e.g. methyldiethanolamine—MDEA), the advantages
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1288 I N T E R N AT I O N A L J O U R N A L O F H Y D R O G E N E N E R G Y 33 (2008) 1286 – 1294

Quench Gas Table 1 – Coal properties

Blower

In-plant Proximate analysis (wt%)

165°C Compressor
39 bar Moisture 8.9
Ash 13
Volatiles 31.2
1550°C 800°C 150°C 250°C
39 bar Fixed carbon 46.9
39 bar 35 bar 72 bar Steam
Ultimate analysis dry base (wt%)
Carbon 70.47
Hydrogen 4.9
Shift
Converter Nitrogen 1.4
Gasifier
Sulphur 1
Steam Oxygen 7.86
Coal
To Acid Gas Ash 14.37
Removal
Oxygen Heating values (MJ/kg)
Slag Heat Higher heating value (HHV) 29.24
Exchanger Lower heating value (LHV) 28.13

Air Air
Separation
Unit

Nitrogen
Fig. 1 – Plant configuration for dry feed gasification with
syngas in-plant compression.
of which increase with the CO2 partial pressure in the syngas
[13,17].
3.2. Hydrogen purification aspects
To obtain a high level of hydrogen purity (99.99 vol%), a PSA
system is used [13,15]. As the level of nitrogen in the syngas
increases, the loss of hydrogen in the tail gas also increases.
Hence, to minimize this loss the oxygen purity to the gasifier
is set at 99% (vol.) in all the cases analysed in this paper. As
noted, there is a contrast to most gasification processes where
the oxygen level is 95% (vol.). Also, as noted earlier, another
way to minimize the hydrogen loss in the tail gas is to use
captured CO2 as a coal transport gas.
(Case 3) and carbon dioxide (Case 4). All these cases were
simulated using the ChemCAD software package [20].
The information required by the modelling work of these
case studies was derived from internal studies [21–24]
and from the literature [13,15,25–35]. The coal properties
(proximate and ultimate analysis, higher heating value—HHV
and lower heating value—LHV) used to evaluate all the cases
studied in this paper are presented in Table 1.
Main input data and assumptions used for modelling and
simulation of the hydrogen production processes based on
coal gasification (either slurry feed or dry feed gasifiers) are
presented in Table 2.
4. Main plant items and model parameters
This section provides a brief description of each major
component of technology used in all four cases studied in
this paper.
4.1. Coal gasification

3.3. Methodology and input data
Four plant configurations have been analysed in this paper:
 Case 1: Slurry feed gasifier with water quench.
 Case 2: Dry feed gasifier with gas quench.
 Case 3: Dry feed gasifier with in-plant compression and
nitrogen as coal transport gas.
 Case 4: Dry feed gasifier with in-plant compression and
carbon dioxide as coal transport gas.
The first two case studies are conventional gasification
technologies. These are a slurry fed gasifier with water
quench (Case 1) and a dry feed gasifier with nitrogen as coal
transport gas (Case 2). The next two case studies are
innovative concepts, where a dry feed gasifier is combined
with in-plant compression. In addition, the effects of using
two different transport gases are assessed, namely, nitrogen
The coal gasification takes place in oxygen blown entrained-
flow gasifier in two different situations: a coal–water slurry
feed gasifier operated at 75 bar and a dry coal feed gasifier
operated at 40 bar.
For the slurry feed gasifier, the coal–water slurry and
oxygen are fed through an injector located at the top of the
gasifier. The coal gasification process takes place at slagging
temperatures (1300–1500 1C). The configuration assumes the
full water quench of the hot gases leaving the gasifier. The
raw syngas leaves the quench chamber at 200–300 1C and it is
saturated with wet steam. This will provide sufficient steam
for the CO conversion process in the shift reactor.
For a dry coal feed gasifier, the coal is transported to the
gasifier as a dense phase in nitrogen (or other transport gas
like CO2 Þ and is then mixed with oxygen and steam. The
gasification temperature is around 1500–1600 1C. The hot raw
syngas leaving the gasifier is quenched with cooled syngas
which is recirculated from further down the plant. This gas
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
I N T E R N AT I O N A L J O U R N A L O F H Y D R O G E N E N E R G Y 33 (2008) 1286 – 1294 1289

Table 2 – Input data and model assumptions Table 2. (continued )

Steam raising and power generation systems

Gasification process Steam levels
Gasification pressure: 75 bar (slurry feed gasifier)/40 bar (dry feed High pressure (HP)—104 bar
gasifier) Medium pressure (MP)—39 bar
Oxygen/coal ratio (kg/kg): 0.98 (slurry feed gasifier)/0.89 (dry feed Low pressure (LP)—4 bar
gasifier) Condensation pressure: 0.05 bar
Steam/coal ratio (kg/kg): 0 (slurry feed gasifier)/0.09 (dry feed Power consumption for heat rejection: 1% of the heat discharged
gasifier) Gas turbine efficiency: 35%
Coal concentration in the water slurry: 66 wt% Steam turbine efficiency: 85%
Nitrogen ðCO2 Þ/coal ratio (kg/kg): 0.09 (dry feed gasifier) Hydraulic efficiency of pumps: 75%
Oxygen purity fed to the gasifier: 99 vol%
ASU power consumption: 250 kWh/ton of oxygen
Pressure of O2 and N2 delivered by ASU: 2 bar
O2 pressure to gasifier: 85 bar (slurry feed gasifier)/48 bar (dry
feed gasifier)
quench gives a final temperature of 800–850 1C. After the
Carbon conversion: 99.99%
Gasifier pressure loss: 2.5% quench, the gas enters into syngas cooler boilers where high
Electric power for gasification auxiliary: 1% of input coal LHV and medium pressure steam is raised. A part of the raw
syngas is compressed and recycled to quench the hot gas and
Syngas quench and conditioning
the rest is mixed with steam and sent to the shift reactors. In
Quench type: water (slurry feed gasifier)/gas (dry feed gasifier)
Syngas temperature: 250  C ðwater quenchÞ=800  C (gas
the innovative concepts, presented in this paper, the syngas is
quench) compressed to 72 bar before it is mixed with the steam to
Quench gas ratio: 60% promote the shift reaction.
Quench gas and syngas compressor efficiency: 80%
Pressure loss for fly ash removal system: 5% 4.2. Air separation unit
Water–gas shift reactors
Catalyst type: sour shift catalyst (cobalt–molybdenum catalyst) The air separation unit is an independent unit that produces
CO conversion: 95–98% the oxygen needed for the gasification process by fractional
Steam/CO ratio: 1.8–2.7 distillation of liquid air [13]. The oxygen outlet pressure from
Catalyst temperature range: 250–500 1C
the ASU is close to atmospheric pressure and it is compressed
Number of catalytic beds: 2
prior to feeding it to the gasifier. It is assumed in the
Reactor type: adiabatic
Pressure loss: 1.5% per each catalytic bed modelling work that the oxygen purity is 99% O2 (vol.) and
the oxygen pressure at the ASU outlet is 2 bar. The oxygen
Acid gas removal system
purity is an important requirement as there is little point in
Solvent: Selexols (mixture of dimethyl ethers of polyethylene
using CO2 as a coal transport gas, if the oxygen contains
glycol)
much more than 1% nitrogen (vol.).
AGR structure: two stages (first H2 S removal/secondCO2 removal)
H2 S removal stage configuration: absorption
tower–flash–stripping tower 4.3. Water–gas shift conversion
CO2 removal configuration: absorption tower–flash
Absorption tower temperature: 25–35 1C The water–gas shift reaction is used to produce hydrogen and
Absorption pressure: 65–66 bar (for Case 3: 28–29 bar) CO2 by reacting the carbon monoxide in the syngas with
Pressure loss: 1.5% per each column
superheated steam. The shift reaction is exothermic and is
Number of flashing vessels for Selexol solvent regeneration: 4
used to raise extra steam for power production. The CO2
Pressure in the flash vessels: 20, 5, 2 and 1.05 bar
Overall CO2 removal yield: 95–97% (for Case 3: 93%) which is produced from the shift reaction is later captured.
Hydraulic efficiency of pumps: 75% For the case studies analysed in this paper, a sour shift of
CO (cobalt–molybdenum sulphur tolerant catalyst) was used
Claus plant and tail gas treatment
in all the models, since this does not require any purification
Oxygen—blown Claus plant
H2 S-rich gas composition to Claus plant: 420% H2 S (vol.) of the raw gas [1,15]. The shift catalyst also ensures the
Tail gas is recycled to H2 S absorption stage transformation of carbonyl sulphide (COS) into hydrogen
sulphide and carbon dioxide. It is assumed in the modelling
CO2 compressing stage
work that two catalytic beds are used and the CO conversion
Delivery pressure: 114 bar
Compressor efficiency: 85% is in the range of 95–98%.
Intercooler temperature: 35 1C
4.4. Acid gas removal system
Pressure swing adsorption
Hydrogen purification yield: 82–84%
Hydrogen purity: 99.99% H2 (vol.) The AGR systems analysed in this paper comprise separate
Pressure loss: 1.5% CO2 and H2 S removal units using a physical solvent
Tail gas pressure: 1.5 bar ðSelexols Þ. The H2 S is captured prior to CO2 capture and the
H2 S-rich gas is sent to a Claus plant for sulphur removal. The
Heat exchangers
Minimum DT for heat transfer: 10 1C gas leaving the first unit, which now is sulphur free, is sent to
Pressure loss: 1% the second unit for CO2 capture.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1290 I N T E R N AT I O N A L J O U R N A L O F H Y D R O G E N E N E R G Y 33 (2008) 1286 – 1294

The solvent is regenerated by flashing to four different Coal – water

Air slurry
pressure levels (20, 5, 2 and 1.05 bar) and it is recycled back to
the absorption stage. CO2 is compressed to 114 bar and sent O2
Air Separation Unit &
through a pipeline to the storage site or it is used for different Gasification
O2 Compression
applications (e.g. EOR). It is assumed in the work presented in
this paper that the overall CO2 capture rate is in the range of
93–97%. The hydrogen level in the gas stream leaving AGR is Water Quench Slag
around 91–96% (vol.). O2

Water – Gas Shift

4.5. Pressure swing adsorption
Claus Plant & Acid Gas
Sulphur CO2
PSA operates on an isothermal cycle, adsorbing at high Tail Gas Treatment Removal
pressure and desorbing at low pressure. The main application
of PSA is for hydrogen purification. The hydrogen purity is Pressure Swing
high (99–99.9999 vol%) and the yield of the process lies Adsorption
between 80% and 92% depending on process conditions
Ancillary Combined Cycle
[1,13,15]. Power Gas Turbine
For the plant configurations analysed in this paper, the PSA Purified hydrogen
yield is extremely important because the tail gas (discharged
at 1.5 bar) is used together with a part of unpurified hydrogen Fig. 2 – Scheme of hydrogen production based on slurry feed
as a fuel gas in the CCGT. In all the scenarios presented in this gasification, shift conversion, CO2 and H2 S removal and H2
paper, the purity of the hydrogen that is exported from the purification.
plant is set at 99.99% (vol.) and the hydrogen outlet pressure is
set to 64 bar.
Coal &
Air Transport gas
4.6. Steam raising and power generation
Air Separation Unit & O2
Gasification Steam
O2 Compression
In the modelling work considered in this paper, it is assumed
that the steam generated in the plant has three pressure
Syngas Quench &
levels. These are high pressure steam (HP) at 104 bar, medium Slag
Cooling
pressure steam (MP) at 39 bar and low pressure steam (LP)
at 4 bar.
O2
Part of the steam generated in the plant is used to cover the Syngas Compression
(Cases 3-4 only)
heat requirements of the process (pre-heating of the feed
streams, steam for gasification, solvent regeneration process,
etc.), and the other part is used to produce the power needed Water – Gas Shift Steam
to run the plant equipment. Power is also generated in a CCGT
using the tail gas coming from hydrogen purification process Sulphur Claus Plant & Acid Gas
CO2
by PSA. The plant is assumed to be self-sufficient in terms of
Tail gas Treatment Removal
heat and power requirement (zero net power output).
The block diagrams of the hydrogen production plant based Pressure Swing
Adsorption
on coal gasification with CO2 capture are presented in Fig. 2
(slurry feed gasification process with water quench) and in Ancillary Combined Cycle
Fig. 3 (dry feed gasification process). Power Gas Turbine
H2 compression
(Case 2 only)

5. Results
The modelling and simulation of all the cases analysed in this
paper was done using a general chemical process simulator
software (ChemCAD). The thermodynamic package used in
the simulations (based on a modified SRK model) was chosen
taking into account the chemical species present in the
system and the range of process parameters (e.g. pressure,
temperature). The simulation of the plant configurations
yields all necessary process data (flows, composition,
temperatures, pressures, power generated and consumed)
that are needed to assess the overall performance of the
processes.
Purified hydrogen
Fig. 3 – Scheme of hydrogen production based on dry feed
gasification, syngas compression (optional), shift
conversion, CO2 and H2 S removal and H2 purification.
5.1. Raw syngas properties
For the gasification processes assessed in this paper (coal–
water slurry feed and dry coal feed gasifiers), the main
properties of the raw syngas are presented in Table 3.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
I N T E R N AT I O N A L J O U R N A L O F H Y D R O G E N E N E R G Y 33 (2008) 1286 – 1294 1291

Table 3 – Properties of the raw syngas 5.3. Water–gas shift conversion

Property Slurry feed Dry feed The shift reaction occurs in two catalytic reactors. The shifted
syngas compositions at the second shift reactor outlet are
Coal transport medium Water Nitrogen CO2 presented in Table 4. The high H2 O=CO ratio used in all cases
Pressure (bar) 75 40 40 (1.8–2.7) ensures a CO conversion around 96–98%.
Temperature ( 1C) 1369 1560 1551
The heat generated from the shift reaction is used to
Composition (vol%) raise medium pressure steam and low pressure steam. Part of
CO 42.24 61.56 63.63 the steam generated is used to cover the heat requirements
H2 25.33 26.54 25.62 of the process (pre-heating the feed streams, gasification,
CO2 10.61 2.62 3.63
solvent regeneration, etc.) and the other part is sent to CCGT
H2 O 20.81 4.58 5.93
and used to generate the power needed to run the ancillary
CH4 0.01 0 0
H2 S 0.26 0.31 0.31 equipment.
COS 0.02 0.03 0.03
N2 0.64 4.27 0.76
O2 0 0 0 5.4. Acid gas removal
Ar 0.08 0.09 0.09

After shift conversion, the syngas is cooled to ambient

temperature (20–30 1C) then the liquid water is removed and
the gas is sent to AGR system ðSelexols Þ for a separate capture
of CO2 and H2 S. The absorption temperature and pressure
Comparing the slurry feed gasifier with the dry feed
were in the range of 25–40 1C and 65–66 bar (except in Case 2
gasifiers, Table 3 reveals that in the case of the slurry gasifier,
where the absorption pressure is 28–29 bar). The gas compo-
the content of CO2 in the syngas is higher and the CO content
sitions after AGR system are presented in Table 5.
is lower than that of the dry feed gasifiers because part of the
carbon from the coal must be oxidized totally to CO2 to
provide the heat necessary to vaporize the water from the
slurry. As a consequence, the cold gas efficiency is lower than Table 4 – Gas composition after the shift converters
that for the dry coal feed gasifier (71% for slurry feed gasifier (second reactor outlet)
and 78–80% for dry feed gasifier).
One of the most important results is that in the Gas composition Case study
dry feed gasifier, although the substitution of the nitrogen (vol%)
by CO2 reduces the nitrogen content from 4.27% to 0.76%, 1 2 3 4
the CO and CO2 levels do not change significantly (see CO 0.6 0.54 0.64 0.65
Table 3). H2 34.23 43.86 45.41 45.72
CO2 26.67 31.83 32.89 34.29
H2 O 37.99 21.42 18.62 18.73
5.2. Raw syngas conditioning CH4 0 0 0 0
H2 S 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.17
For the slurry feed gasifier, the raw syngas is quenched down N2 0.33 2.14 2.23 0.4
with water to 240–250 1C, so that, after quenching, the syngas O2 0 0 0 0
Ar 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
has the right composition and temperature for promoting the
shift reaction.
For the dry feed gasifiers, the hot gas is quenched with
cold syngas to 800–850 1C and is then used to generate high
pressure and medium pressure steam. In the innovative Table 5 – Gas composition after the AGR system
concepts presented is this paper (Cases 3 and 4), after
cooling to 150 1C, the syngas is compressed to 72 bar.
Gas Case study
The temperature rise in the compression stage (outlet
composition
temperature 250–270 1C) is used to promote the shift (vol%)
conversion. The power needed to compress the syngas is 1 2 3 4
around 6.5 MW (less than 1.2% of the thermal energy of the
coal input) which is acceptable in the context of the net CO 0.89 0.82 0.97 0.93
H2 96.22 91.02 92.62 96.3
energy production of the plant.
CO2 1.82 3.77 1.8 1.8
The compression of the syngas can be done using
H2 O 0.05 0.1 0.05 0.05
a centrifugal compressor which would be of essentially CH4 0.01 0 0 0
the same type as used in high pressure pipeline networks. H2 S 0.01 0 0.01 0.01
The gas is then mixed with steam, in a ratio that is N2 0.9 4.21 4.46 0.82
suitable for shift conversion (for all cases before the shift O2 0 0 0 0
reaction, the steam content of the syngas is around Ar 0.1 0.08 0.09 0.09

52–60 vol%).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1292 I N T E R N AT I O N A L J O U R N A L O F H Y D R O G E N E N E R G Y 33 (2008) 1286 – 1294

For a dry feed gasifier using nitrogen as transport
gas, the clean gas purity is much lower (92.62% H2 ) than in
the case where CO2 is used (96.3% H2 ), or when a slurry
gasifier is used (96.22%) because of the use of nitrogen as a
transport gas.
H2 S is removed from the syngas prior to CO2 capture
in a standard configuration (absorption tower–flash–stripper)
which removes almost 100% of the H2 S. The H2 S
stream, which also contains about 65–75% CO2 (vol.), is then
sent to a Claus plant. This needs to use oxygen instead
of air for combustion, to enable the H2 S to burn properly,
since the stream is so heavily diluted with CO2 . After
combustion and separation of molten sulphur, the
cooled and dried stream, containing CO2 and a small
amount of unreacted H2 S, is recycled back to the inlet of
AGR system.
After H2 S removal, in the first stage of AGR, the gas is
further processed in a second stage for CO2 removal in a
configuration that uses an absorption tower and four flash
vessels operated at different pressure levels (20, 5, 2 and
1.05 bar). The CO2 capture rate is around 96–97% (except Case
2 when it is around 93–94% because of the lower operating
pressure). The captured CO2 stream is compressed to 114 bar
and is then sent to the storage site or used for different
applications like EOR.
5.5. Hydrogen purification
After gas clean-up, a PSA stage is used to purify the raw
hydrogen to 99.99% H2 (vol.). If the purity of the raw hydrogen
(96–98% H2 vol.) is considered to be high enough for different
applications (e.g. heat or power generation) the hydrogen
purification stage by PSA can be omitted leading to significant
capital cost savings.
The PSA purification yields are 82–84% according to the
operational specifications of the industrial units of this type
[13,15]. The tail gas (delivered at 1.5 bar) and, as previously
stated, part of raw hydrogen is burned in the CCGT to produce
power needed to run the plant. For Cases 1, 3 and 4, the purified
hydrogen pressure after PSA is high enough for pipeline
transportation (64 bar). For Case 2, the purified hydrogen has to
be compressed after PSA to the same delivery pressure (64 bar).
5.6. Plant efficiency
All plant configurations analysed in the paper were designed
to be self-sufficient in terms of heat and power. This means
that the power needed to run the plant (ASU, pumps,
compressors, solvent regeneration, etc.) is generated on-site
in a combined cycle gas turbine and no extra (net) power is
produced apart from the plant power demand.

Table 6 – Performance of the investigated plant configurations

Property Case study

1 2 3 4

Fuel input ðMWth Þ 550 550 550 550

Power generated ðMWe Þ

Gas turbine 25.15 25.24 25.51 25.32
Steam turbine 36.13 35.87 40.25 40.42

Power consumed ðMWe Þ

Air separation unit 17.92 16.29 16.3 16.29
O2 compressor 9.26 7.01 6.84 6.84
Gasification auxiliarya 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5
Process pumpsb 0.34 0.5 0.52 0.52
Cooling water pumpsc 1.54 1.32 1.3 1.3
Syngas compressord 0 1.28 7.77 7.63
AGR ðSelexols Þ systeme 7.49 4.5 7.61 7.9
Purge gas compressor 3.31 4.22 4.01 3.35
CO2 compressor 15.92 16.65 15.91 16.41
H2 compressor 0 3.84 0 0

Net power output (MWe Þ 0 0 0 0

CO2 capture rate (%) 96.46 93.3 96.18 96.25
Hydrogen flow ðNm3 =hÞ 98 155 106 026 107 365 106 983
Hydrogen output ðMWth Þ 294.33 317.93 321.94 320.8
Plant efficiency (%) 53.51 57.8 58.53 58.32

a
1% of the feedstock energy (LHV), this includes coal handling and preparation.
b
Process and feed water pumps.
c
1% of the heat released to the ambience.
d
Both for gas quench compression and syngas compression.
e
Consumption of the AGR system including recycle compressor.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
I N T E R N AT I O N A L J O U R N A L O F H Y D R O G E N E N E R G Y
In all plant configurations, the coal input was the same
ð550 MWth Þ; the thermal energy of the fuel input and the
hydrogen output are expressed taking into consideration the
lower heating values (28.13 MJ/kg for coal and, respectively,
10:795 MJ=Nm3 for hydrogen). The energy balances for all four
plant configurations analysed in this paper are presented in
Table 6. In calculating the efficiencies of the various cases, the
assumption was made that all the power required by the
ancillary equipment (i.e ASU, AGR, CO2 compressor, pumps
and where fitted, the in-plant compressor) was supplied from
the gas and steam turbines. Hence, the only net energy output
from the plant was in the form of hydrogen; all the electricity
that was generated was consumed by the ancillaries. It
follows that the overall efficiency of the plant was calculated
considering the thermal energy of the hydrogen output
divided by the thermal energy of the coal used as feedstock.
The results show that the innovative concepts (Cases 3 and 4)
have a higher efficiency than conventional concepts (Cases 1
and 2).
6. Discussion
The main objectives of the paper were to examine methods of
overcoming two basic shortcomings of dry feed gasifiers used
for hydrogen production with CO2 capture, namely, relatively
low outlet pressure and the low hydrogen purity. To overcome
these problems, in-plant compression of the syngas was
proposed as a means of increasing the hydrogen plant outlet
pressure. Hydrogen purity was enhanced by using carbon
dioxide as coal transport gas and by increasing the oxygen
purity required for gasification.
Although it was not in the scope of this paper to make an
economic analysis of the analysed plant concepts, the view is
that an in-plant compressor will not have a significant
influence on the plant capital cost. It should be noted that a
higher syngas pressure will have a positive benefit on the
capital and operating costs required for the AGR (smaller
column sizes, lower solvent flow rates, etc.). But the like-
lihood of a cost penalty should disappear completely when
the in-plant compressor scheme is compared with the
alternative, in which a hydrogen compressor has to be used
at the exit of the plant to bring the hydrogen up to standard
pipeline pressures.
The results indicate that the efficiencies of dry feed
gasifiers with in-plant compression of the syngas (Cases 3
and 4) are better by about 5% points than that of the slurry
feed gasifier (Case 1) mainly because of the higher cold gas
efficiency of the dry gasifier and the fact that the heat
generated in the syngas compression stage is used to promote
the shift reaction. Also, the performances of dry feed gasifiers
with an in-plant compressor are better by 0.5–0.75% points
than the conventional dry feed gasifier (Case 2).
Regarding dry feed gasifiers with in-plant syngas compres-
sion (Cases 3 and 4), the coal transport gases assessed in this
paper (nitrogen and carbon dioxide) do not have much effect
on the overall efficiency of the plant (less than 0.25% points).
The carbon capture rates in all plant configurations are in
general in the range of 96–97%. The exception is the
conventional dry feed gasifier (Case 2) in which the capture
33 (2008) 1286 – 1294 1293
rate is around 93–94%. The explanation for this lower capture
rate is the lower pressure of the AGR system (28–29 bar)
compared with other cases (65–66 bar).
In this paper, the decision was made to place the in-plant
compressor after the gasifier but before the shift converters. If
the compression was delayed until the syngas is transformed
to hydrogen, a multi stage centrifugal unit would be needed
because of the lower gas density. Furthermore, the heat
generated during the compression would be difficult to
integrate with the rest of the process and it would be only
suitable for producing LP steam.
Finally, it would appear that with improvements in oxygen
purity and use of CO2 as coal transport gas, the hydrogen
produced by a dry feed gasifier could reach a fuel gas purity
around 96% (vol.) comparable with the hydrogen purity
delivered by a slurry feed gasifier. This relatively high purity
implies that the hydrogen purification stage will be done with
lower cost and minimum hydrogen loss. Furthermore, a
purity level of 96% would be perfectly acceptable for some
hydrogen end-use applications (e.g. heat or power genera-
tion). This would enable the PSA system to be removed, with
some benefit to plant output and efficiency, but giving a
marked reduction to capital costs.
7. Conclusions
The paper shows that the increase in hydrogen outlet
pressure and the production of very pure hydrogen
(99.99 vol%) can be achieved in the least penalty in plant
efficiency in the following ways:
 The use of in-plant compression of the raw syngas, in a
dry feed gasifier, not only maintains, but actually improves
on the efficiency advantage of this type of gasifier
compared with the slurry feed design.
 The use of CO2 as a transport gas rather than nitrogen, in a
dry feed gasifier, does not compromise the efficiency of the
hydrogen production process or change significantly the
raw gas composition.
 A combination of the two techniques actually raises the
gasifier efficiency compared to the conventional dry feed
gasifier.
Acknowledgements
This work has been carried out within the multi-annual work
programme of the European Commission’s Joint Research
Centre within the ‘‘Assessment of Energy Technologies and
Systems’’ Action. Any interpretations or opinions contained
in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent the view of the European Commission.
R E F E R E N C E S
[1] Müller-Langer F, Tzimas E, Kaltschmidtt M, Peteves S.
Techno-economic assessment of hydrogen production
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1294 I N T E R N AT I O N A L J O U R N A L O F H Y D R O G E N E N E R G Y
processes for the hydrogen economy for the short and
medium term. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2007;32:3797–810.
[2] European Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Platform.
Hydrogen energy and fuel cells—a vision for our future.
Report EUR 20719, hhttps://www.hfpeurope.org/i; 2005.
[3] European Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Platform.
Strategic research agenda, hhttps://www.hfpeurope.org/i;
2005.
[4] Shoko E, McLellan B, Dicks AL, Diniz da Costa JC. Hydrogen
from coal: production and utilisation technologies. Int J Coal
Geol 2006;65:213–22.
[5] Altmann M, Schmidt P, Wurster R, Zerta M, Zittel W. Potential
for hydrogen as a fuel for transport in the long term
(2020–2030). Report EUR 21090, European Commission, DG
Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological
Studies, Seville, Spain; 2004.
[6] Tzimas E, Georgakaki A, Garcia Cortez G, Peteves S. Enhanced
oil recovery using carbon dioxide in the European energy
system. Report EUR 21895, European Commission, DG Joint
Research Centre, Institute for Energy, Petten, The Nether-
lands; 2005.
[7] Tzimas E, Peteves S. Controlling carbon emissions: the option
of carbon sequestration. Report EUR 20752, European Com-
mission, DG Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy,
Petten, The Netherlands; 2003.
[8] Tzimas E, Peteves S. The impact of carbon sequestration on
the production cost of electricity and hydrogen from coal and
natural gas technologies in the medium term. Energy
2005;30:2672–89.
[9] Tzimas E, Castello P, Peteves S. The evolution of size and cost
of a hydrogen delivery infrastructure in Europe in the
medium and long term. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2007;32:
1369–80.
[10] UK National Grid. National system entry and storage
connections, hhttp://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Gas/
Connections/i; 2006.
[11] Foster Wheeler. Decarbonisation of fossil fuel. IEA Green-
house Gas R&D Programme. Report PH2/2; 1996.
[12] Foster Wheeler. Potential for improvement in gasification
combined cycle power generation with CO2 capture. IEA
Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme. Report PH4/19; 2003.
[13] Higman C, Van der Burgt M. Gasification. Burlington: Elsevier;
2003.
[14] Damen K, Van Troost M, Faaij A, Turkenburg W. A comparison
of electricity and hydrogen production systems with CO2
capture and storage. Part A: review and selection of promis-
ing conversion and capture technologies. Prog Energy
Combust Sci 2006;32:215–46.
[15] Chiesa P, Consonni S, Kreutz T, Williams R. Co-production of
hydrogen electricity and CO2 from coal with commercially
ready technology. Part A: performance and emissions. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2005;30:747–67.
[16] Lin S, Harada M, Suzuki Y, Hatano H. Hydrogen production
from coal by separating carbon dioxide during gasification.
Fuel 2002;81:2079–85.
[17] Leci CL. Development requirements for absorption processes
for effective CO2 capture from power plants. Energy Convers
Manage 1997;38:45–50.
33 (2008) 1286 – 1294
[18] Leci CL. Financial implications on power generation costs
resulting from parasitic effect of CO2 capture using liquid
scrubbing technology from power station flue gases. Energy
Convers Manage 1996;37:915–21.
[19] Alie CF. CO2 capture with MEA: integrating the absorption
process and steam cycle of an existing coal-fired power plant.
PhD thesis, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada; 2004.
[20] ChemCAD. Chemical process simulation, 2007. hhttp://
www.chemstations.neti.
[21] Tzimas E, Starr F, Peteves SD. A large scale test facility for the
production of hydrogen and electricity. The HYPOGEN
project: A JRC–SETRIS perspective. Report EUR 21651, Eur-
opean Commission, DG Joint Research Centre, Institute for
Energy, Petten, The Netherlands; 2005.
[22] Starr F, Tzimas E, Steen M, Peteves SD. Flexibility in the
production of hydrogen and electricity from fossil fuel
plants. In: Proceedings of the international hydrogen energy
congress and exhibition IHEC 2005. Istanbul, Turkey; 2005.
[23] Starr F, Tzimas E, Peteves SD. Near-term IGCC and steam
reforming processes for the hydrogen economy. The devel-
opment issues. Report 22340, European Commission, DG
Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy, Petten, The
Netherlands; 2006.
[24] Starr F, Tzimas E, Peteves S. Critical factors in the design,
operation and economics of coal gasification plants: the case
of the flexible co-production of hydrogen and electricity. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2007;32:1477–85.
[25] Zheng L, Furninsky E. Comparison of Shell, Texaco, BGL and
KRW gasifiers as part of IGCC plant computer simulations.
Energy Convers Manage 2005;46:1767–79.
[26] Chem C, Horio M, Kojima T. Numerical simulation of
entrained flow coal gasifiers. Part I: modelling of coal
gasification in an entrained flow gasifier. Chem Eng Sci
2000;55:3861–74.
[27] Domenichini R, Mancuso L. IGCC plants—a practical pathway
for combined production of hydrogen and power from fossil
fuels. Foster Wheeler Italiana Spa; 2003.
[28] Watanabe H, Otaka M. Numerical simulation of coal gasifica-
tion in entrained flow coal gasifier. Fuel 2006;85:1935–43.
[29] Minchener AJ. Coal gasification for advanced power genera-
tion. Fuel 2005;84:2222–35.
[30] Doctor RD, Molburg JC, Brockmeier NF, Stiegel GJ. Designing for
hydrogen electricity and CO2 recovery from a Shell gasifica-
tion-based system. In: New Castle, USA Proceedings of the
18th annual international pittsburgh coal conference; 2001.
[31] Kajitani S, Suzuki S, Ashizawa M, Hara S. CO2 gasification
rate analysis of coal char in entrained flow gasifier. Fuel
2006;85:163–9.
[32] Perry RH, Green DW, Maloney JO. Perry’s chemical engineers’
handbook. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1997.
[33] Odorica-Garcia G, Douglas P, Croiset E, Zheng L. Technoeco-
nomic evaluation of IGCC power plants for CO2 avoidance.
Energy Convers Manage 2006;47:2050–9.
[34] Collot AG. Matching gasification technologies to coal proper-
ties. Int J Coal Geol 2006;65:191–212.
[35] Yuehong Z, Hao W, Zhihong X. Conceptual design and
simulation study of a co-gasification technology. Energy
Convers Manage 2006;47:1416–28.