Effects of operating factors in the coal gasification reaction

  • Hai-Kyung Seo
  • Seik Park
  • Joogwon Lee
  • Miyung Kim
  • Seok-Woo Chung
  • Jae-Hwa Chung
  • Kitae Kim
Energy

Abstract

The effects of operating factors on a gasification system were reviewed by comparing a computational simulation and real operation results. Notable operation conditions include a conveying gas/coal ratio of 0.44, an oxygen/coal ratio of 0.715, a reaction temperature of 1,000 °C, and reaction pressure of 5bar in the case of Adaro coal; based on this, the cold gas efficiency was estimated as 82.19%. At the point of the reaction temperature effect, because the cold gas efficiencies are more than 80% when the reaction temperatures are higher than 900 °C, the gasifier inner temperature must remain over 900 °C. At high reaction temperature such as 1,400 °C, the reaction pressure shows little effect on the cold gas efficiency. The addition of steam into the gasifier causes an endothermic reaction, and then lowers the gasifier outlet temperature. This is regarded as a positive effect that can reduce the capacity of the syngas cooler located immediately after the gasifier. The most significant factor influencing the cold gas efficiency and the gasifier outlet temperature is the O2/coal ratio. As the O2/coal ratio is lower, the cold gas efficiency is improved, as long as the gasifier inner temperature remains over 1,000 °C. With respect to the calorific value (based on the lower heating value, LHV) of produced gas per unit volume, as the N2/coal ratio is increased, the calorific value per syngas unit volume is lowered. Decreasing the amount of nitrogen for transporting coal is thus a useful route to obtain higher calorific syngas. This phenomenon was also confirmed by the operation results.

Key words

IGCC Gasifier O2/Coal Ratio N2/Coal Ratio Steam/Coal Ratio Cold Gas Efficiency Calories of Syngas Per Unit Volume 

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    C. Higman and M. Burgt, Gasification, second edition printed by Gulf Professional Publishing, p 6, p 28, p120–121.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    O. Shinada, A. Yamada and Y. Koyama, Energy Convers. Manage., 43, 1221 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ligang Zheng and Edward Furinsky, Energy Convers. Manage., 46, 1767 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Calin-Cristian Cormos, Fred Starr and Evangelo Tzimas, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, 35, 556 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Y. C. Choi, T. J. Park, J. H. Kim, J.G. Lee, J. C. Hong and Y.G. Kim, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 18(4), 493 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Y. S. Yun, Y. D. Yoo and S.W. Chung, Fuel Process. Technol., 88, 107 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Y. S. Yun and Y. D. Yoo, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 18(5), 679 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    J. M. Smith, H. C. Van Ness and M.M. Abbott, Introduction to chemical engineering thermodynamics, McGraw-Hill International Edition, sixth edition, pp 659–660.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Institute of Chemical Engineers, Seoul, Korea 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hai-Kyung Seo
    • 1
  • Seik Park
    • 1
  • Joogwon Lee
    • 1
  • Miyung Kim
    • 1
  • Seok-Woo Chung
    • 2
  • Jae-Hwa Chung
    • 1
  • Kitae Kim
    • 1
  1. 1.Power Generation LaboratoryKEPCO Research Institute (KEPRI) of Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO)DaejeonKorea
  2. 2.Plant Engineering CenterInstitute for Advanced Engineering (IAE)Suwon, Gyeonggi-doKorea

Personalised recommendations