0
Research Papers: Energy Systems Analysis

Advanced Concepts in Modular Coal and Biomass Gasifiers

[+] Author and Article Information
John P. Dooher

Physics Department,
Adelphi University Chairman,
One South Avenue,
Garden City, NY 11530
e-mail: dooher@adelphi.edu

Marco J. Castaldi

Mem. ASME
Chemical Engineering Department,
The City College of New York,
City University of New York,
140th Street | Convent Avenue Steinman Hall,
Room 307,
New York, NY 10031
e-mail: mcastaldi@ccny.cuny.edu

Dean P. Modroukas

Mem. ASME
Innoveering, LLC,
100 Remington Blvd.,
Ronkonkoma, NY 11779,
e-mail: Dean.Modroukas@Innoveering.net

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Advanced Energy Systems Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received September 10, 2016; final manuscript received May 29, 2018; published online August 9, 2018. Assoc. Editor: Ronald Breault.

J. Energy Resour. Technol 141(1), 012001 (Aug 09, 2018) (10 pages) Paper No: JERT-16-1364; doi: 10.1115/1.4040526 History: Received September 10, 2016; Revised May 29, 2018

The program involves the application of a novel gasification concept, termed a modular allothermal gasifier (MAG) to produce syngas from coal, biomass, and waste slurries. The MAG employs a steam-driven gasification process using a pressurized entrained flow reactor wherein the external wall surfaces are catalytically heated to 1000 °C via heterogeneous combustion of a portion of the produced syngas. The MAG can be fed by a hydrothermal treatment reactor for biomass and waste feedstocks, which employs well-developed hydrothermal processing technology using the addition of heat and water to provide a uniform slurry product. The hydrothermal treatment reactor requires no preprocessing and a clean syngas is produced at high cold gas efficiency (80%). Importantly, the MAG can operate over a wide range of positive pressures up to 3 MPa (30 bar) which provides process control to vary the output to match end-use needs or feedstock rate. The system produces minimal emissions and operates at significantly higher efficiency and lower energy requirements than pyrolysis, plasma gasification, and carbonization systems. The system is compact and modular, making it easily transportable, for example, to a variety of sites, including those where remoteness, inaccessibility, and space limitations would preclude competing systems. The system can be applied to small gasification systems without the increase in heat losses that plague conventional small scale gasifiers. Test results and model simulations are presented on a single tube system and analyses of a variety of configurations presented.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Al-Zareer, M. , Dincer, I. , and Rosen, M. A. , 2018, “Influence of Selected Gasification Parameters on Syngas Composition From Biomass Gasification,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 140(4), p. 041803. [CrossRef]
Dooher, J. , Modroukas, D. , and Castaldi, M. , 2010, “Tunable Catalytic Gasifier—Concept and Demonstration,” 35th International Technical Conference of Coal Utilization and Fuel Systems, Clearwater, FL, June 6–10.
Castaldi, M. , and Dooher, J. , 2007, “Investigation Into a Catalytically Controlled Reaction Gasifier (CCRG) for Coal to Hydrogen,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 32(17), pp. 4170–4179. [CrossRef]
Holt, N. , 2009, “Coal Usage in a Carbon-Constrained World?,” BCURA Robens Coal Science Lecture, London, Oct. 12.
NETL, 2010, “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Volume 1 - Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity,” National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA, Report No. DOE/NETL-2010/1397. http://www.netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/Research/Energy%20Analysis/OE/BitBase_FinRep_Rev2a-3_20130919_1.pdf
NETL, 2011, “QGESS: Cost Estimation Methodology for NETL Assessments of Power Plant Performance,” National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA, Report No. DOE/NETL-2011/1455. https://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/QGESSNETLCostEstMethod.pdf
Maurstad, O. , Herzog, H. , Bolland, O. , and Beér, J. , 2006, “Impact of Coal Quality and Gasifier Technology on IGCC Performance,” Eighth International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-8), Trondheim, Norway, June 19–22, pp. 1–6.
Smith, L. , Karim, H. , Castaldi, M. , Etemad, S. , Pfefferle, W. , Khanna, V. , and Smith, K. O. , 2005, “ Rich-Catalytic Lean-Burn Combustion for Low-Single Digit NOx Gas Turbines,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 127(1), pp. 27–35. [CrossRef]
Lyubovsky, M. , Smith, L. , Castaldi, M. , Karim, H. , Nentwick, B. , Etemad, S. , LaPierre, R. , and Pfefferle, W. , 2003, “Catalytic Combustion Over Platinum Group Catalysts: Fuel-Lean Versus Fuel-Rich Operation,” Catal. Today, 83(1–4), pp. 71–84. [CrossRef]
Castaldi, M. , Dooher, J. , and Lackner, K. , 2007, “Methods and Systems for Gasifying a Process Stream,” Columbia University, New York, U.S. Patent No. 12/295,099.
Pfefferle, W. , Smith, L. , and Castaldi, M. , 2002, “Method and Apparatus for a Fuel-Rich Catalytic Reactor,” Precision Combustion, Inc., North Haven, CT, U.S. Patent No. 6,358,040B1. https://patents.google.com/patent/US6358040
Zwinkels, M., Jaras, S. G., Menon, P. G., and Griffin, T. A., 1993, “Catalytic Materials for High-Temperature Combustion,” Catalysis Reviews, 35(3), pp. 319–358.
Dalla Betta, R. , 1997, “Catalytic Combustion Gas Turbine Systems: The Preferred Technology for Low Emissions Electric Power Production and Co-Generation,” Catal. Today, 35(1–2), pp. 129–135. [CrossRef]
Seo, H. , Park, S. , Lee, J. , Kim, M. , Chung, S. , Chung, J. , and Kim, K. , 2011, “Effects of Operating Factors in the Coal Gasification Reaction,” Korean J. Chem. Eng., 28(9), pp. 1851–1858. [CrossRef]
Smith, L. L., Karim, H., Castaldi, M., Etemad, S., Pfefferle, W. C., Newburry, D., and Bachovchin, D., 1999, “Recent Advances in Catalytic Combustion for Ground power Gas Turbine Engines,” Air and Waste 92nd Annual Meeting and Exhibition, St. Louis, MO, Paper No. CONF-990608.
Larsson, A. , Seemann, M. , Neves, D. , and Thunman, H. , 2013, “Evaluation of Performance of Industrial-Scale Dual Fluidized Bed Gasifiers Using the Chalmers 2–4 MWth Gasifier,” Energy Fuels, 27(11), pp. 6665–6680. [CrossRef]
NETL, 2003, “Pulse Combustor Design A DOE Assessment,” National Energy Technology Laboratory, Morgantown, WV, Report No. DOE/NETL-2003/1190. https://www.netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/Research/Coal/major%20demonstrations/cctdp/Round4/netl1190.pdf
Dooher, J. , N., Malicki , J. , and Trudden , 1991, “Physicochemical Principles of Coal-Water-Slurry Gasifier Feedstock,” Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, Technical Report No. EPRI-EAR/GS-7467.
Dooher, J. , 2005, “Fundamental Considerations for Coal Slurry Atomization,” Atomization Sprays, 15(5), pp. 582–602. [CrossRef]
Dooher, J. , 2011, “Application of a Phenomenological Model to the Atomization of Slurry Feedstocks in Entrained Flow Gasifiers at Elevated Pressures,” 36th International Technical Conference on Coal Utilization and Fuel Systems, June 5–9, Clearwater, FL, pp. 178–187.
EPRI, 2010, “Program on Technology Innovation: Liquid Carbon Dioxide Coal Slurry for Feeding Coal to Gasifiers,” Electric Power Research Institute, Charlotte, NC, Technical Report No. 1021333. https://www.epri.com/#/pages/product/1021333/
Hornick, M. J., Clayton, S. J., and Sarkus, T. A., 2004, “Tampa Electric Polk Power Station Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Project,” U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, Report No. DE-FC-21-91MC27363.
Jakobs, T. , Djordjevic, N. , Fleck, S. , Mancini, M. , Weber, R. , and Kolb, T. , 2012, “Gasification of High Viscous Slurry R&D on Atomization and Numerical Simulation,” Int. J. Appl. Energy, 93, pp. 449–456. [CrossRef]
Dooher, J. , Modroukas, D. , and Castaldi, M. , 2016, “Advanced Concepts in Modular Coal and Biomass Gasifiers,” 41st International Technical Conference on Clean Coal and Fuel Systems, Clearwater, FL, June 5–9.
Fabry, F. , Rehmet, C., Rohani, V., and Fulcheri, L., 2013, “Waste Gasification by Thermal Plasma: A Review,” Waste Biomass Valorization, 4(3), pp. 421–439. [CrossRef]
Bergman, P. , Kiel, J. , Prims, M. , Ptasinski, K. , and Janssen, F. , 2005, “Torrefied Biomass for Entrained Flow Gasification of Biomass,” ECN, Petten, The Netherlands, Technical Report No. ECN-C-05-026.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Conceptual schematic of heat generation for the MAG process

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Conceptual schematic for homogenous heat generation for indirect gasification

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Thermal output with 20 cm diameter MAG, RT 5–15 s, T = 1000 °C

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Schematic of experimental gasifier apparatus and photograph of the system

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Detailed model and photograph of the micronized coal slurry injector in the MAG

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Coal/water/slurry atomization with slurries

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Atomization properties of the MAG injector with N2 and CO2 atomizing gas

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Effect of operating the MAG in recycle mode

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparison of qualitative results of different diameter MAG reactors operating under varying pressures and flow rates

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Operability map of the MAG reactor

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Time evolution of syngas components during test

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Experimental setup of catalytic wall testing

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Rheogram for hydrothermal biomass slurry

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Summary of the biosolids slurry testing

Tables

Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In