Energy 267 (2023) 126634

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

A new process splitting analytical method for the coal-based Allam cycle:
Thermodynamic assessment and process integration
Tuantuan Xin a, Cheng Xu a, *, Yongping Yang a, Vladimir Kindra b, Andrey Rogalev b
a
Key Laboratory of Power Station Energy Transfer Conversion and System of Ministry of Education, North China Electric Power University, Beijing, 102206, China
b
Department of Innovative Technologies of High-Tech Industries, National Research University “Moscow Power Engineering Institute”, Moscow, 111250, Russia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: L Luo Coal-based Allam cycle, an efficient oxy-fuel combustion semi-closed supercritical carbon dioxide (sCO2) cycle
coupled to coal gasification, can realize the zero carbon emission to the atmosphere. The aim of this study is to
Keywords: develop a new process splitting analytical method to clearly illustrate the energy conversion performance of the
Allam cycle complex system and guide the process integration for efficiency improvement. Based on the new analytical
Coal gasification
method, the basic coal-based Allam cycle is split into four parts, including a closed sCO2 cycle, a closed steam
Efficiency improvement
Rankine cycle, open process and air separation unit (ASU). Then, the process splitting analytical models are
Process integration
Process splitting constructed and the process integration is carried out in three aspects: the heat integration of ASU, the steam
Thermodynamic analysis extraction for pre-drying and gasification, and the integration of sCO2 cycle for heat recovery of raw syngas.
Finally, the net efficiency of the modified coal-based Allam cycle is improved to 42.48% using the new process
splitting analytical method, which is 3.68% points higher than that of the basic configuration. The developed
process splitting analytical method might give a new perspective to evaluate the energy conversion performance
of the complex coal-based semi-closed power cycle in a clear and simple way.

1. Introduction • For oxy-fuel combustion, the fuel is combusted with high-purity

Coal plays a vital role in electricity generation worldwide. Coal-fired
power plants currently fuel 37% of global electricity and will still
generate 22% of the world’s electricity in 2040 [1]. However, burning
coal releases a large amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the environment
of above 0.7–1 kg_CO2/kWh [2]. CO2 is called a greenhouse gas because
it traps heat in the atmosphere [3]. To reduce the CO2 emission, 80% of
coal use is expected to be equipped with Carbon Capture and Storage
(CCS) by 2050, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA) [4].
There are three major technological routes used for CO2 capture [5],
termed as post-combustion, pre-combustion, and oxy-fuel combustion.
• Post-combustion capture is usually applied to the conventional pul­
verized coal-fired plants, which scrubs the flue gas exhausted from
the boiler by chemical solvents.
• Pre-combustion capture should be integrated with the gasification,
using a shifted reactor to convert steam (H2O) and CO to H2 (fuel)
and CO2 (that is captured by chemical solvents).
oxygen and the component of the flue gas is nearly pure CO2,
which can be directly captured and stored after cooling process.
CCS technologies above can limit carbon emissions from coal-fired
power plants, but also decreases the net efficiency with the energy
penalty for CO2 separation and compression [6]. To reduce energy
consumption, the carbon capture technologies can be improved by
development of new absorbents with lower heat requirement and opti­
mization of operation parameters and processes. Sharifzadeh et al. [7]
compared a new amine-promoted buffer salt solvent and the conven­
tional monoethanolamine baseline solvent for CO2 capture and the re­
sults showed that the net efficiency of the pulverized coal power plant
with CCS using the new solvent is 1.3 %-points higher. Garlapalli et al.
[8] integrated a novel heat recovery unit with the CCS in coal fired
power plants, which recovered thermal energy contained in flue gas to
lower reboiler heat duty by 31.2%, and the net conversion efficiency of
power plant could increase by 0.5 %-points compared to basic case.
Wang et al. [9] proposed a new CO2 capture system driven by double
absorption heat transformer to upgrade low-temperature steam into a
higher level to match the temperature of CO2 regeneration. For the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: xucheng@ncepu.edu.cn (C. Xu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.126634
Received 11 August 2022; Received in revised form 30 November 2022; Accepted 5 January 2023
Available online 7 January 2023
0360-5442/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Xin et al.
pre-combustion capture in the coal fueled power plant integrated with
gasification, in addition to the adoption of the new absorbents and
process/parameter optimization, the energy penalty can be reduced by
improving the CO shift process. Gazzani et al. [10] applied the sorption
enhanced water gas shift, which could combine CO2 conversion and
removal, to the pre-combustion capture process, and the net electric
efficiency was calculated as 36.3%–37.7% with the 90%–98% CO2
captured. For the oxy-fuel combustion capture, the energy consumption
for CO2 separation is pretty low due to the high concentration in the flue
gas but the required high-purity oxygen for combustion, produced by air
separation unit (ASU), has to consume a great amount of energy [11].
The development of the CCS technologies can effectively reduce the
energy consumption for carbon capture but the efficiency of the power
plant with CCS is usually lower than the current power plants without
CCS by 7–11 %-points.
To offset the energy penalty for CCS, the power plant can adopt the
higher efficiency thermodynamic cycle, e.g., supercritical CO2 (sCO2)
cycle, in which the sCO2 is used as the working fluid for power gener­
ation [12]. The sCO2 cycle features the advantages of both Bryton cycle
and Rankine cycle [13]: (1) the phase is gas during recuperation process
to reduce the exergy destruction; and (2) the power consumption of
compression is low due to the small compressibility factor near the
critical point. The sCO2 cycle can be applied to the power plants driven
by concentrated solar energy, nuclear fission as well as fossil fuel, e.g.,
coal. Mecheri et al. [14] investigated the sCO2 cycles applied to coal
power plant and found that the novel plant theoretically offered satis­
factory thermodynamic performance with the 47.8% efficiency based on
lower heating value (LHV). Sun et al. [15] proposed the overlap ab­
sorption of flue gas energy for the sCO2 coal fired power plant, using
bottom cycle to absorb a part of high temperature flue gas heat, which
can effectively improve the energy conversion efficiency of the overall
system. Liu et al. [16] compared the performance of coal fired power
plants integrated with sCO2 cycle and steam Rankine cycle, and found
that the decrease in heat transfer irreversibility in the boilers mainly
caused the efficiency enhancements of 2.52%–2.84%. To reduce the
carbon footprints, the coal fired sCO2 cycle should adopt the CCS tech­
nologies. Olumayegun et al. [17] evaluated the thermodynamic per­
formance of sCO2 cycles for coal fired power generation with solvent
based CO2 capture. Results showed that the net efficiency of the sCO2
cycle plant was 0.68–1.31% higher than the supercritical steam cycle
with CCS but the plant net efficiency is still relatively low of 31.13%–
31.76% based on higher heating value (HHV).
Among various CCS technologies, today there is an increasing in­
terest in the oxy-combustion semi-closed power cycles, which use
recycled CO2 and/or H2O as working fluid instead of air and realize
nearly zero carbon emission to the atmosphere [18]. Allam cycle, pro­
posed by R.J. Allam et al. [19], is an oxy-combustion semi-closed sCO2
cycle, which employs sCO2 as working fluid and can reach a competitive
efficiency compared with the best current systems without CO2 capture.
Due to the superior performance, this advanced zero-emission cycle has
attracted a great deal of attention amongst the communities for research
and development of the fossil-fueled power generation. Scaccabarozzi
et al. [20] confirmed the outstanding performance of the
natural-gas-fired Allam cycle with the maximum efficiency of 54.8% by
a thorough thermodynamic analysis and optimization. For the
coal-based Allam cycle, the coal should be converted to syngas by
gasification. Weiland et al. [21] make a techno-economic analysis of an
integrated gasification coal-fired Allam cycle and the plant thermal ef­
ficiency can reach 40.6% including CCS, which is superior to the con­
ventional integrated gasification combined cycle using the same gasifier.
Luo et al. [22] investigated the exergy performance of the coal-fired
Allam cycle, and declared that there is some potential for improving
the overall efficiency by integrating the ASU with the remaining system.
Zhao et al. [23] conducted the simultaneous optimization and heat
integration of the Allam cycle coupled to coal gasification process and
the net efficiency can be increase from 39.29% to 41.41% by heat
2
Energy 267 (2023) 126634
integration of ASU and optimization of the CO2 turbine. Xin et al. [24]
also integrated the Allam cycle with the coal-to-methanol process to
recover the unreacted syngas for power generation with nearly zero
emission, and the net power output of the novel system is 29.4% greater
than the conventional system integrated with the combined cycle and
pre-combustion carbon capture.
Aforementioned investigations demonstrated that the Allam cycle
used for coal fueled power generation has the potential to realize both
the zero emission and high energy conversion efficiency. Moreover, the
thermodynamic performance of the coal-based Allam cycle can be
further improved by process integration, e.g. heat integration of ASU
and efficient recovery of the heat released by the raw syngas cooling.
Although some studies have been conducted to show the efficiency en­
hancements of the modified coal-based Allam cycle by simulation of the
overall system, the energy saving mechanism is still unclear and thus it is
hard to carry out the process integration in a simple and clear way, e.g.
why integration of the ASU with recuperation process can improve the
net power efficiency? Is the heat recovered from the raw syngas cooling
used for steam generation or integrated with the sCO2 cycle? Is the
required steam for pre-drying and gasification of coal from the heat
recovery of raw syngas or the extraction of the steam turbine? In pre­
vious studies [25,26], we have proposed a general simple method for
evaluate the process modification of thermal cycles, named as thermal
cycle splitting analytical method, which can visually illustrate the
effectiveness of different modification measures by the constructed
“equivalent power cycle”. Sun et al. [27] also proposed an analytical
constituent split method to analyze a semi-closed sCO2 cycle, which
equivalently splits the semi-closed cycle into an open cycle of fuel and
oxidant and a closed sCO2 cycle for deepening the understanding of the
cycle. If the process splitting analytical idea is applied to the coal-based
Allam cycle, the superior thermodynamic performance can be clarified
and the benefit of the process integration can also be revealed by the
constructed splitting analytical models, which might help to guide the
process integration of the coal-based Allam cycle for efficiency
improvement.
Against the backdrop, a thorough process splitting analysis is con­
ducted for the coal-based Allam cycle to illustrate the energy conversion
performance and thermodynamic benefit of the process integration in a
simple and clear way. In this study, the coal-based Allam cycle is first
split into several energy conversion processes, regarding the oxy-fuel
combustion, closed thermal cycles, heat recovery of the raw syngas
cooling and air compression in ASU. Then, the process splitting
analytical models are constructed to evaluate the energy conversion of
these processes. Finally, the split processes are coordinately combined to
improve the net efficiency of the overall power generation system.
2. Process splitting of the coal-based allam cycle
2.1. Coal-based Allam cycle and process integration
For the coal-based Allam cycle electric power generation system, the
coal is gasified into syngas and then the gaseous fuel is combusted with
pure oxygen to drive a semi-closed sCO2 power cycle. In this study, the
LURGI pressure gasifier [28] is adopted, which uses the steam and ox­
ygen as the gasifying agents, and the oxygen for both gasification and
combustion is produced by the cryogenic ASU, in which the air is
compressed and then condensed to liquid to separate the oxygen by the
distillation columns [29]. Fig. 1 (a) shows the basic configuration
layout, including the gasification, heat recovery and Allam cycle power
generation subsystems. Firstly, the pre-dried coal is fed to the gasifier to
react with steam and oxygen for syngas production. Then, the raw
syngas is cooled down and cleaned up to remove water and sulphur. The
heat released by the raw syngas cooling is recovered to generate steam
for pre-drying, gasification as well as power generation by driving a
steam turbine. In the Allam cycle, the compressed syngas is combusted
with the high-purity oxygen and the sCO2 as working fluid is also fed to
T. Xin et al.
Fig. 1. Basic configuration of the coal-based Allam cycle (a) and process integration (b).
the combustor to moderate the combustion temperature. The hot com­
bustion flue gas, mainly consisting of CO2 and H2O, expands through the
gas turbine to generate shaft power, which is converted to electricity as
the final product by the generator. Most of the thermal energy within the
exhaust flue gas is recuperated to heat the recycle sCO2. The flue gas out
of the recuperator is further cooled down to the ambient temperature
and the water generated by the H2 combustion is removed by the
gas-liquid separator. The remaining of high-purity CO2 is compressed to
the supercritical pressure, of which most is recycled as working fluid to
finish the power cycle and the rest generated by CO combustion is
separated for carbon capture.
The thermodynamic performance of the overall system can be
further improved by process integration. As shown in Fig. 1 (b), there are
three process integration measures investigated: heat integration of the
ASU with the recuperation, steam extraction for pre-drying and gasifi­
cation, and integration of the sCO2 cycle for heat recovery. The coal-
based Allam cycle is a complex power generation system, including
various energy transfer and conversion processes. To clearly illustrate
3
Energy 267 (2023) 126634
the thermodynamic performance of the coal-based Allam cycle, the
process splitting analytical method is developed to split the complex
system into several simple thermal cycles and equivalent heat-to-
thermal processes, which might separate the contribution of each sec­
tion to the overall performance of the plant and clarify how a change
may affect them to guide the process integration for efficiency
improvement.
2.2. Process splitting analytical method for the coal-based Allam cycle
The semi-closed cycle can be split into a closed cycle and an open
process [27]. For the oxy-fuel combustion power generation coupled to
coal gasification, the oxygen production and heat recovery of the hot
raw syngas should also be considered. As shown in Fig. 2, the coal-based
Allam cycle is split into four processes: a closed sCO2 cycle driven by
syngas combustion, a closed steam Rankine cycle for heat recovery of
the raw syngas cooling, open process (related to the coal gasification,
syngas cooling, oxy-fuel combustion and electric power generation and
T. Xin et al. Energy 267 (2023) 126634

Fig. 2. Process splitting of the energy conversion in the basic coal-based Allam cycle power generation system (a) and modified system (b).

consumption of the fuel, oxygen and combustion products), and oxygen modification measures for efficiency improvement, with the unchanged
production process. As a result, the net efficiency can be expressed as boundary parameters. However, this method cannot be used to optimize
following: the parameters of the overall system. For the parameter optimization,
( ) the complete system simulation should be adopted, which has not been
QsCO2 ⋅ηsCO2 + Wopen + Qsteam ⋅ηsteam − WASU
ηnet = (1) involved in this study.
mrc ⋅HHVrc

where mrc and HHVrc represent the mass flow rate and higher heating
2.3. Process splitting models
value of the raw coal feedstock, respectively; QsCO2 and ηsCO2 are the
heat input and efficiency of the closed sCO2 cycle, respectively; Qsteam
2.3.1. Process splitting of the semi-closed sCO2 cycle
and ηsteam are the heat input and efficiency of the steam Rankine cycle,
As shown in Fig. 3, the semi-closed sCO2 cycle is split into two parts:
respectively; WASU stands for the electric power consumption by the
the closed sCO2 cycle and the open process. The open process is related
ASU; and Wopen is the net power generated by the open process.
to the fuel combustion, including coal milling, syngas compression,
Based on the new analytical method, the energy conversion perfor­
oxygen compression, compression and pumping of the CO2 generated by
mance of the coal-based Allam cycle can be illustrated by the split
fuel oxy-combustion, and power generation by the combustion flue gas
processes in a clear and simple way. For the basic concept (Fig. 2a), the
expanding through the gas turbine. The heat input of the closed sCO2
oxy-fuel combustion heat is used to drive the sCO2 cycle; the heat
comes from the open process, including the oxy-combustion heat, Q1,
released from the syngas cooling is used to drive the steam Rankine
and the heat released by the exhaust combustion flue gas cooling, Q2,
cycle; additionally, the steam used for coal pre-drying and gasification is
which are calculated by the following expressions:
also supplied by the heat recovery of the syngas. For the modified
( )
concept with intensive process integration (Fig. 2b), the air compression Q1 = mCO2 ⋅ hc,1 − hc,5 (2)
heat of the ASU is recovered to drive the sCO2 cycle; the steam used for
[( ) ( )]
coal pre-drying and gasification is the steam extraction from the steam Q2 = mCO2 ⋅ hc,5 − hc,4 − hc,2 − hc,3 (3)
Rankine cycle to save more syngas cooling heat to drive the steam
Rankine cycle; and a portion of the syngas cooling heat can also be used where mCO2 is the mass flow rate of the CO2 recycled as working fluid; h
for the sCO2 cycle by heating the clean compressed syngas and recycle represents the specific enthalpy; and subscript c,i is the state point of the
sCO2 stream. recycled CO2.
In addition, it should be noted that the proposed method is mainly For the closed thermal power cycle, the ratio of the net power output
used to evaluate the thermodynamic performance of the coal-based to the heat input is defined as the cycle efficiency. As the boundary
Allam cycle and the contribution of the process integration parameters are determined, the cycle efficiency is expected to be a
constant value that the net power output (or net power output change) is

Fig. 3. Process splitting of the Allam cycle.

4
T. Xin et al.
directly proportional to the heat input (heat input change). To obtain the
efficiency of the closed sCO2 cycle, an additional heat, ΔQ, is introduced
to the closed sCO2 cycle by heating the recycled CO2, and the net power
output will increase linearly, which is validated in Section 4.1 (c.f.
Fig. 6). Therefore, the efficiency of the closed sCO2 cycle is obtained as
following:
Wnet ΔWnet
ηsCO2 = = (4)
Q ΔQ
2.3.2. Equivalent thermal-to-power efficiency of the intercooling
compression in the ASU
As shown in Fig. 4 (a), an ASU primarily involves air compression,
heat exchanger, cold production and distillation column. The energy
consumption is the compression of air, which drives the refrigeration
cycle to produce cold for cryogenic separation of air. Conventionally, the
air is compressed by the multi-stage compressor with intercooling to
reduce the power consumption. However, the heat released from the air
intercooling cannot be recovered due to the low temperature of
61.3–72.4 ◦ C. If the air is adiabatically compressed, the power con­
sumption would increase but the temperature of the compressed air can
reach to 238.5 ◦ C and the heat released by the air cooling can be
recovered, e.g., heating the recycle sCO2 in the recuperation process. In
other words, for the intercooling compression, the benefit is the less
power consumption and the cost is no heat recovered. As shown in Fig. 4
(b), the equivalent heat-to-power efficiency of the air intercooling
compression process can be calculated as following:
( )/ ∑ where k is the specific power consumption of coal powder.
ha,1 − ha,2 (ηm ⋅ηmo ) − w
ηintercooling = ( ) (5)
ha,1 − ha,3
where ηm is mechanic efficiency; ηmo represents the efficiency of the
electromotor; Σw is the specific electric power consumption of the air
intercooling compression; and the subscript a,i stands for the state point
of the air.
2.3.3. Equivalent thermal-to-power efficiency of the extracted steam
The heat released from the syngas cooling is recovered to generate
the steam at different pressure for coal pre-drying, gasification and
power generation by driving the steam Rankine cycle. In addition to the
heat recovery of hot raw syngas, the steam for coal pre-drying and
gasification can also be the extraction of the steam Rankin cycle. Based
on the thermal cycle splitting analytical method (Fig. 5) [25], the effi­
ciencies of the steam Rankine cycle and extracted steam can be
expressed as following:
Fig. 4. Configuration of the cryogenic ASU (a) and equivalent heat-to-power conversion (b).
5
Energy 267 (2023) 126634
( ) ( )/
hs,1 − hs,2 ⋅ηm ⋅ηg − hs,4 − hs,3 (ηm ⋅ηmo )
ηsteam = ( ) (6)
hs,1 − hs,4
( ) ( )/
hs,5 − hs,2 ⋅ηm ⋅ηg − hs,6 − hs,3 (ηm ⋅ηmo )
ηextraction = ( ) (7)
hs,5 − hs,6
where ηg is the efficiency of the electric generator, and the subscript s,i
stands for state point of the steam (or water).
2.3.4. Open process
For the open process, the electric power consumption of the
compressor (or pump) can be computed as following:
( )
mcom ⋅ hiscom,out − hcom,in
Wcom = (8)
ηis,com ⋅ηm ⋅ηmo
where mcom is the mass flow rate of the fluid for compression (or
pumping); hcom,in is the specific enthalpies of the stream at the inlet of
the compressor (or pump); hiscom,out is the theoretical specific enthalpy of
the outlet stream through isentropic process; and ηis,com is defined as the
isentropic efficiencies of compressor (or pump).
The electricity consumption of the coal milling is related to the mass
flow rate of the coal input, which is calculated as:
Wmill = k⋅mcoal (9)
3. Conditions and assumptions
In this study, Zhundong coal, a typical Chinese low-rank coal, is
selected as the feedstock with the mass flow rate of 100 kg/s. The overall
system performance can be obtained by simulation of three subsystems,
including the coal gasification, heat recovery and acid gas removal, and
the Allam cycle.
In the coal gasification unit, the dryer first pre-dries the raw coal
from 26.4% moisture content to 9.72% (70% moisture is assumed to be
removed by steam drying [30]), and the heat source is the steam
generated by the heat recovery of the hot raw syngas; the mill pulverizes
the pre-dried coal powder with the specific power consumption of 15
kWh/ton_coal [31]; and the temperature and pressure of the gasification
is assumed as 1350 ◦ C [32] and 6.5 MPa [28], respectively, with
steam/coal mass ratio of 0.25 to completely convert the coal to syngas.
In the heat recovery unit, the heat released from the raw syngas
cooling to generated the steam at the pressure of 9 MPa, 6.5 MPa and 3
T. Xin et al. Energy 267 (2023) 126634

Fig. 5. T-s diagram of the steam Rankine cycle (a) and the equivalent power cycle to evaluate the thermal-to-power conversion of the extracted steam (b).

coupled to coal gasification. The detailed boundary parameters and

Aspen plus blocks for simulation of the coal-based Allam cycle are listed
in Table 1.

Table 1
Details of the conditions and assumptions of the coal-based Allam cycle [35].
Item Aspen block Condition and assumption

Coal gasification
Dryer Dryer Raw coal consists of 54.38% Carbon,
2.35% Hydrogen, 10.55% Oxygen,
0.47% Nitrogen, 0.41% Sulphur,
5.44% Ash and 26.4% Moisture with
the higher heating value of 20,519 kJ/
kg on receiver basis. 70% moisture is
removed by the dryer driven by the
steam of 240 ◦ C and 3.0 MPa.
Gasifier RStoic, RGibbs Temperature and pressure are 1350 ◦ C
and 6.5 MPa, respectively. Steam/coal
mass ratio is 0.25. RStoic block is used
to decompose the nonconventional
Fig. 6. Relation between the heat input from outside and net power output of
solid into constituent elements and the
the Allam cycle.
components of the raw syngas is
obtained by the RGibbs block.
MPa, which are used to drive the steam turbine for power generation, as Heat recovery and cleaning up
Steam generator and HeatX, Compr Turbine isentropic efficiency is
the agent for gasification, as the heat source for pre-drying, respectively.
steam Rankine (turbine model), assumed as 89%; pump efficiency is
In acid gas removal unit, only the sulfides (H2S and COS) are removed by cycle Pump 85%; pressures of the steam are 9 MPa,
the dry gas cleaning process, which absorbs sulfides into the activated 6.5 MPa, 3 MPa for Rankine cycle,
cokes [33]. gasification and pre-drying.
In the Allam cycle, the pressure and temperature of the live sCO2 is Acid gas removal Sep 99% of sulfides are removed.
Allam cycle
assumed as 1150 ◦ C and 30 MPa, respectively, and the turbine pressure
Combustor RGibbs Temperature and pressure are 1150 ◦ C
ratio is set to be 10 [19]. The turbine cooling is simulated by the and 30 MPa, respectively. Pressure
improved continuous model suitable for the working fluid of sCO2 drop ratio is 1%.
developed by Scaccabarozzi et al. [20]. The recuperator is a multi-flow CO2 turbine Compr (turbine Pressure ratio is 10. Turbine efficiency
model), Valve, is 0.89. Efficiency of electric generator
heat exchanger and the temperature difference of the cold-end is
Mix is 0.99. Temperature of coolant is
assumed as 10 ◦ C. The exhaust CO2 is pressurized to the supercritical 200 ◦ C.
state of 8 MPa by the four-stage compressor with intercooling and then Compressor and Compr, Pump, Temperature of working fluid at the
pumped to the maximum pressure. The ASU produces oxygen for both pump Heater cooler outlet is 25 ◦ C with the ambient
the coal gasification and syngas combustion with the specific electric temperature assumed as 15 ◦ C. The
isentropic efficiency of all the
power consumption of 245 kWh/ton_O2 [29].
compressors and pumps is set to be
The equipment units with the overall system is simulated by the 0.85. Electromotor efficiency is
commercial software Aspen Plus [34] and the accuracies for simulation assumed as 0.94.
of the gasification process and Allam cycle have been validated in our Recuperator MHeatX Temperature difference of the cold end
is 10 ◦ C. Pressure drop ratio is 0.5%.
previous studies [24,35] that components of the gasified syngas have
ASU Compr, Heater, Oxygen purity is 99.5%. Isentropic
− 3.10%–3.82% deviations compared with the experimental data; the MHeatX, Valve, efficiency of the main air compressor
simulated value of the net efficiency of the Allam cycle has − 0.11% Sep is 85% and the pressure of the
deviation compared with open literature on the same boundary pa­ compressed air is set to be 0.6 MPa in
rameters, proving the Aspen Plus can be used for the system level accordance to the specific electric
power consumption of 245 kWh/
investigation of the thermodynamic performance of the Allam cycle
ton_O2.

6
T. Xin et al. Energy 267 (2023) 126634

4. Results and discussion Table 3

Thermodynamic performance of the coal-based Allam cycle.
4.1. Process splitting analysis of the basic case Item Unit Value Item Unit Value

Raw input MW 2051.9 CO2 turbine MW 1243.1

As shown in Table 2, the detailed parameters of each stream of the Syngas produced MW 1775.5 Steam turbine MW 61.6
coal-based Allam cycle are obtained by the process simulation in Aspen Heat recovered MW 300.7 Mill MW − 4.4
Plus, in regard to temperature (t, ◦ C), pressure (p, MPa), mass flow rate for turbine MW 166.9 ASU MW − 135.8
(m, kg/s) and specific enthalpy (h, kJ/kg). Table 3 shows the overall for gasifier MW 66.9 Compressor and pump MW − 368.4
for dryer MW 66.9 Net power output MW 796.1
system performance: (1) 2051.9 MW (on HHV basis) of raw coal is Net efficiency % 38.80
converted to 1775.5 MW syngas (on HHV basis) by gasification; (2)
166.9 MW heat recovered from the hot syngas is converted to 61.6 MW
electric power by the steam turbine, and the rest is recovered to generate
Table 4
steam for coal gasification and pre-drying; (3) the CO2 turbine driven by
Heat input of the sCO2 cycle and steam Rankine cycle.
the syngas-oxy combustion generates 1243.1 MW electric power; (4) the
auxiliary power consumptions are 4.4, 135.8, 368.4 MW for mill, ASU, Item t (◦ C) h (kJ/kg) m (kg/ Q (MW)
s)
and compression and pumping, respectively; (5) finally, the net power
output is 769.1 MW and the net efficiency is calculated as 38.80% on sCO2 Brayton cycle
Recuperator
HHV basis.
Hot side (input/ 728.2/60.2 − 8111.2/-8865.7 2462.6 − 1858.1
The above analysis can obtain the thermodynamic performance of output)
the overall system. Nevertheless, the energy conversion mechanism is Cold side (input/ 50.2/664.8 − 9090.5/-8192.6 2264.2 2032.9
still unclear for the complex system with coal gasification, oxy- output)
combustion, sCO2 cycle and steam Rankine cycle for heat recovery. Coolant (input/ 50.2/200 − 9090.5/-8812.1 198.4 55.2
output)
Therefore, the process splitting analytical models constructed in Section Combustor (input/ 664.8/ − 8192.6/-7555.7 2264.2 1442.9
2 is applied to the coal-based Allam cycle to clearly evaluate the energy output) 1150.0
conversion performance by the closed thermal power cycles and Steam Rankine cycle
equivalent heat-to-power processes. Water/Steam (input/ 15.5/550.0 − 15 897.4/-12 48.55 166.9
output) 459.0
The coal-based Allam cycle is split into the closed sCO2 cycle, closed
steam Rankine cycle, open process and ASU. Firstly, the efficiency of the
sCO2 cycle should be determined (c.f. Eq. (4)). Between the recuperator can be calculated as 1442.9 MW. In the recuperator, the heat required by
and combustor, a heater is added to heat the recycled sCO2 to introduce the cold streams of recycle sCO2 (2264.2 kg/s from 50.2 to 664.8 ◦ C) and
the additional heat input. As the additional heat input increases from the coolant (198.4 kg/s from 50.2 to 200 ◦ C) is 2088.1 MW (2032.9 +
zero to 1000 MW (Fig. 6), the net power output is linearly improved by 55.2 MW); while, the heat recuperated from the hot stream at the mass
526.8 MW. Therefore, the thermal efficiency of the closed sCO2 cycle flow rate of 2462.6 kg/s is 1858.1 MW as the temperature decreasing
can be easily obtained as 52.68%. from 728.2 to 60.2 ◦ C; hence, the heat input of the recuperator is 230.0
The heat input of the sCO2 cycle can be calculated by the enthalpy MW from the exhaust combustion flue gas. Based on the heat input
increment of the working fluid. As shown in Table 4, the heat input of (1442.9 + 230.0 MW) and cycle efficiency (52.68%), the net electric
the sCO2 cycle is from two positions, i.e., combustor and recuperator. In power output of the closed sCO2 cycle can be calculated as 881.3 MW.
the combustor, the temperature of the recycle sCO2 at the mass flow rate The efficiency of steam Rankine cycle, used for heat recovery, can be
of 2264.2 kg/s is increased from 664.8 to 1150.0 ◦ C and the heat input directly calculated as 36.60% (c.f. Eq. (6)) and its heat input can also be
easily calculated as 166.9 MW by the enthalpy increment. The electric
power consumption of the ASU is calculated to be 135.8 MW as the mass
Table 2
flow rate of oxygen for gasification and combustion is 153.9 kg/s. For
Detailed parameters of each stream in the basic coal-based Allam cycle.
the open process, the net power output is a negative value of − 10.5 MW
Stream t (◦ C) p (MPa) m (kg/s) h (kJ/kg)
since the power output of 147.6 MW driven by the combustion flue gas is
C-1 15.0 0.1 100.0 − 4875.7 less than the electric power consumption of other auxiliaries, including
C-2 105.0 0.1 81.5 − 2229.1 4.4 MW for coal pulverization, 56.0 MW for syngas compression, 86.0
SG-1 1350.1 6.5 149.0 − 2870.4
MW for oxygen compression and 11.7 MW for CO2 (generated by CO
SG-2 707.1 6.5 149.0 − 3991.0
SG-3 431.4 6.5 149.0 − 4439.9 combustion) compression and pumping.
SG-4 147.2 6.5 149.0 − 4889.1 As listed in Table 5, the thermodynamic performance of the coal-
SG-5 24.8 6.2 137.9 − 4438.3 based Allam cycle can be clearly illustrated. Furthermore, the effi­
SG-6 271.0 30.5 137.9 − 4060.4
ciency of the overall cycle might be improved by process integration to
FG-1 1150.0 30.0 2503.2 − 7607.5
FG-2 728.2 3.0 2701.6 − 8165.4
replace the low efficiency cycle/process with the high efficiency cycle/
FG-3 60.2 3.0 2701.6 − 8956.6 process, which is discussed based on the constructed process splitting
CO2-1 25.0 3.0 2663.6 − 8902.4 analytical models in the following section.
CO2-2 25.0 12.0 201.0 − 9117.6
CO2-3 25.0 12.0 905.7 − 9117.6
CO2-4 50.2 30.5 1556.9 − 9090.5
CO2-5 664.8 30.3 1358.6 − 8192.6
CO2-6 200.0 30.4 198.4 − 8812.1 Table 5
AIR-1 15.0 0.1 0.0 − 10.4 Process splitting analytical results of the coal-based Allam cycle.
O2-1 15.0 0.1 153.9 − 9.5
Item Unit Value Item Unit Value
O2-2 144.0 6.5 52.9 101.9
O2-3 164.1 12.0 101.1 116.9 sCO2 cycle Steam cycle
O2-4 55.0 30.5 1006.8 − 8160.5 Heat input MW 1672.9 Heat input MW 166.9
O2-5 664.8 30.3 1006.8 − 7303.7 Combustor MW 1442.9 Efficiency % 36.60
S-1 550.0 9.0 48.6 − 12 459.0 Recuperator MW 230.0 Net output MW 61.1
S-2 498.0 6.5 20.0 − 12 558.5 Efficiency % 52.68 Open process MW − 10.5
S-3 240.0 3.0 24.3 − 13 146.4 Net output MW 881.3 ASU MW − 135.8

7
T. Xin et al.
4.2. Process integration
4.2.1. Integration of the ASU
As shown in Fig. 7, although 230.0 MW heat of the combustion flue
gas has been integrated with the recuperator, the temperature approach
of the recuperation is in range of 10–74.3 ◦ C, meaning that there is a
great amount of exergy destruction. The large temperature difference
results from the heat capacity of the high-pressure CO2 (30 MPa, cold
stream) is much higher than the low-pressure (3 MPa, hot stream) at the
temperature of 50–250 ◦ C. In other words, the heat supplied from the
hot side is less than that the requirement of the cold side. In the ASU, if
the air is directly compressed to 0.6 MW by an adiabatic compressor, the
temperature of the compressed air can reach 238.5 ◦ C and the heat
released from the air cooling can be used to heat the recycled sCO2 in the
recuperator to reduce the exergy destruction with smaller temperature
difference. To be specific, as the compressed air is cooled down to
60.2 ◦ C with the temperature difference of the cold-end of 10.0 ◦ C, the
temperature difference of the pinch point (Δt1, Fig. 7a) decreases to
6.9 ◦ C, the maximum temperature difference (Δt2, Fig. 7a) decreases to
38.9 ◦ C, and the hot-end temperature difference (Δt3, Fig. 7a) is reduced
to 31.7 ◦ C. However, on the other hand, the electric power consumption
of the adiabatic compression is greater than the intercooling compres­
sion. Therefore, it is hard to directly evaluate the effectiveness of the
heat integration of ASU and the efficiency is conventionally obtained by
re-simulation of the overall modified system.
Based on the process splitting analysis (c.f. Eq. (5)), for the inter­
cooling compression, the benefit is the specific electric power con­
sumption reduced from 245.4 to 205.4 kJ/kg_air; but the cost is that
183.81 kJ/kg_air heat from the adiabatic compression is eliminated. As a
result, the equivalent heat-to-power efficiency of the intercooling
compression can be calculated as 21.75%. In the modified system, the
compression heat is used to drive the sCO2 cycle at the efficiency of
52.68% by integrating with the recuperation process. As shown in Fig. 8,
the mechanism of the heat integration of adiabatic compression can be
explained as the heat-to-power conversion efficiency can be improved
by 30.93 %-points compared with the intercooling compression. More­
over, the net power increment can be easily obtained as 37.58 MW by
the efficiency improvement (30.93%) and heat integrated (121.48 MW).
4.2.2. Steam extraction for gasification and pre-drying
For the basic case, as shown in Fig. 9 (a), the heat recovered from the
raw syngas cooling is used to generated steam at different pressures for
power generation, gasification and pre-drying, respectively. The heat
recovery process can also be modified as shown in Fig. 9 (b), the raw
syngas cooling heat is totally used to generate the high-pressure steam,
Fig. 7. Temperature distribution (a) and heat transfer performance (b) of the recuperation process in the sCO2 cycle.
8
Energy 267 (2023) 126634
which expands through the steam turbine for power generation, and the
steam for gasification and pre-drying is extracted from the steam tur­
bine. The effectiveness of the steam extraction modification for effi­
ciency improvement can also be clearly illustrated by the process
splitting analytical method.
In the heat recovery process, there are three thermodynamic process
including the steam Rankine cycle at 9 MPa, steam extraction at pressure
of 6.5 MPa, steam extraction at pressure of 3.0 MPa. Using the process
splitting analytical models constructed in Section 2.3, the efficiency of
the steam Rankine cycle is 36.60%, the efficiency of 6.5 MPa steam
extraction is 35.08%, the efficiency of the 3.0 MPa steam extraction is
30.78%. By the steam extractions replacing the low-pressure steam
generation to save more heat to drive the main steam Rankine cycle, the
heat-to-power efficiencies are improved by 1.52 and 5.82 %-points,
respectively. Moreover, the heat recovered from the raw syngas is
increased by 51.88 MW because the improved mass flow rate of high-
pressure steam can help to match the heat capacities between the hot
and cold streams as shown in Fig. 9 (b). The performance improvement
can also be easily obtained by the process splitting models. As shown in
Fig. 10, the increment of the net power output is calculated as 23.88 MW
due to the higher heat-to-power efficiencies (66.87 × 1.52% + 66.92 ×
5.82%) and greater heat recovered (51.88 × 36.60%).
4.2.3. Integration of sCO2 cycle for heat recovery
As the efficiency of the sCO2 cycle is higher than that of the steam
Rankine cycle, it might contribute to the efficiency improvement to
integrate the raw syngas heat recovery process with the sCO2 cycle.
Therefore, the high-temperature raw syngas is used to heat the recycle
sCO2 and compressed clean syngas to drive the sCO2 cycle; and the low-
temperature is used to generate steam for steam Rankine cycle.
Fig. 11 presents the temperature distribution in the heat recovery
process: since a portion of recovered heat is used to heat the recycle sCO2
and clean syngas, and the mass flow rate of the steam generated by heat
recovery is reduced. Restricted by the pinch point, the amount of heat
recovered decreases with the mass flow rate of the generated steam
reducing. On one hand, the heat recovered for driving the sCO2 cycle can
improve the heat-to-power efficiency; on the other hand, the less heat
recovery might reduce the electric power generation. The constructed
process splitting analytical method can be used to evaluate the influence
of the amount of the heat recovery for driving sCO2 cycle on the overall
system performance.
The amount of heat recovery for sCO2 cycle can be adjusted by
adjusting the mass flow rate of steam for heat recovery. Since the steam
required for pre-drying and gasification are 21.5 and 20.0 kg/s,
respectively, the minimum amount of steam is 41.5 kg/s; and the
T. Xin et al. Energy 267 (2023) 126634

Fig. 8. The energy saving mechanism of the heat integration of the ASU with the recuperation based on process splitting analysis.

Fig. 9. Temperature distributions of the raw syngas and steam in the heat recovery process: basic case (a) and modification case (b).

Fig. 10. Replacement of heat-to-power conversion among steams at different pressures.

maximum amount of steam is 102.6 kg/s if the syngas cooling heat is
totally used for steam generation. As shown in Fig. 12, with the mass
flow rate of the steam decreasing from 102.6 to 41.5 kg/s, the heat
recovered for steam Rankine cycle is reduced by 210.0 MW (from 352.6
to 142.6 MW); on the other hand, the heat recovered for sCO2 cycle is
increased from zero to 172.6 MW. Since the efficiencies of the steam
Rankine cycle and sCO2 cycle are 36.60% and 52.68%, respectively, the
net power output is increased by 14.1 MW, meaning that the heat
integration with sCO2 cycle in the heat recovery process can effectively
improve the energy conversion efficiency of the overall system.
Finally, after adopting the three process integration measures (i.e.,
the heat integration of ASU, the stream extraction for pre-drying and
gasification, and the integration of sCO2 cycle for heat recovery), the net
power output of the modified system can increase by 75.54 MW and the
net efficiency soars to 42.68%, which is 3.68 %-points higher than the
basic case.
4.3. Validation of the process splitting analysis
The thermodynamic performances of the modified cases above are
directly obtained by the constructed process splitting analytical models
without re-simulation. To validate the accuracy of the proposed process
analytical method, the thermodynamic performance of the three modi­
fied cases are also re-simulated by the Aspen Plus, including the heat
integration of ASU (Case I), the steam extraction (Case II), and the
integration sCO2 cycle for heat recovery (Case III). The comparison re­
sults are listed in Table 6 that the net power increments obtained by the
process splitting analysis are very close to the overall system simulation
with the relative errors below 0.1%. It proves that the constructed
process splitting analytical models can not only clearly explain how the
process integration measures effect the energy conversion performance
but also directly obtain the efficiency improvement at a high accuracy.
In addition, the detailed simulated stream parameters of the best

9
T. Xin et al. Energy 267 (2023) 126634

Table 7
Detailed parameters of each stream in the basic coal-based Allam cycle.
Stream t (◦ C) p (MPa) m (kg/s) h (kJ/kg)

C-1 15.0 0.1 100.0 − 4875.7

C-2 105.0 0.1 81.5 − 2229.1
SG-1 1349.9 6.5 149.0 − 2870.6
SG-2 886.9 6.5 149.0 − 3687.0
SG-3 684.0 6.5 149.0 − 4029.3
SG-4 127.9 6.5 149.0 − 4986.3
SG-5 24.8 6.2 137.9 − 4438.3
SG-6 218.8 30.0 137.9 − 4144.2
SG-7 450.4 30.0 137.9 − 3775.3
FG-1 1150.0 30.0 2881.9 − 7600.7
FG-2 728.5 3.0 3109.8 − 8157.9
FG-3 60.2 3.0 3109.8 − 8943.8
CO2-1 25.0 3.0 3071.8 − 8902.4
CO2-2 25.0 12.0 201.0 − 9117.6
CO2-3 25.0 12.0 905.7 − 9117.6
CO2-4 50.2 30.5 1965.1 − 9090.5
CO2-5 687.5 30.5 1737.2 − 8163.3
CO2-6 450.9 30.0 137.9 − 3774.5
CO2-7 200.0 30.5 227.9 − 8812.0
Air-1 15.0 0.1 660.9 − 10.4
Fig. 11. Temperature distributions of the raw syngas, sCO2, clean syngas and Air-2 238.5 0.6 660.9 218.0
steam in the heat recovery process. Air-3 60.2 0.6 660.9 34.1
O2-1 15.0 0.1 101.1 − 9.5
O2-2 144.0 6.6 52.9 101.9
O2-3 164.1 12.0 101.1 116.9
O2-4 55.0 30.5 1006.8 − 8160.5
O2-5 687.5 30.5 1006.8 − 7274.9
S-1 550.0 9.0 41.5 − 12459.0
S-2 497.6 6.5 20.0 − 12559.4
S-3 384.8 3.0 21.5 − 12772.8

based Allam cycle. The semi-closed sCO2 cycle coupled to coal gasifi­
cation is split into four parts: the closed sCO2 cycle driven by oxy-
combustion, steam Rankine cycle driven by heat recovery of raw syn­
gas, open process related to fuel combustion, and ASU. The strength of
the used method is that it is able to separate the contribution of each
section to the overall performance of the plant and clarify how a change
may affect them. Compared to a conventional simulation approach, it is
possible to know if a modification may be useful by directly comparing
the respective effects (efficiencies and heat duties) without running the
simulation of the overall system and interpreting the results. Main
Fig. 12. Influence of the heat distribution on the power output of conclusions can be obtained as follows.
heat recovery. The thermodynamic performance of the basic system can be clearly
evaluated by the constructed process splitting analytical models: as the
raw coal feedstock is 100 kg/s (2051.9 MW on HHV basis) the efficiency
Table 6 of the closed sCO2 cycle is 52.68% with heat input of 1672.9 MW; the
Validation of the process splitting analytical results by comparing with the efficiency of the closed steam Rankine cycle is 36.60% with the heat
simulation. input of 166.9 MW; the open process consumes 10.5 MW electric power;
Item Unit Case I Case II Case III the ASU consumes 135.8 MW electric power. As a result, the net power
Results obtained by simulation output of the overall system is 796.1 MW with the net efficiency of
CO2 turbine MW 1322.36 1322.36 1435.08 38.8% (HHV basis).
Steam turbine MW 61.64 86.12 8.57 The efficient energy conversion mechanism of the modified cases
Compressor and pump MW − 383.72 − 384.35 − 405.37
with process integration can be clearly illustrated by the process split­
ASU MW − 162.18 − 162.18 − 162.18
Mill MW − 4.40 − 4.40 − 4.40 ting analytical method: the heat integration of the ASU is to increase the
Net power output MW 833.69 857.55 871.69 heat-to-power efficiency of the air compression heat by 30.93 %-points
Net efficiency % 40.63 41.79 42.48 by replacing the intercooling process with the sCO2 cycle; the steam
Increment of the net power output extraction for pre-drying and gasification can not only increase the ef­
Overall system simulation MW 37.57 61.42 75.57
ficiency of the heat recovery for power generation, but also recover more
Process splitting analysis MW 37.58 61.46 75.54
Error % 0.02 0.06 − 0.05 heat of 51.9 MW for power generation at the efficiency of 36.60%; and
the integration of the sCO2 cycle for heat recovery can also effectively
improve the net power output by further improving the heat-to-power
modified coal-based Allam cycle (Case III) are also listed in Table 7. efficiency of heat recovery. Finally, the net efficiency of the optimized
coal-based Allam cycle soars to 42.48% by adopting the three integra­
5. Conclusion tion measures.
Additionally, the process splitting analytical idea might also be
In this study, the process splitting analytical method is developed for suitable for the thermodynamic analysis and process integration of other
the thermodynamic assessment and process integration of the coal- complex energy conversion systems (e.g. natural gas fired Allam cycle)

10
T. Xin et al.
in a clear and simple way.
Author statement
Tuantuan Xin: Investigation, Conceptualization, Methodology, Soft­
ware, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing – original draft; Cheng Xu:
Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing-
reviewing and editing, Funding acquisition; Yongping Yang: Supervi­
sion, Project administration, Resources, Funding acquisition; Vladimir
Kindra: Writing-reviewing and editing; Andrey Rogalev: Writing-
reviewing and editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The authors do not have permission to share data.
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (No. 52176004) and the Science Fund for Creative Research
Groups of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.
51821004).
References
[1] Coal& Electricity. https://www.worldcoal.org/coal-facts/coal-electricity/[2022
/11/29].
[2] Xu C, Gao Y, Xu G, et al. A thermodynamic analysis and economic evaluation of an
integrated cold-end energy utilization system in a de-carbonization coal-fired
power plant. Energy Convers Manag 2019;180:218–30.
[3] Overview of Greenhouse Gases. https://www.epa.gov/gh
gemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases [2022/11/29].
[4] International Energy Agency. World energy outlook 2021. 2021. www.iea.org
[2022/11/29].
[5] Zheng L. Oxy-fuel combustion for power generation and carbon dioxide (CO2)
capture. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing; 2011.
[6] Lockwood T. A compararitive review of next-generation carbon capture
technologies for coal-fired power plant. Energy Proc 2017;114:2658–70.
[7] Sharifzadeh M, Bumb P, Shah N. Carbon capture from pulverized coal power plant
(PCPP): solvent performance comparison at an industrial scale. Appl Energy 2016;
163:423–35.
[8] Garlapalli RK, Spencer MW, Alam K, et al. Integration of heat recovery unit in coal
fired power plants to reduce energy cost of carbon dioxide capture. Appl Energy
2018;229:900–9.
[9] Wang D, Li S, Liu F, et al. Post combustion CO2 capture in power plant using low
temperature steam upgraded by double absorption heat transformer. Appl Energy
2018;227:603–12.
[10] Gazzani M, Macchi E, Manzolini G. CO2 capture in integrated gasification
combined cycle with SEWGS–Part A: thermodynamic performances. Fuel 2013;
105:206–19.
11
Energy 267 (2023) 126634
[11] Chen C, Yang S. The energy demand and environmental impacts of oxy-fuel
combustion vs. post-combustion capture in China. Energy Strategy Rev 2021;38:
100701.
[12] Brun K, Friedman P, Dennis R. Fundamentals and applications of
SupercriticalCarbon dioxide (sCO2) based power cycles. Cambridge: Woodhead
Publishing; 2017.
[13] Zhao Y, Zhao L, Wang B, et al. Thermodynamic analysis of a novel dual expansion
coal-fueled direct-fired supercritical carbon dioxide power cycle. Appl Energy
2018;217:480–95.
[14] Mecheri M, Le Moullec Y. Supercritical CO2 Brayton cycles for coal-fired power
plants. Energy 2016;103:758–71.
[15] Sun E, Xu J, Hu H, et al. Overlap energy utilization reaches maximum efficiency for
S-CO2 coal fired power plant: a new principle. Energy Convers Manag 2019;195:
99–113.
[16] Liu M, Zhang X, Yang K, et al. Comparison and sensitivity analysis of the efficiency
enhancements of coal-fired power plants integrated with supercritical CO2 Brayton
cycle and steam Rankine cycle. Energy Convers Manag 2019;198:111918.
[17] Olumayegun O, Wang M, Oko E. Thermodynamic performance evaluation of
supercritical CO2 closed Brayton cycles for coal-fired power generation with
solvent-based CO2 capture. Energy 2019;166:1074–88.
[18] Mancuso L, Ferrari N, Chiesa P, et al. Oxy-combustion turbine power plants.
IEAGHG report; 2015.
[19] Allam RJ, Palmer MR, Brown GW, et al. High efficiency and low cost of electricity
generation from fossil fuels while eliminating atmospheric emissions, including
carbon dioxide. Energy Proc 2013;37:1135–49.
[20] Scaccabarozzi R, Gatti M, Martelli E. Thermodynamic analysis and numerical
optimization of the NET Power oxy-combustion cycle. Appl Energy 2016;178:
505–26.
[21] Weiland NT, White CW. Techno-economic analysis of an integrated gasification
direct-fired supercritical CO2 power cycle. Fuel 2018;212:613–25.
[22] Luo J, Emelogu O, Morosuk T, et al. Exergy-based investigation of a coal-fired
allam cycle. Energy 2021;218:119471.
[23] Zhao Y, Yu B, Wang B, et al. Heat integration and optimization of direct-fired
supercritical CO2 power cycle coupled to coal gasification process. Appl Therm Eng
2018;130:1022–32.
[24] Xin T, Xu C, Liu Y, et al. Thermodynamic analysis of a novel zero carbon emission
coal-based polygeneration system incorporating methanol synthesis and Allam
power cycle. Energy Convers Manag 2021;244:114441.
[25] Xin T, Xu C, Yang Y. A general and simple method for evaluating the performance
of the modified steam Rankine cycle: thermal cycle splitting analytical method.
Energy Convers Manag 2020;210:112712.
[26] Xin T, Xu C, Yang Y. Thermodynamic analysis of a novel supercritical carbon
dioxide Brayton cycle based on the thermal cycle splitting analytical method.
Energy Convers Manag 2020;225:113458.
[27] Sun E, Ji H, Ma W, et al. Development of an analytical constituent split method to
analyze a semi-closed supercritical carbon dioxide power cycle. Energy Convers
Manag 2022;254:115261.
[28] Supp E. How to produce methanol from coal. New York: Springer-Verlag Berlin
Heidelberg GmbH; 1990.
[29] Beysel G. Enhanced cryogenic air separation: a proven process applied to oxyfuel.
In: Proc. of 1st oxyfuel combustion conference; 2009. Cottbus, Germany.
[30] Xu C, Xu G, Zhu M, et al. Thermodynamic analysis and economic evaluation of a
1000 MW bituminous coal fired power plant incorporating low-temperature pre-
drying (LTPD). Appl Therm Eng 2016;96:613–22.
[31] Le Moullec Y. Conceptual study of a high efficiency coal-fired power plant with
CO2 capture using a supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle. Energy 2013;49:32–46.
[32] Hower JC, Henke KR, Dai S, et al. Generation and nature of coal fly ash and bottom
ash//Coal Combustion Products (CCP’s). Woodhead Publishing; 2017. p. 21–65.
[33] Itaya Y, Kawahara K, Lee C, et al. Dry gas cleaning process by adsorption of H2S
into activated cokes in gasification of carbon resources. Fuel 2009;88:1665–72.
[34] Aspen Plus. https://www.aspentech.com/en/products/engineering/aspen-plus.
[2022/8/10].
[35] Xin T, Xu C, Li R, et al. An advanced coal-based zero-emission polygeneration
system using water-gas shift reaction and syngas recycle to achieve different
methanol and electricity distributions. J Clean Prod 2022;364:132649.