Shell coal IGCCS with carbon capture: Conventional gas quench vs. innovative configurations

Applied Energy

Volumn 88, Issue 11, 2011, Pages 3978-3989

  Martelli, Emanuele ^a   Kreutz, Thomas ^b   Carbo, Michiel ^c   Consonni, Stefano ^a   Jansen, Daniel ^c  

^a POLITECNICO DI MILANO   (Italy)

^b PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c TNO   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

IGCC; Plant optimization; Process modeling; Shell gasifier; WGS

Indexed keywords

CARBON DIOXIDE; COOLING SYSTEMS; DIRECT INJECTION; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; GASIFICATION; INNOVATION; OPTIMIZATION; SYNTHESIS GAS; WATER INJECTION;

GASIFIERS; IGCC; PLANT OPTIMIZATION; PROCESS MODELING; WGS;

SHELLS (STRUCTURES);

CARBON DIOXIDE; CARBON MONOXIDE; CARBON SEQUESTRATION; COAL; COOLING; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DESIGN; EFFICIENCY MEASUREMENT; ENERGY EFFICIENCY; HIGH PRESSURE SYSTEM; HIGH TEMPERATURE; INNOVATION; NUMERICAL MODEL; OPTIMIZATION; SHELL; THERMODYNAMICS; TRANSFORMATION;

EID: 79959851363     PISSN: 03062619     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.04.046     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. NETL (National Energy Technology Laboratory). Cost and performance comparison baseline for fossil energy power plants. Bituminous coal and natural gas to electricity, vol. 1. DOE/NETL-401/053106 Final Report; May 2007.
2. Booras G. Economic assessment of advanced coal-based power plants with CO2 capture. MIT carbon sequestration forum IX, advancing CO2 Capture. Cambridge, MA; September 16, 2008.
3. BP (British Petroleum). BP statistical review of world energy; 2008. http://www.bp.com/.
4. Shell Internationale Research Maatschappij B.V. WIPO/PCT. Method and System for Producing Synthesis Gas. Patent Application No. WO 2006/117355 A1, World Intellectual Property Organization; 9 November 2006.
5. Carbo M.C., Boon J., Jansen D., van Dijk H.A.J., Dijkstra J.W., van den Brink R.W., et al. Steam demand reduction of water-gas shift reaction in IGCC power plants with pre-combustion CO2 capture. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 2009, 3:712-719.
6. Aspen Tech; 2011. http://www.aspentech.com.
7. Prefeasibility study of IGCC in China using shell coal gasification. Unpublished report; courtesy of Prof. Li Zheng, Tsinghua University. Beijing, China; 2001.
8. DePriest W, Van Laar J. (Sargent & Lundy). Engineering evaluation of prenflo-based integrated-gasification-combined-cycle (IGCC) power plant designs. EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) report TR-101609, Final Report; November 1992.
9. IEA (International Energy Agency). Potential for improvement in gasification combined cycle power generation with CO2 capture. IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme Report PH4/19: cases A.1 and B.3; May 2003.
10. Consonni S. Performance prediction of gas/steam cycles for power generation. MAE Dept. Ph.D. Thesis no. 1983-T, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University; 1992.
11. Chiesa P, Consonni S, Lozza G, Macchi E. Predicting the ultimate performance of advanced power cycles based on very high temperature gas turbine engines. ASME Paper 93-GT-223; 1993.
12. Martelli E, Consonni S, Amaldi E. A methodology for optimizing heat recovery steam cycles based on linear programming and particle swarm. In: Proceedings of the ASME- ATI-UIT 2010 conference on thermal and environmental issues in energy systems. Sorrento (Italy); May 2010.
13. Martelli E. Optimal design of heat recovery steam cycles and heat integration. Lambert academic publishing; 2010. ISBN 978-3-8383-5884-0.
14. Kubek D, Higman C, Holt N, Schoff R. CO2 capture retrofit issues. In: Proceedings of the gasification technologies. San Francisco, CA; October 16, 2007.
15. Chiesa P., Lozza G. Using hydrogen as a gas turbine fuel. J Eng Gas Turbines Power 2005, 127(1):73-81.
16. Booras G. Feasibility study for an integrated gasification combined cycle facility at a Texas site. EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) report 1014510. Palo Alto, CA; October 2006.
17. Matchak TA, Rao AD, Ramanathan V, Sander MT. Cost and performance for commercial application of gasification combined-cycle plants. EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) report AP-3486; April 1984.
18. Chiesa P., Macchi E. A thermodynamic analysis of different options to break 60% electric efficiency in combined cycle power plants. J Eng Gas Turbines Power 2004, 126(4):770-785.
19. Oluyede EO, Phillips JN. Fundamental impact of firing syngas in gas turbines. In: Proceedings of ASME turbo expo 2007: power for land, sea and air, vol. GT2007-27385; 2007.
20. Brdar RD, Jones RM. GE IGCC technology and experience with advanced gas turbines. GE Power Systems report GER 420; 2000.
21. Siemens power generation. BENSON® once-through heat recovery steam generator; 2010. http://www.energy.siemens.com/.
22. Martelli E., Kreutz T., Consonni S. Comparison of coal IGCC with and without CO2 capture and storage: shell gasification with standard vs. partial water quench. Energy Procedia 2009, 1:607-614.
23. Kunze C., Riedl K., Spliethoff H. Structured exergy analysis of an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plant with carbon capture. Energy 2011, 36:1480-1487.
24. Jacobs Engineering (Amsterdam). ExerCom, calculating routine for Aspen Plus and Pro/II; 2011. http://www.exercom.net.
25. Szargut J., Morris J.R., Steward F.R. Exergy analysis of thermal, chemical and metallurgical processes 1998, Hemisphere Publishing Corp, New York.
26. Lang Y.D., Biegler L.T. A unified algorithm for flowsheet optimization. Comput Chem Eng 1987, 11(2):143-158.
27. EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). TAG - technical assessment guide (electric supply). EPRI Report TR-102275, vol. 1 Rev. 7. Paolo Alto, CA; June 1993.
28. Ogden J. Modeling infrastructure for a fossil hydrogen energy system with CO2 sequestration. In: Proceedings of the 6th international meeting on green-house gas control (GHGT-6). Kyoto, Japan; October 1-4, 2002.
29. Vavatuk WM, 2002. Updating the CE plant cost index. Chemical Engineering 62-70; January 2002.
30. Chemical engineering magazine. 2011. http://www.che.com/pci/.