See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269762373

Recent development in converting coal to clean fuels in China

Article  in  Fuel · July 2015

DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2014.11.059

CITATIONS READS

53 2,633

3 authors, including:

Jian Xu Yong-Wang Li
Synfuels China Ltd. Chinese Academy of Sciences
64 PUBLICATIONS   1,238 CITATIONS    608 PUBLICATIONS   12,852 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Applied-fundamental research on iron based Fischer Tropsch synthesis catalsysts View project

We are working on commisioning of a large scale FTS plant using the slurry Fischer-Tropsch process developed by us. I am summarizing literature in Fischer-Tropsch in
my spare time, and review papers, reports and design schemes for new projects. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jian Xu on 14 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Fuel 152 (2015) 122–130

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Review article

Recent development in converting coal to clean fuels in China

Jian Xu, Yong Yang ⇑, Yong-Wang Li ⇑
National Engineering Laboratory for Indirect Coal Liquefaction, Chinese Academy of Science, Leyuan South Street, No. 1, Yanqi Economic Development Section C, Huairou
District, Beijing 101407, China
State-Key Laboratory of Coal Conversion, Chinese Academy of Science, P.O. Box 165, Taoyuan Nan Road 27, Taiyuan 030001, China
Synfuels China Technology Co., Ltd., Chinese Academy of Science, Leyuan South Street, No. 1, Yanqi Economic Development Section C, Huairou District, Beijing 101407, China
Institute of Coal Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Science, P.O. Box 165, Taoyuan Nan Road 27, Taiyuan 030001, China

h i g h l i g h t s

 CTL/SNG projects in China are integrated to improve the energy efficiency and process economics.
 Dry feed entrained flow gasification are major choice for large scale gasification.
 It is proposed to combine the SNG and FTS processes by using moving bed gasification.
 New syngas conversion technologies are emphasized for efficient conversion catalyst.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: To achieve energy security in an environmentally benign way, China has to convert a significant fraction
Received 12 June 2014 of its abundant coal resource to clean fuels (liquid fuels or synthetic natural gas, SNG) to meet the fast
Received in revised form 13 November 2014 increasing demand on transportation fuel and municipal gas. Following the successful operation of the
Accepted 17 November 2014
4000 bbl/d Yitai and Luan coal-to-liquids plants using the medium temperature Fischer Tropsch synthesis
Available online 9 December 2014
(MTFT) process technology from Synfuels China, tremendous progresses have been made in upscaling the
Fischer–Tropsch synthesis (FTS) process in China. Past experiences gained from the efforts in this field
Keywords:
have shown that further exploration in the coal conversion field requires significant technological
Coal to liquids
Synthetic natural gas
improvement on gasification, synthesis, and utilities related to integrating more efficient and environ-
Fischer Tropsch synthesis mentally friendly processes on the basis of current status of applications.
Gasification Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
2. Syngas production and gasification technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
2.1. Syngas production from coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
2.2. Lurgi moving bed gasification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
2.3. Entrained flow gasification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
3. Gasification-based coal conversion processes development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
3.1. CTL and SNG projects in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
3.2. Syngas conversion technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
4. Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
5. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

⇑ Corresponding authors at: National Engineering Laboratory for Indirect Coal Liquefaction, Chinese Academy of Science, Leyuan South Street, No. 1, Yanqi Economic
Development Section C, Huairou District, Beijing 101407, China. Tel.: +86 10 69667788; fax: +86 10 69667800.
E-mail addresses: yyong@sxicc.ac.cn (Y. Yang), ywl@sxicc.ac.cn (Y.-W. Li).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.11.059
0016-2361/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J. Xu et al. / Fuel 152 (2015) 122–130
1. Introduction
Global energy structure transformation has been taking place in
industries, especially in areas with limited conventional oil and gas
resources. These changes along with the fast increasing demands
for motor fuels and town gas have greatly impacted on the energy
sector inside China [1]. Due to lack of sufficient gas or oil reserves,
coal accounts for about 92.6% of the gross reserves of exploitable
fossil energy resources in China [2]. The dramatic increase in
energy demand has decreased the current oil self-sufficiency level
to about 41.9% by the end of 2013. Within the next ten to fifteen
years, the Chinese oil demands and supply capacity is predicated
to approach a level of 750–800 million tons annually. The domestic
production of the crude will hardly exceed 200 million tons per
year, leaving the gap of about 550–600 million tons to be imported,
which is equivalent to an alarming oil self-sufficiency level of only
25–28%. This is in agreement with an IEA forecast which points to
China’s primary oil demand of 15.3 million barrels per day (about
700 million tons/a equivalent), and import dependency of 77%
[3]. Traditionally, energy products are supplied by processing
crude oil and natural gas. However, domestic production of oil
and natural gas is very limited because of a lack of reserves, and
in the past years, an ‘‘energy diplomatic politics’’ has been formed
for China during its economy boosting era. However, eventually it
is the trade balance as a decisive factor pushing China to convert
coal into energy products such as clean liquid fuels (CTL) and syn-
thetic natural gas (SNG), which can partially reduce the ever
increasing cost in importing these resources [4,5].
Coal to liquid has been a long story for China since the war time
in 1940s, which has been a debating topic for every stage formulat-
ing the country’s energy strategy [1,6]. Progresses from early
efforts were limited mainly resulting from the upheavals in
economics along with crude oil price fluctuations. The high oil
price since the end of 1990s has prompted the latest efforts in coal
to liquid development in the country: the route via gasification
and Fischer–Tropsch synthesis has been technically well developed
and many related processes have been tested. This article will
conduct a general review of these developments in this direction
and the future developments of these fields will be discussed on
the basis of the technological as well as industrial demands for
the future.
2. Syngas production and gasification technologies
2.1. Syngas production from coal
Syngas production is the key to high plant availability and
economic success for CTL/SNG projects. The gasification complex
for syngas production, gas conditioning and cleaning usually costs
about two thirds of the total direct capital investment of a CTL
plant. The gasification complex typically consists of units like coal
preparation, air separation (ASU), gasification, water gas shift
Fuel
Preparation
Fuels Raw
Syngas
Air Separation O2 Gasifier or
Unit Converters
Ash slag
Fig. 1. Typical syngas production complex.
123
converter (WGS) and gas purification (Rectisol and sulfur recovery)
(Fig. 1), which is a sophisticated plant and costly investment.
Depending on the regional difference in coal feedstock across
China, the gasification technology selection criteria has to take
the following parameters into consideration for evaluating the per-
formance of any industrial gasification process: (1) the energy con-
version efficiency; (2) carbon efficiency; (3) thermal efficiency; (4)
cold gas efficiency. Additionally, performance parameters such as
raw gas composition, capacity, operation pressure, coal and oxygen
consumption should also be compared. Details on gasification
chemistry, gasifier concepts, applications and research trends can
be referred to excellent reviews by Gräbner and Meyer [7] Higman
and Tam [8,9], Bell et al. [10] and Tang [11].
During the past twenty years, international as well as local gas-
ifier vendors are competing for licensing their technology in China
market, while local vendors have been investing heavily on invent-
ing and improving their technology to suit the specific requirement
of gasifying a variety of coal. As shown in Table 1, major vendors of
gasification technologies imported into China are Shell [3,12,13],
Siemens GSP [14–16], General Electric Energy (formerly
GE-Texaco) [17] and Lurgi [11,18]. Along the progress of coal
gasifier installation and commissioning in chemical, metallurgical
and town gas production industry and based on the knowledge
and operation experiences learned, several indigenous gasifier
concepts have been conceived and scaled up to commercial scales.
A summary of the performance comparison is given in Table 1,
which lists operation performances of Chinese gasification technol-
ogies including East China University of Science and Technology’s
Opposed multi-nozzle (ECUST-OMB) [19,20] and the Hangtian
Gasifier (HT-L) [20,21].
For coal and other solid fuel as feed, coal gasification process
operating typically at the temperature range from 900 °C to
1600 °C can be selected according to the properties of the feed.
Currently, there are several types of coal gasification technologies
that can be selected using solid fuel as a feedstock. Lurgi gasifica-
tion has been used to gasify tens of millions tons of high ash coal
annually in the world largest CTL facilities of Sasol, a well-known
South Africa company running CTL business since 1950s [22].
Recently, three CTL plants have been established based on the
MTFT (Medium Temperature Slurry Fischer–Tropsch Process) tech-
nology developed by Synfuels China [1,6]. The CTL plants have used
different types of gasification technologies, i.e., multi-slurry gasifi-
cation in Inner Mongolia Yitai plant, pressurized fixed bed gasifica-
tion in Shanxi Luan plant, and Shell dry powder gasification in
Inner Mongolia Shenhua plant.
The major concerns of syngas production units for the
successful industrial Fischer–Tropsch processes are:
(1) Maximized conversion efficiency in terms of specific fuel
feeds by taking care of the syngas production units
themselves and considering the integration of the whole
plant from the preparation of the feed to the final products.
CO2 S
Shifted
Syngas
WGS Rectisol
Converter Process
Steam
Purified
Syngas to
FT/SNG
124 J. Xu et al. / Fuel 152 (2015) 122–130

Table 1
Performance of major coal gasification technology in China [8,9,11–16,18–20,22,23].

Parameter/item Vendors/licensors
Shell SCGP Siemens/GSP Lurgi (Mark V) ECUST OMB HT-L GE-energy
Raw syngas (dry) (km3 (std)/h) 187–206 132–142 159–185 119–131
Raw syngas composition
CO (vol%) 60–65 65–75 16–28 61.6 61.9 39/45
H2 (vol%) 23.84; 18–23; 30 20–28 38–40 30.24; 37.6 26.3 38; 36.63
CO2 (vol%) 3.84; 2–3; 1.6 4–5 27–32 16.5; 4.51 8.2 21; 17.69
H2O (vol%) 0.1
CH4 (vol%) 100–200 ppm 0.05–0.1 7–12; 16–18 756 ppm 0.09
H2S (vol%) 0.3
Dry coal input (t/h) 2000–2850 2000–2300 1800 2500–3000 1800 2000
Operation pressure (MPa) 2.0–4.0 2.5–4.2 3.0–5.0 3.0–6.5 3.7–4.0 4.0–6.5; 8.7
Maximum gasification temperature (°C) 1400–1600 1350–1750 1300–1400 1400–1750 1300–1400
CO + H2 (vol%) 90–94 92–95 65 77; 81–83.4 86–92 78–81
Coal consumption (kg/kN m3) (H2 + CO) 635 653 693 640
Oxygen consumption (N m3/kN m3) (H2 + CO) 320; 330–360 331 160–270 432 322 380–430
Cold gas efficiency (%) 80–85 78–85 65–75 70–76 75–84 70–76
Carbon efficiency (%) >99 98–99 88–95 98.6–99.1 98–99.5 96–98
Thermal efficiency (%) 98 90 95–96 90–95

(2) Syngas process must be designed for maximizing the opera-
tion reliability.
(3) For typical CTL/SNG plant, 70–80% of the total water con-
sumption and emission of the entire plant are due to the
syngas production unit. Therefore, water saving and envi-
ronment protection must be seriously considered in the syn-
gas production process.
(4) The success of the gasification technology for solid fuel feeds
has been proven to rely heavily on the properties of the feed,
and the wrong selection of the gasification technology
always leads to the failure of the whole project.
(5) Upgrading the fuel feed to higher energy density should be
encouraged for the conversion of the low energy density
raw feed.
Syngas produced must be well conditioned and purified for
down-stream FTS. Generally, raw syngas from gasification unit
cannot meet the down-stream FTS requirement because of (1)
improper H2/CO ratio, (2) contents of sulfur and other poisoning
components, and (3) contents of significant amount of CO2 unde-
sired for the FTS loop. The ash or carbon dust contained in the
raw syngas is generally removed by wet scrubbing. For most coal
derived syngas, H2/CO ratio needs to be increased by using sul-
fur-resistance water–gas shift (WGS) unit, where the dust-free
syngas passes through the water–gas shift reactor, converting CO
into H2 through the water–gas shift reaction.
After the H2/CO ratio conditioning unit, the shifted syngas mix-
ture is introduced into the purification unit to remove sulfur, CO2,
and any other harmful components. The most effective technology
for this purpose is the Rectisol type of process, which uses metha-
nol as solvent for adsorbing these impurities and operates at cryo-
genic conditions. The Rectisol process outputs clean syngas to
typically sulfur content below 0.1 ppm and CO2 content less than
0.5 vol%, and the sulfur captured by the solvent can then be pro-
cessed to produce pure sulfur or sulfuric acid as by-product. After-
wards the syngas passes through a guard-bed filled with solid
adsorbents for further sulfur capture, leading to the final syngas
suitable for the CTL/SNG with a few ppb of sulfur. The sulfur con-
tent must strictly be suppressed during the syngas preparation
step. In the cases of FTS with the iron catalyst in the fixed bed,
the sulfur content below 0.1 ppm is safe, while the sulfur content
below 0.05 ppm is normally required for the iron catalyst in the
slurry bed. The sulfur content below 0.005 ppm is necessary for
the cobalt catalyst in the slurry bed.
2.2. Lurgi moving bed gasification
The Lurgi moving bed gasification was introduced into China for
ammonia and town gas production from coal in late 1970s. The fol-
lowing diagram shows schematic flow sheet of around Lurgi-type
gasifiers [11].
The original moving bed gasifier was designed for operation at
about 28–30 bar using granular coal with size between 8 mm
and 50 mm, for example in SASOL CTL plants and in early China’s
ammonia and town gas plants. The experiences from those plants
show that although mechanic maintenance efforts are demanded
due to these moving parts in the gasifier the overall availability
could be high when many units operate in parallel [8].
In China, many lessons have been learned from the operation of
the moving bed gasifiers. The coal selection must be carefully
considered in order to have successful operation. Normally, the
non-sticky coal with properly high mechanic strength and higher
melting point of ash (>1200 °C) can be easily handled in this type
of gasifier. The biggest problem is the heavy cost of the treatment
of large volume of waste-water (gas water) condensed from the
hot gas cooling system as shown in Fig. 2. Eventually, the gasifier
needs large volume of steam to be fed with oxygen to keep the
temperature in the combustion zone lower than the melting point
of ash, which increases coal contaminated water after the gas cool-
ing system. This not only causes high water consumption but also
creates challenges for down-stream waste water treatment.
Recent demands for synthetic natural gas (SNG) in China have
greatly promoted the mass application of Lurgi-type gasification
because of the advantage with high content of methane from coal
pyrolysis being maintained only from Lurgi-type gasifier. From
these SNG projects, even much more lessons have been added:
(1) corrosion problems arising from the coal with high salt (Na,
K) contents (close to 10% in ash); (2) corrosion problems probably
resulting from higher pressure up to 45 bars; (3) much waste water
produced from high moisture coal feed and higher added steam
and from coal with lower melting temperature (1100 °C). These
lessons have shown that a systematic research and development
is still required for further improvement of this old version of gas-
ification technology.
It is also worth mentioning a moving bed slagging gasifier orig-
inally developed by British gas and Lurgi, called BGL gasifier, which
is an extension of original Lurgi moving bed gasifier with the ash
discharge oriented for slagging conditions. Because the gasifier
can be operated at higher combustion temperature, the capacity
 J. Xu et al. / Fuel 152 (2015) 122–130 125

Coal

LP steam
Lock gas
Coal BFW
BFW
lock Dewater gas
Raw gas
300-520oC

BFW BFW

Gasifer

Gas water Gas water Gas water

Steam
Water jacket
Oxygen
Steam
Recycling
Ash
water
lock

Ash

Fig. 2. Typical scheme for moving bed gasifers.

Gas water

Oxygen

Washing
tower Dust free
Gasificaon wet raw gas
chamber

Coal Quench water

Wet raw gas
with dust
Exit Black water recycle
Coal Slurry

Mill
Dust lean water
Coal Slurry

Waste water

Ash
lock
Slurry tank Slurry pump

Black water recycle

Dust rich water
Ash/slagg

Fig. 3. Entrained flow gasification with coal–water slurry.

is higher and the steam consumption is significantly reduced,
therefore largely reducing the problematic waste water [8]. High
oxygen consumption and lower methane content in the gas stream
is the major pay-off from Lurgi upgraded to BGL.
2.3. Entrained flow gasification
The entrained flow gasification with coal–water slurry as feed
first invented by Texaco was introduced into China for ammonia
projects in 1980 [24]. The gasification uses coal–water slurry as
feed at the top of the gasifier vessel, which reacts with oxygen at
temperature between 1300 and 1400 °C, ensuring the ash in the
melting state in the gasification chamber (Fig. 3). The hot gas and
melting ash flowing down through the refractory wall are
quenched with water at the top of the down pipe, where both
gas and ash are cooled quickly. The quenched gas and ash pass
down to the down pipe into a water bath at the bottom of the gas-
ifier vessel. The gas is then washed in the bath and flows up
through the baffles between the outer wall of the down pipe and
the gasifier vessel and exits the vessel. The ash is removed from
the bottom of the gasifier vessel through a slag lock. The gas is fur-
ther washed in a washing tower to remove the carried dust.
This type of the gasification produces good quality syngas with
H2/CO ratio of 0.7–0.85 and a low methane content, which is suit-
able for F–T synthesis. In addition, a fraction of polluted water can
be consumed by water slurry benefiting the environmental protec-
tion efforts. However, the high oxygen consumption and lower
energy efficiency due to the low energy density in the water
126
Pulverized
Coal stack
Coal
Coal powder
lock
Mill
Hot flue gas
Coal powder
Feeding tank
Carrying gas
CO2
Fig. 4. HTL gasification system developed in China.
diluted feed is the major disadvantage of this gasification system
although much experiences have been accumulated in the large
scale operation.
The original Texaco gasifier uses single jet (at the top of the
gasification vessel). The latest development for coal–water slurry
gasifier is expanded to multiple jets around the upper part of the
gasifier with the top jet, which leads to better flow field in the com-
bustion chamber and therefore higher conversion of carbon in
flowing ash. With multiple jets, the gasifier can be easily scaled
up to a capacity of processing 3000–4000 t coal per day [19].
The HTL gasification system developed in China is designed to
use dry pulverized coal. The cooling screen around the gasification
chamber is used to protect the pressurized vessel from the high
gasification temperature (1350–1600 °C). More than thirty HTL
gasifiers have been constructed for ammonia and methanol pro-
jects in the past ten years in China. After the gasification chamber,
the major design is quite similar to that in coal–water slurry gasifi-
ers (Fig. 4). A similar gasification system but with different struc-
ture in the gasifier is GSP gasification (now owned by Siemens).
Five GSP gasifiers have been used in methanol to propylene
(MTP) project in Ningxia. From the initial operation tests of these
dry feed gasification system, major issue is that flying ash carrying
high carbon content causes down-stream problems and low carbon
conversion (93–95%). After major modification in gas washing sys-
tem, long term operation can be achieved, especially for GSP gasi-
fication system [8].
Shell gasification is another type of system applied in ammonia,
direct coal liquefaction, and recently indirect coal liquefaction pro-
jects [12]. Empowered by lessons learned from previous projects,
this type of gasification system is approaching long term operation
with high carbon conversion. A dry gas cleaning system consisted
of filtration units is used in capturing flying ash from the gas
stream at about 300 °C downstream the gasification and boiler
train. Because less water is consumed in the Shell gasifier, the syn-
gas thus generated has very low moisture, which requires addi-
tional steam from the hot gas driven boiler in the WGS unit.
Major issue in selecting Shell gasifier is its high capital cost result-
ing from the boiler and filtration system and the WGS system [11].
J. Xu et al. / Fuel 152 (2015) 122–130
Oxygen
Gas water
Washing
tower
Gasificaon
chamber Dust free
wet raw gas
Quench water
Exit
Wet raw gas
with dust
Black water recycle
Dust lean water
Ash
lock
Black water recycle
Dust rich water
Ash/slagg
The major gasification technologies used in China in the past fif-
teen years are listed in Table 1 with some important performance
parameters. The experiences in the application of gasification tech-
nologies in China can be summarized here:
(1) The long and stable operation has been achieved for water-
slurry, Shell, HTL, GSP gasification system;
(2) Coal property control for a specific gasification technology is
very critical for reach good performance;
(3) The higher throughput of single train gasifiers can signifi-
cantly reduce the cost;
(4) Moving bed gasification system is safe for some hard coal
with sufficient mechanic strength and higher ash melting
point;
(5) For most of the water-slurry gasification, the oxygen con-
sumption is high, and the energy efficient is low due to
diluted energy density of coal feed by water;
(6) For most of the dry feed entrained flow gasification technol-
ogies, high power consumption of feeding system counter-
acts part of the efficiency gained from higher energy
density in dry feed;
(7) For HTL and GSP gasifiers, it is more difficult to form slag
film on the cool screen than for Shell gasifiers due to differ-
ent flow field in the combustion chamber;
(8) HTL and GSP gasification technologies have lower carbon
conversion due to the high flowing ash with high carbon
content;
(9) Single jet entrained flow gasifier is difficult to scale up to the
capacity 3000–4000 t/d.
(10) Moving bed gasification has not reached to success in recent
large scale project due to coal properties and the very low
capacity of this type of gasifier;
(11) High steam demands and large waste water production are
major issues existing in the Lurgi type moving bed gasifier
with solid ash removal.
Recent efforts in China will greatly promote the improvement of
all kinds of involved gasification technologies. The important
 J. Xu et al. / Fuel 152 (2015) 122–130 127

aspects will focus on scaling up to the capacity of 4000 ton coal per Coal Steam
day for entrained flow gasification, realizing a pump for pressuriz- Water Power Station Power Air Separation Air
ing pulverized coal to replace the power demanding feeding sys-
Steam & Power
tem for dry feed entrained flow systems, and improving the dry to all units
Oxygen
feed gasifiers and its syngas composition in terms of WGS cost,
waste water generation and the heat removal from hot gas after Coal Raw
gasification chamber. Additional efforts is a completely new Gasification WGS Purification
Syngas
scheme for black water from gasification and gas water from syn- Clean Syngas
gas condensates for all type, especially Lurgi-type, of gasification
technologies. Syngas Syncrude Product Fuel
Conversion upgrading Products
3. Gasification-based coal conversion processes development Fig. 5. Schematic process diagram of a typical coal conversion plant.

3.1. CTL and SNG projects in China

CTL and SNG have been paid great attention recently in China,
with mega projects approved by the central government as an
important strategic development of the national energy system
(see Table 2) [5,25,26]. Both CTL and SNG share the same kind of
syngas generation and cleaning units and utilities prior to the syn-
gas conversion unit, where FT synthesis and methanation taking
place respectively. The synthetic products are upgraded to either
liquid fuels or synthetic natural gas as final outputs as schemati-
cally shown in Fig. 5.
The striving to meet challenges in energy independence and
environmental concerns has led to the recent booming in research
and project activities in coal to liquid fuels (CTL) and coal to syn-
thetic natural gas (SNG). A summary of government approved
CTL/SNG projects are listed in Table 2. For detailed history and
research progresses in CTL technology, please refer to reviews by
Maitlis and de Clerk [6], Liu [27], Tang [28] and Yang [29]. Here,
an updated summary on the technology development and the
engineering experience learned from these projects will be given
for further enhancing energy efficiency and economics from whole
plant integration and optimization.
In terms of project experience, Shenhua Energy is the only
entity conducting research and commercialization of direct coal
liquefaction (DCTL) technology. A pilot plant of 1800 ton per year
was built in Shanghai to collect process design package data in
2003. Afterwards, the first government approved Shenhua DCTL
1.08 million ton/year demonstration project started construction
work in April, 2005, which was commissioned in December 30,
2008. After more than three years hard work and steady improve-
ment in the process, the plant was reported to be running
smoothly. However, no operation process data and further expan-
sion plan was reported elsewhere, especially in the open literature
[28,30].
In contrast, the indirect coal liquefaction (ICTL) technology for
producing mainly ultra clean diesel fuel is well established in the
engineering field and is steadily pushing forward even under strict
government control. The latest development is the government
approved commercial scale four million ton per year Shenhua–
Ningmei project. The construction work was started in 2013 and
is scheduled to commission in 2017. In addition, the Shanxi Luan
High Sulphur Coal Co-production project also started construction
in 2013. The technology for these two projects is both licensed by
Synfuels China, which provided licensors to three 160 kt/a
demonstration projects in 2009. At the same time, Yankuang
Shaanxi Yulin 1 million ton per year ICTL project is under construc-
tion, targeting to be commissioned in 2015. Yankuang energy
carried 4500 t/a pilot scale test in 2004. More projects are pro-
posed at the feasibility stage in remote provinces such as Xinjiang
and Inner Mongolia, with technology mainly from Synfuels China.
According to the latest information, the total ICTL capacity will
reach 10–16 million ton/a in 2018.
3.2. Syngas conversion technologies
Syngas produced in the coal gasification stage can be converted
to different hydrocarbon products:
To methane via methanation reaction
CO þ 3H2 ¼ CH4 þ H2 O DH ¼ 206 kJ ð1Þ
To widely distributed hydrocarbons from C1 to C100+ via
Fischer–Tropsch synthesis
CO þ 2H2 ¼ —CH2 — ðhydrocarbonsÞ þ H2 O DH ¼ 160 kJ ð2Þ
The above synthesis reactions are the bases of the processes for
the coal to clean fuels via gasification.

Table 2
A summary of major CTL/SNG research and development projects in China.

CTL/SNG project Capacity Commission timing Location Gasifier licensor Synthesis technology licensor
ICC slurry bed reactor pilot test 750–1000 t/a 2000–2002 Taiyuan ICC MFT
Yankuang industrial test plant 4500 t/a 2003–2004 Lunan ECUST-OMB Yankuang Fe-LTFT
Yitai ICTL Demonstration 160 kt/a 2009–2011 Dalu Texaco Synfuels China MTFT
Luan ICTL Demonstration 160 kt/a 2009 Tunliu Lurgi Synfuels China MTFT
Shenhua ICTL Demonstration 180 kt/a 2009–2010 Majiata Shell Synfuels China MTFT
Shenhua-Ningmei ICTL 4 Mt/a 2016 Yinchuan, Ningxia Siemens-GSP Synfuels China MTFT
Shanxi Luan High Sulphur Coal Co-production 1 Mt/a 2015 Changzhi Lurgi Synfuels China MTFT
Yankuang Shaanxi Yulin ICTL 1 Mt/a 2015 Yulin ECUST Yankuang ICTL
Yitai Xinjiang ICTL 2 Mt/a Xinjiang Synfuels China MTFT
Yitai Yili ICTL 1 Mt/a Yili Synfuels China MTFT
Datang International Power Keqi SNG 4 bn N m3/a 2012 Hexigten Lurgi Lurgi
Datang International Power Fuxin SNG 4 bn N m3/a Fuxin, Liaoning Province Lurgi
Huineng Coal Power Erdos SNG 1.6 bn N m3/a Erdos, Inner Mongolia
Qinghua Yili SNG 1.4 bn N m3/a Ili, Xinjiang Haldor Topsoe TREMP™
Sinopec Zhundong SNG Demonstration 30 bn N m3/a Zhundong, Xinjiang
128
SNG cooler
Synthesis
water
Diluted syngas
BFW
Reacted gas
Heat exchanger
Reactor I
Fresh syngas
600-700 oC
MP steam
Recycling gas
Fig. 6. An optional flow sheet for the methanation process.
As shown in Fig. 5, the syngas production complex for SNG pro-
cess is identical to that of the CTL. However, for SNG the preferred
gasification technology is Lurgi-type process, mainly for its high
methane generation in gasifiers. The crude syngas can contain up
to 16–18% methane which significantly reduces the methanation
unit load downstream.
For synthetic natural gas processes, the reaction (1) is typically
conducted in fixed bed reactors with supported Ni catalysts at
350–700 °C and 15–30 bar. The reaction process is highly exother-
mic and an integrated process needs to manage the temperature
control for the synthesis reactors and the efficient reaction heat
recovery. Fig. 6 shows an optional flow sheet for the methanation
process with reaction and heat recovery management.
The major methanation processes currently introduced into
China are mainly from Haldor Topsoe (TREMP), Davy (CRG) and
Lurgi technologies. Application of these SNG technologies have
shown that methanation processes are rather stable for operation
and care must be taken for the productivity margins for the cata-
lytic process in order to keep the sufficient conversion level of syn-
gas and to achieve the high methane content (higher than 95%)
required for pipeline gas in China, namely the catalyst charge
should be sufficient for long term operation with required syngas
conversion capability.
For producing liquid hydrocarbons, the Fischer–Tropsch reac-
tion in reaction (2) plays major role in syngas conversion. Practi-
cally, this reaction is typically catalyzed by either cobalt or iron
based catalysts at 190–360 °C and 15–50 bars, leading to low tem-
perature (190–240 °C, cobalt and iron as catalysts), medium tem-
perature (260–300 °C, iron as catalysts), and high temperature
(320–360 °C, iron as catalysts) Fischer–Tropsch synthesis pro-
cesses named as LTFT, MTFT and HTFT processes. Currently, LTFT
has mainly been applied with cobalt catalyst by Shell and SASOL
in gas to liquids projects, MTFT with iron catalysts by Synfules
China in Coal to liquids projects, and HTFT with iron catalysts by
SASOL for coal to liquids projects [6].
Obviously, Fischer–Tropsch synthesis reaction is also very
exothermic although less than methanation, and the integration
J. Xu et al. / Fuel 152 (2015) 122–130
Reacted gas
SNG dryer
Reactor II
500 oC SNG product
Reactor III
350 oC
BFW MP steam Raw SNG
BFW
LP steam
BFW
of an efficient Fischer–Tropsch synthesis loop is much more com-
plicated than SNG processes due to the Fischer–Tropsch catalysts
and the reactor unit are of much more complex in operation than
those for methanation. Fig. 7 shows a typical F–T loop for the MTFT
process developed by Synfuels China.
Past experiences has shown that the new generation of high
temperature (270–290 °C) slurry phase FTS catalyst and process
(or internationally referred to as MTFT process) can greatly
increase the hydrocarbon productivity. In contrast to the conven-
tional low temperature slurry bed process, MTFT process boosts
the hydrocarbon productivity from 0.25–0.3 to 0.8–1.2 g C3+/
g cat/h, while decreasing the methane selectivity from 5–10 wt%
to 2.5–4 wt%. Moreover, the operating temperature of the MTFT
process is increased to approximately 275 °C by using the specially
designed iron-based catalyst. The major advantages of Synfuels
China’s MTFT over conventional low temperature slurry processes
are: (i) lower (about 1/3) solid catalyst charge in the slurry bed
reactor due to the ultra-active F–T synthesis catalyst used, (ii) effi-
cient recovery of F–T synthesis reaction heat from the slurry bed
reactor as steam up to 30 bars, resulting in an improved energy
efficiency, (iv) production of high quality F–T synthesis syncrudes
with very low oxygenates, especially acids (about 1/3), and (v) easy
retrofit to both CTL and GTL processes.
The experiences gained from the early demonstration projects
for CTL (5000 b/d) and SNG (1300 Mm3/a) have shown that CTL
projects are economically competitive with the current high oil
price, while SNG projects are economically not attractive, espe-
cially for the projects with all the methane produced from syngas
methanation in the case of using other gasification technologies
than the Lurgi-type moving bed due mainly to the natural gas
prices is much lower compared to motor fuels in the China market.
In other words, for SNG projects, it is true that the Lurgi-type gas-
ification has to be chosen for high methane production through
pyrolysis of coal in the gasifier rather than synthesis from CO
and H2. Comparing the liquid and methane production from
synthesis is useful to understand the economical status of the
SNG and CTL projects as shown in the chemical balances of the
 J. Xu et al. / Fuel 152 (2015) 122–130
Heat exchanger
MP
steam
Wax
Filtraon unit
back flushing gas
BFW
MTFT slurry reactor
Fresh syngas
Fig. 7. A typical F–T loop for the MTFT process developed by Synfuels China.
Table 3
Typical balance data from 1000 N m3 syngas CO + H2 to fuels.
Processes Syngas Products Notes
conversion (%) yields (kg)
SNG 98 175 CH4 as product
CTL 96 188 LPG + liquid selectivity 94%
two processes. The typical performance parameters are summa-
rized in Table 3.
The current cost from CTX plant of the above products in China
are 2800 RMB/ton for pipe line natural gas (methane basis) and
7000 RMB for the average CTL liquid products. It is obvious that
the SNG from syngas is hardly economical competitive while CTL
can be very competitive although the capital cost is 1.5 times to
an equivalent SNG projects with the same thermal capacity. How-
ever, if the methane can be produced in the gasification stage like
in Lurgi-type moving bed gasification, the directly produced meth-
ane can be very economically competitive due to higher efficiency
and lower conversion cost.
The recent effort from Synfuels China is to combine the SNG and
FTS processes together by using moving bed gasification, in which
the methane from gasification and in Fischer–Tropsch tail gas is
separated as natural gas products (SNG or LNG) and the syngas
after separation of methane is fed into Fischer–Tropsch loop to pro-
duce liquids. The combined scheme shows high energy efficiency
up to 60% comparing to the single CTL plant of 45%, and the
economics becomes much better than single CTL projects, showing
strong growing potentials with the frame of the clean coal
development policy in the country.
4. Perspectives
The increasing demand for clean energy products is one of the
major driving forces for the development of coal conversion
processes on the basis of the gasification in China. The recent CTL
and SNG projects approved by the central government have experi-
enced hardest stages for scaling up clean coal processes. These pro-
cesses have provided unique platforms for demonstrating new
technologies covering improved or newly developed gasification
129
Air cooler
Separator
Separator
Heavy Light F-T
condensates condensates water
Recycling gas Recycling
compressor
CO2
De-CO 2 gas
Benfield
Adsorbor
technologies, advanced synthesis technologies, and improved
waste management technologies.
Large scale gasification technologies are mainly focused on the
dry feed entrained flow gasification. The latest effort is to demon-
strate a 4000 t/d dry feed entrained flow gasifier with partial
quenching by water and steam (to 900–950 °C), where the water
gas shift is significant, leading to an increase of H2/CO ratio from
0.3 to about 0.8. This gasification technology may significantly
reduce the cost of gasification and the downstream water–gas shift
in a CTX project. Another major improvement for gasification is to
demonstrate the polluted water recycling within the gasification
process for both moving bed gasification as well as the new partial
quench gasification. This type of effort may significantly reduce the
waste water treatment load and save the fresh water feed.
The development of new syngas conversion technologies are
also emphasized especially for highly efficient conversion catalyst.
The next generation F–T catalyst is in the stage of pilot plant devel-
opment, aiming at much higher productivity to the level of
2000 ton oil/t catalyst (currently 1000 t/t catalyst). The gasoline
process via MTFT processes is under demonstration stage, aiming
at the supper clean gasoline supply for large cities.
The integration of the CTL/SNG processes has arisen many new
requirements for utilities in terms of the stringent regulations.
Water saving investment with closed cycling has been used in sev-
eral CTL projects, significantly reducing the water consumption
from the standard of 8 t/t oil to 3–4 t/t oil. Several projects have
undergone the CO2 emission control by large investment in plant-
ing trees in the rural land around the project site.
5. Conclusions
(1) China has to convert its abundant coal to clean fuels for envi-
ronmental and economic reasons. Numerous large CTL/SNG
projects are under construction with processes integrating
a variety of advanced international as well as domestic gas-
ification technologies, aiming to improve the energy effi-
ciency and process economics.
(2) From data obtained from CTL (5000 b/d) and SNG
(1300 Mm3/a) projects, it can be concluded that CTL projects
are economically competitive with the current oil price,
130 J. Xu et al. / Fuel 152 (2015) 122–130
while projects for SNG produced from syngas methanation
are not, especially under the current relatively low natural
gas price in China. Therefore, one option is to combine the
SNG and FTS processes together by using moving bed gasifi-
cation to improve energy efficiency and economics.
(3) The integrated SNG/FTS process scheme recently developed
by Synfuels China can achieve an energy efficiency up to
60% and great economics potentials in clean coal conversion.
Acknowledgments
We thank the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(20703054), the National Basic Research program of China (973
Program, 2011CB201401) and the National High Technology
Research and Development Program of China (863 program,
2011AA05A205). This work is also supported by Synfuels China
Co., Ltd.
References
[1] Vertes AA, Qureshi N, Blaschek HP, Yukawa H. Biomass to biofuels: strategies
for global industries. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.; 2010.
[2] Xie K, Sun Q, editors. Coal indirect liquefaction. Beijing: Chemical Industry
Press; 2012.
[3] Zhao L, Gallagher KS. Research, development, demonstration, and early
deployment policies for advanced-coal technology in China. Energy Policy
2007;35:6467–77.
[4] Jin E, Zhang Y, He L, Gordon Harris H, Teng B, Fan M. Indirect coal to liquid
technologies. Appl Catal A: Gen 2014;476:158–74.
[5] Ding Y, Han W, Chai Q, Yang S, Shen W. Coal-based synthetic gas (SNG): a
solution to China’s energy security and CO2 reduction. Energy Policy
2013;55:445–53.
[6] Maitlis PM, de Klerk A, editors. Greener Fischer–Tropsch processes for fuels
and feedstocks. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA;
2013.
[7] Grabner M, Meyer B. Performance and exergy analysis of the current
developments in coal gasification technology. Fuel 2014;116:910–20.
[8] Higman C, van der Burgt M. Gasification. Oxford: Gulf Professional Publishing;
2008.
View publication stats
[9] Higman C, Tam S. Advances in coal gasification, hydrogenation, and gas treating
for the production of chemicals and fuels. Chem Rev 2013;114:1673–708.
[10] Bell DA, Towler BF, Fan M. Coal gasification and its applications. Oxford: William
Andrew; 2011.
[11] Tang H. Coal gasification technology development trend. Chem Eng Des
Commun 2013;39:1–11. in Chinese.
[12] Gong J. Shell coal gasification technology and its engineering applications.
Chem Fertil Des 2007;45:8–18. in Chinese.
[13] Zheng Z. Features of shell coal gasification technology. Coal Chem Ind
2003;31:7–11. in Chinese.
[14] Zhao R, Li L, Zhang F, Hu Y. GSP gasification technology of the future energy
company. Coal Chem Ind 2005;33:19–22. in Chinese.
[15] Huang W, Ma Y. Process analysis on syngas production with GSP coal
gasification technology. Mod Chem Ind 2013;33:93–6. in Chinese.
[16] Tang H. GSP process technology. Medium-sized Nitrogen Fertil Prog
2005:14–8.
[17] Ma L, Jiao H, Ren S. Application analysis on Texaco and GSP coal gasification
technologies adopted by the Shenhua Ningxia coal group. Coal Chem Ind
2013;41:51–4. in Chinese.
[18] Cai D, Wang L, Xu J, Wang Z. Present status and analysis on coal gasification
technology for SNG. Clean Coal Technol 2011;17:44–7. in Chinese.
[19] Dai Z, Gong X, Guo X, Liu H, Wang F, Yu Z. Pilot-trial and modeling of a new
type of pressurized entrained-flow pulverized coal gasification technology.
Fuel 2008;87:2304–13.
[20] Guo X, Dai Z, Gong X, Chen X, Liu H, Wang F, et al. Performance of an
entrained-flow gasification technology of pulverized coal in pilot-scale plant.
Fuel Process Technol 2007;88:451–9.
[21] Li Y. Analysis of entrained-bed coal gasification technology. Technol Dev Chem
Ind 2013;42:26–8. in Chinese.
[22] van Dyk JC, Keyser MJ, Coertzen M. Syngas production form South African coal
sources using Sasol-Lurgi gasifiers. Int J Coal Geol 2006;65:243–53.
[23] Guo X, Tong W. Advantages of HT-L gasification technology in industry. Chem
Eng Des Commun 2012;38:64–9. in Chinese.
[24] He Y, editor. Handbook of modern coal chemical engineering
technology. Beijing: Chemical Industry Press; 2003.
[25] Lin H, Li K, Zhao L. Status and development of coal to SNG. Shanghai Chem Ind
2010;35:25–8. in Chinese.
[26] Guo D. Study on China coal SNG development status. Guangzhou Chem Ind
2013;41:26–7.
[27] Liu Z, Shi S, Li Y-w. Coal liquefaction technologies-development in China and
challenges in chemical reaction engineering. Chem Eng Sci 2010;65:12–7.
[28] Tang H. Six turns of enthusiasm waves in coal chemical industry development.
Chem Eng Des Commun 2011;37:1–9. in Chinese.
[29] Yang C. Developing modern coal chemical industry to reduce dependence on
foreign petroleum. Sino-Glob Energy 2013;18:1–5. in Chinese.
[30] Zhang H. Shenhua Group’s practice and endeavors in coal liquefaction and
chemical industry fields. China Petrol Chem Stand Qual 2012;33:51.