Coproduction of Power,

Fuels and Chemicals

TOPICAL REPORT NUMBER 21 September 2001

TOPICAL REPORT NUMBER 21

A report on a program conducted jointly under

cooperative agreements between:

• Waste Management and Processors, PTY., LLC.

• Gasification Engineering Corp./Global Energy Inc.

• Texaco Energy Systems Inc.

September, 2001

Coproduction of Power,

Fuels and Chemicals

Coproduction of Power,

Fuels and Chemicals

Executive Summary........................................................................................... 1

Background........................................................................................................ 2

Description of Gasification and Power Generation Technology ....................... 4

Syngas Conversion Processes............................................................................ 5

Industrial Applications of Gasification ............................................................. 9

Market Potential for Coproduction .................................................................. 11

Early Entrance Coproduction Plants ............................................................... 15

Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 20

Bibliography .................................................................................................... 22

Contacts for CCT Projects and U.S. DOE CCT Program ............................... 26

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations .............................................................. 27

1

Executive

Summary

Coproduction of power, fuels and chemicals offers an innovative, economically advantageous means of achieving the nation’s

energy goals. Coproduction involves the

integration of three major building blocks:

• Gasification of coal or other hydrocarbon fuels to produce synthesis gas

(syngas)

• Conversion of a portion of the syngas

to high-value products such as liquid

fuels and chemicals

• Combustion of syngas to produce electric power.

In coproduction, the relative amounts of

syngas used for power generation or converted to fuels and chemicals depend on

market demands. The goal of coproduction

is to fully utilize the feedstock and maximize revenue streams. By permitting operation of the gasifier at full capacity to make

syngas for either power generation or fuels

and chemicals production, coproduction

makes more efficient use of capital than

when producing power alone.

Gasification can accommodate a wide

range of feedstocks, including coal and

low-cost opportunity fuels such as petroleum coke, biomass, and municipal wastes.

By taking advantage of both fuel flexibility and product flexibility, coproduction

offers significantly improved economics

compared with conventional power generation facilities.

Power production is achieved by the use

of integrated gasification combined-cycle

(IGCC), an advanced technology that combines modern coal gasification with gas

turbine and steam turbine power generation. IGCC is one of the most efficient and

cleanest of available technologies for coalbased power generation, with emissions

comparable to those of natural gas-based

power production.

Coproduction projects currently envisioned incorporate a number of commercially demonstrated processes for converting

syngas to fuels and chemicals, including (1)

Fischer-Tropsch technology to produce a

range of liquid products that can supply the

gasoline and diesel fuel markets, and (2) the

LPMEOHTM process for manufacture of

methanol, an industrial chemical in widespread use.

IGCC and conversion of syngas to liquid

products have both been demonstrated successfully under the Clean Coal Technology

(CCT) Program sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). This Program is

a multi-phased effort administered by the

National Energy Technology Laboratory

(NETL).

Three DOE-sponsored projects are underway to develop facilities for NETL’s

Early Entrance Coproduction Plants

(EECP). These projects are being conducted

by: (1) Waste Management and Processors,

PTY., LLC., (2) Gasification Engineering

Corp., a Global Energy Inc. company, and

(3) Texaco Energy Systems Inc. Each project

involves preliminary process designs, conceptual economics, and site specific studies.

If the concepts evaluated in these projects

appear feasible from a technical and economic standpoint, the project teams will be

positioned to prepare detailed engineering

designs and obtain funding to construct and

operate the EECPs.

The projects described in this report represent a major step in the development of

advanced technology modules for integration into the high efficiency, near pollutionfree energy concept that constitutes the core

of DOE’s Vision 21 Program, with a goal of

achieving commercial operation by the year

2007.

 Implementation of these projects will

constitute a major step in the development

of the advanced energy systems needed to

maintain our prosperity, protect the environment, and provide energy security. The

proposed plants will also result in a significant reduction in emissions of greenhouse

gases, especially carbon dioxide.
2

Coproduction of Power,

Fuels and Chemicals

Background

Three major challenges facing the United

States are continued economic growth, environmental protection, and energy security.

Achieving these objectives depends on an

adequate supply of affordable energy produced in an environmentally friendly way.

To prosper in the 21st century, we need 21st

century technology. Our reliance on standard pulverized coal (PC) fired power plants

with efficiencies in the range of 35% will not

suffice. A major goal of the Department of

Energy’s (DOE) Clean Coal Technology

(CCT) Program has been to demonstrate the

cutting edge technologies the nation will

need to meet our economic and environmental goals. In the United States there are several hundred years of coal reserves.

Coproduction of power, fuels and chemicals offers an innovative, economically advantageous means of achieving our energy

needs. Coproduction involves the integration of three major building blocks:

• Gasification of coal or other carbonaceous materials to produce synthesis

gas (syngas)

• Conversion of a portion of the syngas

to high-value products such as liquid

fuels and chemicals

• Combustion of syngas and unreacted

syngas from the conversion processes

to produce electric power in a combined-cycle system.

The relative amounts of syngas used for

power generation or converted to fuels and

chemicals can be varied depending on market

demands.

The first two steps are referred to as Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle (IGCC)

operation. In IGCC, the fuel (usually coal) is

reacted with steam and oxygen to produce

syngas, which consists of hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO), and smaller amounts of
3

Gasification-Based System

Concepts other gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2),

hydrogen sulfide (H2S), ammonia (NH3), water

vapor, and methane (CH4), with traces of

other materials. This gas is cleaned of its

contaminants and used for electric power production. Such a system is inherently more

efficient and cleaner than conventional PCfired systems, with efficiencies typically being above 40% and emissions reduced to the

lowest levels currently achievable.

In addition to higher efficiency, gasification has many other advantages. One advantage is that H2S and NH3 are much more easily

scrubbed from the gasifier effluent than are

sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx)

from the stack gas of a PC-fired boiler. Thus,

IGCC plants are environmentally more

friendly. Furthermore, the recovered H2S is

readily converted to sulfur or sulfuric acid,

both of which are commodity chemicals with

a large market. Likewise, ammonia is a commodity chemical that can easily be sold.

Another major advantage of gasification is

that it can accommodate a wide variety of feedstocks, including low-cost, so-called opportunity fuels. In addition, the syngas can be converted

to a broad range of useful products, such as

diesel fuel, methanol, higher waxes, ammonia,

and other chemicals.

In the coproduction concept, an energy complex produces not only power, but also fuels

and/or chemicals. This greatly increases the

flexibility of the complex and offers economic

advantages compared with separate plants, one

producing only power and the other only fuels or

chemicals. Operation of the gasifier at full capacity to make syngas for either power generation or manufacture of higher value products

such as fuels and chemicals maximizes the

efficiency of capital utilization.

This report discusses in more detail some of

the available options, the technologies involved,

and what DOE is doing to promote them and

ensure they are available as we need them.

Coal,

Petroleum coke,

Biomass,

Waste, etc.

Gasifier

Particulate

Removal

Air Separator

Oxygen

Air

Steam

Particulates

Steam

Solid Waste

Gas

Cleanup

Sulfur Byproduct

Compressed Air

Synthesis Gas

Conversion

Shift

Reactor

Fuels and

Chemicals

Generator

Steam Turbine

Combustion

Turbine

Heat Recovery

Steam Generator

Combustor

Air

Generator

Stack

Electric

Power

Electric

Power

Electric

Power

Hydrogen

H2 Separation

Fuel Cells

Gaseous

Constituents

Solids

Ammonia

Clean

Syngas
4

Description of

Gasification and

Power Generation

Technology

Gasification

The first step in coproduction is gasification. Coal gasification has been practiced

commercially for many years. The heart of

these systems is the gasifier, which converts

carbonaceous feedstock into largely gaseous

components by applying heat under pressure

in the presence of steam and oxygen. Partial

oxidation of the feedstock provides the heat.

The product is syngas, along with smaller

quantities of CO2 and CH4.

Minerals (ash) in the feedstock separate

and leave the bottom of the gasifier either as

an inert glass-like slag or other marketable

solid product. Only a small fraction of the ash

becomes entrained in the syngas and requires

removal downstream. Sulfur in the gasifier

feed is reduced to H2S, and nitrogen is reduced to NH3. These materials, along with

hydrogen chloride and entrained particles,

are removed in the downstream gas cleanup

system.

The syngas is used to generate electric

power via a combustion turbine and produce

a broad range of chemicals and clean fuels.

Syngas can also be used to generate power

via fuel cells or to produce hydrogen.

Combined-Cycle Power Generation

As indicated above, the clean syngas from

the gasification step is burned, in whole or in

part, in a combustion turbine. This turbine

drives an electric generator and an air compressor which provides air under pressure to

the air separation unit to supply oxygen to the

gasifier. The hot gas from the combustion

turbine is sent to a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG), which produces steam for a

steam turbine/generator. This combined use

of combustion and steam turbines significantly boosts the overall thermal efficiency

of power generation compared with single

cycle operation.

Ultimately, IGCC systems will be capable of reaching efficiencies of 60% with

near-zero sulfur and particulate pollution and

low NOx emissions. The high process efficiency results in lower production of CO2,

which is a major greenhouse gas considered

responsible for global climate change. In

gasification systems, CO2 can be readily

removed from the syngas because it is present

in concentrated form. This option is well

suited to a variety of CO2 sequestration

schemes such as storage.

Gasifier Gas

Composition

(Vol %)

H2 25 - 30

CO 30 - 60

CO2 5 - 15

H20 2 - 30

CH4 0 -5

H2S 0.2 - 1

COS 0 - 0.1

N2 0.5 - 4

Ar 0.2 - 1

NH3 + HCN 0 - 0.3

ash/slag

Coal

Oxygen

Steam

Methanation

CO + 3H2 CH4 + H2O

Water-Gas Shift

CO + H2O H2 + CO2

Gasification with Hydrogen

C + 2H2 CH4

Gasification with Steam

C + H2O CO + H2

Combustion with Oxygen

C + O2 CO2

Gasification with Oxygen

C + 1/2 O2 CO

Gasification with Carbon Dioxide

C + CO2 2CO

Gasification chemistry
5

Syngas

Conversion

Processes

The key to coproduction is the ability to

utilize syngas in applications other than power

generation.

Gasification can deliver a full slate of

commodity products, including hydrogen,

environmentally superior transportation fuels, and chemicals. Hydrogen is a particularly attractive coproduction option, because

it requires the lowest incremental investment

(estimated at less than 10% of the IGCC plant

cost) beyond the initial IGCC investment

and has the potential to provide significant

additional revenue. Hydrogen is a critical

ingredient in refinery hydrocracking and

desulfurization processes and is also a base

raw material for ammonia production.

Coproduction options include conversion

of syngas to methanol, higher alcohols,

Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) liquids, waxes, and

other high-value products. F-T fuels, with

their zero aromatic content, high cetane number, and zero sulfur and nitrogen content,

will be a valuable blending stock for diesel

fuel to meet the requirements of the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990, administered

by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA). The fuel products will also meet

EPA’s Tier 2 sulfur requirements for light

duty vehicles of 30 ppm for gasoline and 15

ppm for diesel.

A number of commercially proven syngas

conversion technologies have already been

developed.

Fischer-Tropsch Process

F-T technology was initially developed,

beginning in 1923, by two German scientists,

Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch, based on

earlier observations by Sabatier and Senderens.

The F-T process converts syngas into a mixture of mainly straight chain paraffinic and

olefinic hydrocarbons. F-T synthesis takes

place over a cobalt- or iron-based catalyst that

promotes the reaction of CO and H2 to form

hydrocarbons and water. The hydrocarbon

product includes material of varying properties from light gases (C2-C4) through waxes

such as C50+ molecules. The process operates

at relatively moderate temperatures (400 –

550 °F) and pressures (150 – 560 psia).

After sulfur removal, the syngas is fed to

the F-T reactor. The reactor operates with a

H2/CO molar ratio typically between 1.0 and

2.0. Good heat transfer is required, because

the reaction is highly exothermic, and selectivity is temperature sensitive.
6

Four types of F-T reactors have been

developed: tubular fixed-bed, circulating fluidized bed, fixed fluidized bed, and slurry

bubble column. Each type has its advantages

and disadvantages.

Recently, significant amounts of operating data have been accumulated for slurry

bubble column reactors, including the operation of a 5-m diameter, 2500 b/d reactor at

Sasol Synfuels International (SASOL) in

South Africa and the 0.6-m reactor at the

DOE-owned Alternative Fuels Development

Unit (AFDU) at LaPorte, Texas. The slurry

reactor design has proven to be the preferred

configuration, primarily because of superior

temperature control.

The reaction to form paraffins is as follows:

2 nH2 + nCO = CnH2n+2 + nH2O

Similar reactions take place to form olefins and alcohols. The F-T product distribution typically follows the single-parameter

Anderson-Schulz-Flory (ASF) equation:

Wn = n(1-α)2αn-1

where Wn is the weight fraction of product of

carbon number n, and α is the chain growth

probability. The higher the value of α, the

longer the average chain length of the hydrocarbons. If α equals 0, only methane is produced. In practice, there is often a deviation

from the ideal ASF distribution. The extent

of this deviation varies with the nature of the

catalyst and the operating conditions.

The reactor effluent is cooled to allow

separation of the tail gas, condensate (naphtha and diesel fuel), wax, and process water.

The majority of the tail gas is reformed and

recycled through the reactor to increase the

overall conversion of CO to liquid hydrocarbons. Alternatively, in the coproduction mode

the tail gas can be utilized to supplement the

fuel used for power production, thereby increasing overall efficiency.

F-T products are ultra-clean fuels in that

they contain no sulfur or nitrogen and are

virtually free of aromatics. F-T derived diesel fuel is of excellent quality, having a

cetane number greater than 70. The zerosulfur F-T naphtha can be used as a blending

stock for low-sulfur gasoline production,

although the naphta has a low octane. The

trend in both Europe and the United States is

for cleaner transportation fuels, with more

stringent fuel quality and vehicle exhaust

emissions regulations being promulgated by

governmental bodies. This will add impetus

to more widespread use of F-T products.

To meet certain fuel specifications, such

as pour point and octane number, raw F-T

products require additional processing. The

wax can be processed in a selective

hydrocracker operating under mild conditions, where some longer chain hydrocarbons are broken into shorter molecules and

some isomerization occurs, thereby improving the boiling range and pour point for

blending with diesel fuel.

The light naphtha can be hydrotreated to

saturate the olefins and subsequently used in

a refinery isomerization unit or fed to a

naphtha cracker for ethylene production. The

heavy naphtha also can be hydrotreated and

then fed to a naphtha cracker. If a naphtha

cracker is not available, this stream can be

stored and used as a peaking fuel in a gas

turbine to augment electricity production.

Several facilities have been built for implementing F-T technology. Most notable is the

commercial operation that has been carried

out successfully for many years by SASOL.

This development was undertaken by South

Africa to minimize its dependence on imported oil and to utilize its large reserves of

coal.

The SASOL operation uses iron-based

catalysts as developed in the initial German

work. Other companies that operate either

pilot-plant or commercial F-T facilities include two major established oil companies,

Exxon-Mobil and Shell, and two relatively

new companies, Rentech and Syntroleum.

 Numerous patents cover F-T catalysts

and process configurations. Rentech and

Syntroleum hold some significant patents
7

and have established licensing arrangements

with a number of potential users of the F-T

process, including major corporations.

Several companies have announced their

intention to participate in commercial F-T

projects. In some cases, these projects are

being considered as a means of utilizing

natural gas reserves that are deemed uneconomical for development or for stranded

natural gas that has no access to conventional

markets.

Production of Methanol

The Liquid Phase Methanol (LPMEOHTM)

process (described in Topical Report No. 11)

integrates coal gasification with chemicals

production. It was demonstrated on a commercial scale by a partnership between Air

Products and Chemicals, Inc., and Eastman

Chemical Company as part of the CCT Program. Application of this technology can

enhance the economics and efficiency of

power generation by producing a clean-burning, storable liquid (methanol) from syngas

during periods of low power demand. The

methanol can be used to fuel combustion

turbines during peak demand.

The main uses for methanol are in the

production of chemicals, such as formaldehyde, acetic acid, and other derivatives, and

as a fuel. It can be dehydrated to produce

olefins, a large and growing market. Demonstration of the LPMEOHTM process has increased the experience base and reduced the

commercial risk for future operations,

whether integrated with chemicals production or with IGCC power production. Together these technologies can fill local needs

for electric power, transportation fuels, and

chemicals.

Production of Higher Alcohols

In addition to methanol, alcohols having

higher molecular weights, such as C2-C6

alcohols, can be produced from syngas. Research is underway to develop processes

suitable for commercial application. Higher

alcohols are candidates for inclusion in gasoline as oxygenates to reduce exhaust emissions that contribute to smog formation.

Syngas

Feed

Steam

Catalyst Powder

Slurried in Oil

Disengagement Zone

Unreacted Gas

+ Methanol Product (vapor)

Liquid

Catalyst

2 H2

CH3OH

Boiler

Feedwater

Vapor CO Bubble

Vapor

Bubble

Liquid phase methanol

slurry reactor
8

Production of Hydrogen and Future

Fuels

Another option for coproduction is the

manufacture of hydrogen from syngas. This

product is part of the product slate envisioned in DOE’s Vision 21 Program. Hydrogen is a critical ingredient in refinery

processes, such as hydrocracking and

hydrotreating, and is also a starting material

for ammonia production.

Hydrogen production is being considered

as an integral part of DOE’s Future Fuels

Program, which targets the development of

clean fuels that will require major modifications to, or replacement of, the existing transportation fuels infrastructure.

It is anticipated that these future generation fuels will be obtainable from domestic

natural gas, petroleum, refinery wastes, coal

and other suitable carbonaceous feeds. As

part of an advanced transportation system,

the widespread deployment of these future

fuels will enable vehicles to achieve zero to

near-zero emissions of criteria pollutants and

greenhouse gases.

These future fuels will be cost competitive, reliable, safe, and comparable to current

fuel in efficiency and performance. They

will, however, likely require some adjustment to today’s consumer patterns and fueling/refueling requirements. Examples of

advanced vehicle systems that will require

these future fuels include diesel-electric hybrids and fuel cell powered vehicles. Future

fuels will enable the Nation to meet its desire

for a high-efficiency transportation system

having minimum environmental impact.

View of LPMEOHTM Demonstration Unit with building

housing catalyst facilities in foreground
9

Industrial

Applications

of Gasification

Current Status of Gasification

In today’s changing world, single-purpose, single-technology power plants are limited in their ability to compete in the

marketplace. Deregulation is completely

restructuring the electric power industry.

Competition is forcing energy suppliers to

downsize, streamline operations, and merge.

Gasification will be the key to providing

low-cost energy for continued U.S. economic

growth while, at the same time, furthering

national goals to protect the environment

and mitigate concerns about global climate

change. Successful new energy firms will

capitalize on opportunities to integrate

electric power generation with industrial

processes.

Energy firms that produce a variety of

products, such as steam, chemicals, and fuels, are poised to capture an increasing volume of electricity sales in a deregulated

environment. In a competitive energy market, systems that offer the producer reduced

market risk and enhanced revenues from

high-value products are essential. Gasification systems will prosper in this type of

environment by offering significant hedges

against market and environmental risks.

Gasification in conjunction with syngas

conversion processes represents the only technology capable of coproducing power and a

wide variety of commodity and premium

products. A gasification facility can be built

to convert virtually any carbonaceous feedstock into products such as power, steam,

hydrogen, transportation fuels, and valueadded chemicals.

Different technology combinations enable use of low-cost, readily available resources and waste materials in highly efficient

energy conversion options. These options

can be selected to meet any of a host of

market applications, with modules being

combined according to individual business

opportunities. These versatile technology

combinations will be the core of the new

generation of energy plants.

Of the gasification plants that have been

constructed to date, several have improved

their economic viability through the sale of

coproducts. In the United States, the Eastman

Chemical Company’s commercial plant at

Kingsport, Tennessee, operated since 1983,

has pioneered the use of coal gasification

solely for the production of chemicals from

carbon monoxide and syngas-derived

methanol.

DOE, in partnership with industry, has

played a crucial role in catalyzing long-term

research and demonstrating advanced technologies such as IGCC, through the CCT

Program. At a time when deregulation has

made the power industry cautious about investment, DOE mitigates economic and technical risks by underwriting the development

of novel technologies. Public/private partnerships are fostering the commercialization

of gasification-based processes that will give

the United States an edge in rapidly expanding global energy markets while meeting

increased domestic demand for power and

fuels with superior environmental protection.

The Future of Gasification-Based

Energy Plants

Gasification systems are the basis of a

new energy industry. The electric power

industry is keenly aware that gasification is a

leading candidate to provide clean and efficient baseload power when major capacity

additions are needed.

Gasification has inherent characteristics

that will enable major energy industries —

electric power generation, petroleum refineries, chemicals and fuels industries — and

energy users to remold their technology and

business structures to meet future market needs

and take advantage of new opportunities.
10

Cumulative worldwide gasification capacity and growth

Deregulation, restructuring, and new types

of cost competition are emerging along with

increased environmental pressures. As a result, the boundaries of these industries and

their business structures will change significantly. The inevitable result will be opportunities for lower-cost, more efficient, and less

polluting energy conversion technologies.

These technology options will enable structural changes in both the technology base and

business interests of major energy industries

as power generation evolves into more diverse coproduction modes.

The unique advantages of gasification

systems have created a significant industrial

applications market because of both upstream

(feedstock) and downstream (product) flexibility.

In the petroleum refining industry, gasification has numerous important near-term

synergistic applications. Gasifiers are used

to process refinery wastes, avoiding waste

disposal costs and improving the yield from

increasingly sour crude oils. At the same

time, electricity and steam are produced to

meet refinery needs, and the excess syngas

can be used to generate valuable hydrogen or

fuel products that are integrated into refinery

operations.

In the pulp and paper industry, black

liquor produced in the pulping process can

be gasified to capture its energy value for

kiln operation and recover pulping chemicals for reuse. This increases process efficiency and reduces environmental impact

by destroying potentially hazardous process

wastes.

In the steelmaking industry, gasification

can provide syngas for use both as the reactant

for direct reduction and as a fuel for power

generation, especially in countries where natural gas and coke are not readily available.

1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002

 MWth Syngas

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Planned

Existing

70,000

2006
11

Market Potential

for Coproduction

Advantages of Coproduction

In the past, IGCC has typically been considered

for baseload, high-dispatch market needs for electric power. However, there continues to be a high

demand for peaking and intermediate load capacity.

Combining coproduction of chemicals and power

in a gasification facility allows the flexibility to

maximize power generation during peak demand

periods and maximize chemicals production during

off-peak periods, making gasification more attractive to the existing power market. It also allows

flexibility in geographical location based on local

grid peak-shaving needs.

A combined power and methanol plant requires

less capital than separate power and methanol processes. Locating the integrated facility near a chemical complex provides a means of improving

gasification economics by ensuring full utilization

of the gasifier and exploiting synergies between the

processes.

Market Drivers

Continued growth in gasification is being driven

by a number of factors:

• Market forces are replacing government regulations, thus placing increased emphasis on

economic performance.

• Environmental standards are becoming increasingly stringent, and greenhouse gas emissions

are of growing concern.

• Demand is increasing for cleaner transportation fuels, which require more hydrogen to

produce.

• Demand is escalating for chemicals both in the

United States and in other coal-dependent areas

such as Asia.

• Costs for solid waste and sewage sludge disposal are continuing to escalate, increasing the

incentive to use them as opportunity feedstocks.

• Interest is increasing in the use of renewables,

such as biomass, to address global climate

change concerns.

• Utilities, independent power producers,

and refiners, who have grown increasingly

dependent on the volatile natural gas market, are seeking to diversify their fuel

supply mix.

Competition Within Energy Markets

During the coming years, competition among

various power systems and fuel resources will

continue. Natural gas has been readily available

and relatively inexpensive, leading to growth in

natural-gas-based power systems. However, as

gas becomes more expensive, lower-cost energy resource options such as coal and alternative fuels become increasingly viable choices.

Gasification will then prove to be ideally suited

for providing efficient power generation and

syngas manufacture.

The capital cost for a natural gas combinedcycle power plant is currently about one-half the

cost of a coal-based IGCC plant. IGCC is capital

intensive and needs economies of scale and fuel

cost advantages to be an attractive investment.

However, gasification costs can be lowered

through integration with downstream applications such as fuels and chemicals production.

Gasifiers can (1) operate on low-cost opportunity

feedstocks; (2) be used to convert hazardous

waste into useful products, reducing or eliminating waste disposal costs; and (3) coproduce power,

steam, and high-value products for use within the

host plant or for export.

DOE has studied the economics of

coproduction, demonstrating the advantage of

multiple revenue streams, i.e. from sale of electric power, liquid fuels, and chemicals. In one

scenario, it is assumed that the power generated

by coproduction is sold at the same price as that

generated by natural gas combined-cycle. Thus,

the price of natural gas sets the cost of power and

establishes a benchmark for economic comparison. In addition, liquid fuels are valued at an

assumed premium of $8/barrel over the reference world oil price of $21/barrel in 2010 as

predicted by the U.S. Energy Information

Agency. Based on a fixed return on equity

(ROE) of 15% and a coal price of $30/ton,
12

Through the DOE CCT Program,

coal gasification has been successfully demonstrated on a commercial

scale. The CCT Program, a costshared effort with private industry,

provides an effective approach to

moving new technologies from

bench scale to the marketplace.

Coal gasification projects conducted

under the CCT Program include:

• The Tampa Electric Company

IGCC project (described in Topical Report No. 19) is a greenfield

facility built in Polk County,

Florida. The plant uses a Texaco

oxygen-blown entrained flow gasifier integrated with a General

Electric 7F gas turbine and steam

cycle in a combined-cycle plant.

The plant also has integrated air

separation and cold gas cleanup

systems. The plant has accumulated over 27,000 hours of operation, producing 250 MWe at over

75% stream factor. Overall plant

availability averages over 90%.

Carbon burnout exceeds 95%,

and emissions of SO2, NOx, and

particulates are well below the

regulatory limits set for the plant

site. This facility was the winner

Gasification Projects in the CCT Program

General Electric

model MS 7001FA

gas turbine

of the 1997 Powerplant of the Year

Award presented by Power Magazine.

• The Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project (described

in Topical Report No. 20) involves

repowering a 1950s steam turbine

with an advanced gasification system. This project, now completed,

was a joint venture between PSI

Energy and Global Energy Inc.

(formerly Destec). The Wabash

River plant hosts the world’s largest commercially operating singletrain gasification system. The

conventional coal boiler was replaced by an oxygen-blown, twostage entrained gasifier and a gas

cleanup system. A General Electric

gas turbine was installed to make

a combined-cycle power plant. Net

power production of 262 MWe was

achieved during the four-year

demonstration period. During that

period, total operating hours exceeded 15,000, and the unit continues to operate successfully.

Overall thermal efficiency approached 40%, at up to 77% plant

availability. Environmental performance was excellent, with SO2

emissions of 0.1 lb/million Btu

and NOx emissions of 0.15

lb/million Btu. This plant was

winner of Power Magazine’s

1996 Powerplant of the Year

Award. The Tampa and Wabash

River IGCC plants are the two

cleanest coal-based power plants

in the world.

• The Kentucky Pioneer Energy

IGCC Demonstration Project, involving a 540 MWe (net) IGCC unit,

will be conducted by Kentucky Pioneer Energy, LLC, a subsidiary of

Global Energy Inc. This plant,

which will be the largest power producer of the IGCC demonstration

projects, features use of the BGL

(formerly British Gas/Lurgi)

slagging fixed-bed gasification system coupled with both a combinedcycle power plant and a 2 MWe

molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC).

The fuel cell will generate power

from a portion of the syngas. The

project will use a Midwestern highsulfur bituminous coal, as well as

coal fines and renewable feedstocks such as biomass and refuse

derived fuels (RDF). The slagging

gasifier produces a non-leaching,

glass-like slag that can be marketed as a usable by-product. Production of F-T liquids from a portion

of the syngas is an option that will

be considered. Projected overall

thermal efficiency is 48%.
13

Tampa Electric Company IGCC Project

Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project

IGCC is competitive with natural gas at about

$3.75/million Btu. For comparison, by generating additional revenue, coproduction attains the

same ROE at a lower natural gas price of about

$3.25/million Btu. These figures illustrate the

improved profitability of coproduction.

Global Acceptance of Gasification

The stage is set for gasification to play a major

part in domestic and global energy markets. In

addition to coal-based utility applications, gasification has been used in the conversion of petroleum coke, residual oil, and biomass to power,

steam, and chemicals. Currently, coal is the feedstock for 44% of the syngas capacity worldwide.

Petroleum and petroleum coke provide an additional 42%, and other resources provide the remainder. Biomass constitutes only a fraction of a

percent of all gasification feedstocks. With emphasis on reducing fuel costs, waste disposal

costs, and CO2 emissions, a number of projects

will soon use biomass as gasifier feed.

By the year 2015, it is anticipated that gasification-based technologies will have gained global acceptance and, as a result, will have penetrated

worldwide power generation markets, achieved

more widespread use in the petroleum refining

industry, and been widely deployed in the fuels

and chemicals market. Gasification-based processes will be the technology of choice because of

their low cost and superior environmental performance and because their modularity of design

and fuel flexibility provide easy integration with

other processes.

Commercial guarantees and financing will be

readily available, minimizing the need for government incentives. This ease of access will result

in increased use of domestic resources, improving U.S. industrial competitiveness and enhancing U.S. energy security.
14

Coal gasification has been in use

for many years. Primitive coal gasification provided town gas worldwide

more than 100 years ago, and a gasification industry produced coal-based

transportation fuels for Germany during World War II.

Advanced gasification technology

development began in the U.S. in the

1960s, the stimuli being (1) the desire

for development of coal-based replacements for natural gas and oil due to

shortages and price increases, and (2)

the need for more efficient, clean coalbased power plants. Modern gasification technology is the result of the

response of U.S. government and industry to these needs. Such systems

use advanced pressurized coal gasifiRadiant

Syngas

Cooler

Coal

Slurry

Feed

Water

Oxygen from Air

Separation Plant

High

Pressure

Steam

Texaco

Gasifier

Syngas

Slag to

Disposal

Coal Gasification

ers to produce a fuel for gas turbinebased electric power generation; the

gas turbine exhaust produces steam

to generate additional electricity.

The first commercial scale use of

coal gasification in the United States

was the Cool Water Project in California, which was based on Texaco technology. The Cool Water Project,

which received major support from

the U.S. Synthetic Fuels Corporation,

Southern California Edison Company,

EPRI (formerly the Electric Power Research Institute), and others, was instrumental in proving the feasibility of

coal gasification and demonstrating

their exceptionally low emissions.

Today, coal gasification is seeing

increasing use. In the United States,

Texaco gasifiers are utilized in commercial operation at the Eastman

Chemical plant in Kingsport, Tennessee to produce synthesis gas for production of methanol and a wide range

of other chemicals. The Dakota Gasification plant in North Dakota uses

Lurgi gasifiers to produce synthetic

natural gas and chemicals.

Overseas, a major chemical and

transportation fuel industry exists in

The Republic of South Africa, mostly

based upon an advanced version of

the early German gasification technology. Several German gasifiers are

commercially available. Texaco gasifiers are in commercial operation, or

planned, in the People’s Republic of

China and other nations. In Germany,

methanol is produced via coal gasification in a facility operated by Sekundarrohstoff Verwertungszentrum

Schwarze Pumpe GmbH (SVZ). The

SVZ facility, which has been operated

for decades near Berlin, is now the

largest recycling center in Europe.

Gas turbines for power generation

have been one of the spinoffs of jet

aircraft engine development. Initially utilized by utilities for peaking purposes, their reliability,

efficiency and capacity have improved to the extent that they

now also provide intermediate

and baseload electric power. It is

projected that coal gasification

and gas turbines will make significant contributions to future

power generation

Today’s systems are efficient

because of major improvements

that have taken place in gasification and gas turbine technologies,

and a high degree of system integration that efficiently recovers

and uses waste heat.

Gas cleanup in a gasificationbased power plant is relatively

inexpensive compared with flue

gas cleanup in conventional

coal-fired steam power plants,

for several reasons: (1) smaller

equipment is required because

a much smaller volume of gas is

cleaned, and (2) the contaminants are removed in a reduced

state (H2S and NH3) rather than

in an oxidized state (SO2 and

NOx). This results from the fact

that contaminants are removed

from the pressurized fuel gas before combustion. In contrast, the

volume of flue gas from a coalsteam power plant is much

greater because of the presence

of nitrogen diluent from the air

and because the flue gas is

cleaned at atmospheric pressure.

Atmospheric emissions are

very low due to the use of proven

technologies for highly effective

removal of sulfur and other contaminants from the syngas. Advancements being demonstrated

in the CCT Program are expected

to result in still higher efficiencies.
15

Early Entrance

Coproduction

Plants

Among its many benefits, coproduction

can lead to a reduction in oil imports by

producing significant quantities of ultra-clean

fuels from domestic resources with minimum emissions. However, private investors

and process developers are hesitant to invest

in coproduction plants until technical, economic, and integration risks are acceptable.

DOE has adopted an Early Entrance

Coproduction Plant (EECP) strategy to mitigate these risks. This strategy initially involves feasibility studies of several

coproduction configurations assuming a variety of feedstocks at a number of plant

locations. Three EECP feasibility studies

have been initiated. Each study involves design of a unique facility capable of

coproducing a combination of electric power,

heat, fuels, and chemicals from syngas derived either from coal alone or from a combination of coal and other feedstocks.

Each EECP study will pursue a different

coproduction strategy, conduct research and

development to address technical issues, and

culminate in a preliminary design of a precommercial facility. If the strategies appear

feasible, each project team will have sufficient information to proceed with a detailed

engineering design and obtain private funding to construct and operate an EECP.

These EECP conceptual plants would be

small-scale commercial facilities that are

intended to demonstrate successful operation of integrated technologies. They would

be constructed adjacent to existing facilities

and be capable of processing multiple feedstocks and delivering more than one product.

They would be built by industrial consortia

in partnership with State and Federal governments. Once successful operation has shown

the risks to be acceptable, future commercial

plants would not require Federal funds.

The three EECP studies currently underway are described in the following sections.

Waste Management

and Processors Project

The Waste Management and Processors

EECP project involves converting high-ash

coal residue into premium transportation

fuels and electricity. Coal waste not only

provides a low-cost feedstock, but its use

also benefits the environment by reclaiming

land and eliminating a potential pollution

problem. The proposed plant location is at

the Gilberton Power Plant cogeneration facility, Gilberton, Pennsylvania.

The prime contractor is Waste Management and Processors, PTY., LLC., (WMPI)

of Gilberton, Pennsylvania. The WMPI team

includes Nexant (a Bechtel Technology and

Consulting company), a global engineering

and construction company; Texaco Global

Gas and Power, an integrated energy company with an international presence in coal

gasification; and SASOL Technology Ltd.,

a leader in F-T process technology.

This EECP would take full advantage of

the existing infrastructure at Gilberton,

thereby minimizing cost while providing

immediate local environmental benefits by

reclaiming coal wastes, which include large

ponds filled with anthracite waste derived

from on-site coal cleaning operations.

Air Air Separation

Unit

O2

Steam

Gasification Syngas Cleaning

& CO2 Removal

Power

Natural

Gas Hydrogen

Plant

F-T

Synthesis

Product

Recovery

Sulfur

Coal

Anthracite

Tailing

Pet. Coke

CO2

Steam

H2

Cogeneration

Plant

Naphtha

Diesel

Waste Management and Processors process flow diagram
16

Operation of the proposed EECP will

reduce many of the technical risks that are

inherent with first-of-a-kind plants. Of major concern are the waste coal gasification

process and its integration with the F-T

system.

Integrated Methanol and Power

Production from Clean Coal

Technologies (IMPPCCT) Project

This project will evaluate coproduction of

power and chemicals from a plant fueled

with coal and other carbon-based feedstocks.

The prime contractor is Gasification Engineering, a subsidiary of Global Energy Inc.,

which recently purchased the Dow/Destec

gasification technology from Dynegy and

renamed it E-GASTM. Team members are

Air Products & Chemicals, Inc., Dow Chemical Company, Dow Corning Corporation,

Methanex Corporation, and Siemens

Westinghouse.

Global Energy will supply its IGCC technology expertise, and Air Products will proCoal/Other Fuel

Oxygen Gasification

Syngas

Baseload

Fuel

Gas

Once-Through

Methanol

(LPMEOHTM)

Methanol

Storage

Peaking

Power

Remote

Peaking

Power

Methanol

Sales

Peak

Customer

Peak

Combined

Cycle

Power

Back-up

Fuel

Integration of LPMEOHTM with

IGCC for coproduction of

methanol and electric power

vide experience from its LPMEOHTM process, which produces methanol from coalderived syngas. Both of these technologies

have been successfully demonstrated on a

commercial scale in CCT projects.

 Dow Chemical and Dow Corning will

provide a customer’s perspective for the

methanol product and also offer some potential host sites for future commercial scale

plants. Methanex will add its global expertise in producing and marketing chemicalgrade methanol, and Siemens Westinghouse

will lend its power generation experience in

advanced turbine systems, specifically “G”

model turbines.

 If the concept proves to be economically

feasible, the team will develop an engineering design package for a plant to be built at

the Wabash River site near Terre Haute,

Indiana. Existing contracts call for sale of

syngas to the adjacent power generation facility during periods of peak demand.

Methanol is the co-product of choice, and

the LPMEOHTM process is particularly suit-
17

Distinctive Features of IGCC

IGCC takes a fundamentally different approach from power producing

processes that involve only combustion. IGCC generates a clean, mediumBtu syngas, with essentially complete removal of several potential air pollutants prior to combustion. As a result, atmospheric emissions of these

pollutants are very low.

The higher efficiency of IGCC power plants results in lower coal consumption, thereby leading to lower emissions of CO2, a major greenhouse

gas. Less coal use also results in less ash requiring disposal.

Gasification can be used with virtually any carbon-based feedstock. Water use is lower than conventional coal-based generation because gas turbine units require no cooling water, an especially important consideration in

areas of limited water resources.

Combined-cycle units can be operated on other feedstocks, such as

natural gas or fuel oil, before the gasifier is constructed, thereby providing

early power. The size of gas turbine units can be chosen to meet specific

power requirements. Ability to operate on multiple fuels also permits continued operation of the gas turbine unit if the gasifier island is shut down for

maintenance or repairs, or if warranted by changes in fuel costs.

An additional benefit of IGCC is product flexibility, permitting production

of alternatives such as chemicals or transportation fuels. Market forces,

which are replacing regulatory structures, have resulted in expanded IGCC

applications. As a result of both feedstock and product flexibility, traditional

steam-powered electricity generation using single feedstocks is being supplanted by more versatile integrated technologies.

IGCC power plants use plentiful and relatively inexpensive coal as their

fuel. In the United States there are several hundred years of coal reserves,

and use of coal helps to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

In a typical IGCC plant, the syngas is cleaned for removal of particulates

and trace contaminants. Sulfur is recovered as hydrogen sulfide and converted to elemental sulfur in a standard Claus plant. The clean syngas is utilized as fuel for electricity generation in a high-efficiency combustion turbine

generator. Hot combustion turbine exhaust gas is used to produce highpressure, high-temperature steam in a heat recovery steam generator for

additional power production in a steam turbine or for use as thermal energy

in cogeneration applications.

able for ramping up in a relatively short

period of time, an advantage when operating during non-peak periods.

Texaco Energy Systems Inc. Project

The Texaco EECP project combines

Texaco’s coal gasification expertise with

Rentech’s F-T technology to produce electric power, high-quality transportation fuels, and chemicals from coal and/or

petroleum coke. Joining Texaco are Brown

& Root Services, a division of Kellogg

Brown & Root, Inc.; GE Power Systems;

Praxair, Inc.; and Rentech, Inc.. This study

is intended to determine the best configuration for commercial implementation of the

integrated technology. If the concept proves

economically feasible, an engineering design package will be developed for a plant to

be built at one of several potential sites.

The proposed plant is designed to handle a

wide variety of feedstocks and is capable of

making multiple products depending on market conditions.

The project involves technical and economic studies of several process options,

including syngas composition, F-T product

upgrading, wastewater treatment, catalyst/

wax separation, acid gas removal, tail gas

utilization, and site selection.

Texaco Energy Systems process flow diagram

Air Air Separation

Unit

O2

Steam

Gasification Combined

Cycle

Syngas

Power

Syngas Acid Gas

Removal

F-T Synthesis

& Upgrade Naphtha

Sulfur

Coal

or

Petroleum

Coke

Slurry

Feed

CO2 Rich

Gas

Syngas

Sulfur

Recovery

Unit H Acid Gas 2SO4

Diesel

Tail

Gas

Wax
18

Vision 21

Ultimately, gasification will be the cornerstone technology for a new generation of energy plants for the 21st century,

the Vision 21 energy systems. These will be highly efficient systems coproducing low-cost electric power, transportation

fuels, and high-value chemicals, all tailored to the energy demands of the geographic area where they are located. Gasification-based technologies, with their feedstock and product flexibility coupled with high efficiency and ultra-low emissions, constitute the core of the Vision 21 concept.

Vision 21 is DOE’s strategy for advancing the research and development of technologies critical to creating the integrated energy systems of the future. R&D by DOE and its industry partners will focus on issues that are key to improving

the efficiency, versatility, and cost-effectiveness of gasification-based processes and systems, and to furthering synergies between gasification and other advanced energy and environmental control technologies.

IMPPCCT process flow diagram

Air Air Separation

Unit

O2

Steam

Gasification Combined

Cycle

Expanded

Syngas

Power

Synthesis

Gas Acid Gas

Removal

Compression

& Expansion

Methanol

Production

& Purification

Methanol

Sulfur

Coal Slurry

Feed

Fuel Gas
19

Combustion Turbine

Combustion Turbine

Steam

Turbine

Fuel Cells

Conversion to Liquids

Transportation Fuels

Chemicals

Power

Clean

Gas

Clean gas is used as a feedstock

for coproduction, including

power generation and conversion to transportation fuels and

chemicals.

Reforming &

Gas Processing

Clean

Gas Natural Gas

Low-Cost

Feedstocks

- Coal

- Alternatives

Gasifier Gas Cleaning

& Processing

Clean gas for use as coproduction

feedstock can be obtained from

relatively expensive natural gas or

from lower cost materials such as

coal or waste streams by gasification. In gasification, the lower cost

feedstock can more than offset the

higher capital cost.
20

DOE owns and finances several

dedicated development facilities.

These facilities are used to demonstrate technology feasibility, system

integration, component scale-up,

product improvement, feedstock testing, advanced gasifier designs, and

advanced gas separation concepts.

Each facility provides opportunities

to partner with industry in technology research, development, and

demonstration.

Southern Company Services operates the Power Systems Development Facility at Wilsonville, Alabama

(www.psdf.southernco.com), which is

a multi-module test facility for evaluating power system components, including hot-gas particulate control

devices, using fuel gas produced by

a 38-ton/day transport gasifier. Engineering-scale testing and development of gasification processes,

components, and equipment, as well

as testing of devices to remove contaminants, are conducted with industrial partners.

At the Alternative Fuels Development Unit, operated by Air Products

& Chemicals, Inc. at LaPorte, Texas

(www.airproducts.com), researchers

are demonstrating low-cost methods

of making liquid fuels and chemicals

from a range of syngas compositions

derived from a wide variety of feedstocks. This unit is large enough to

generate engineering performance

data for the slurry-phase reactor system and to make products for use in

application demonstrations.

Using a 150,000-cubic-foot/hour

syngas generator at the Gas Processing Development Unit in

Morgantown, West Virginia

(www.netl.doe.gov), NETL researchers test new, attrition-resistant sorbents in fluidized-bed and

transport-bed reactors. Working with

contractors and industrial partners,

these researchers can develop information and evaluate processes, sorbents, and catalysts in support of

larger-scale testing in other units

or in CCT projects.

Development Facilities Conclusions

The objective of coproduction is to maximize the recovery of energy and products

from a wide range of fuels, including coal

and low-cost opportunity feedstocks such as

petroleum coke, biomass, and municipal

wastes. Coproduction of power, heat, fuels

and chemicals from syngas offers the potential of significantly improved economics

compared with generating only power.

The concept of producing a varied slate of

products along with electric power is a departure from conventional practice in which

these functions are accomplished in separate

facilities. Coproduction takes advantage of

synergies between syngas utilization processes and power production to meet changing market demand.

Three EECP projects are underway to

develop advanced technology modules that

can be integrated into an ultra-high efficiency, near pollution-free energy facility as

envisioned in DOE’s Vision 21 Program.

The intended result is to mitigate technical

risks and achieve integrated coproduction in

facilities that will be operational by 2007.

The implementation of these projects will

constitute a major step in the development of

the advanced energy systems needed to maintain our prosperity, protect the environment,

and provide national energy security. The

proposed plants will also result in a major

reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared with conventional coal-fired power

generation.
21

Clean environment

Gasification-based plants can meet

all projected environmental regulations,

solving the compliance problems of both

electric power generators and liquid fuel

producers. Because they operate at a

higher efficiency than conventional fossilfueled power plants, these systems emit

less CO2 per unit of energy, and emissions of SO2 and NOx, gases linked to

acid rain, are a small fraction of allowable limits. Water requirements are less

than half that of a pulverized coal plant

with flue gas scrubbing. Gas turbines require no cooling water, an especially important consideration in areas of limited

water resources.

Feedstock flexibility

Gasifiers have the flexibility to handle

a variety of feedstocks. In addition to

coal, feedstocks can include petroleum

coke, refinery wastes, biomass, municipal solid waste, tires, plastics, hazardous

wastes and chemicals, and sewage

sludge. These alternative feedstocks

are typically low in cost, sometimes

even demanding a disposal fee. Not

only do these low-cost feeds improve

economics, but marketable products

are created from waste streams, thus

decreasing disposal costs and minimizing environmental concerns.

Product flexibility

The coproduction option helps reduce business risk by allowing a company to choose the plant configuration

that best suits market demands, producing goods that have the highest

value to that particular business. System efficiencies are enhanced to more

than 50% when transportation fuels

are produced and to 80% when coproduct steam is used directly in industrial applications.

Attractive plant economics

Gasification utilizes low-cost feedstocks while delivering high-value

products. Through modularity and

phased construction, capital expenditures can be distributed over time

to meet financing requirements. Repowering can make use of existing

plant infrastructure to reduce upfront expenditures. By-products

are marketable. Continued operating experience can further reduce capital and operating costs,

thereby increasing economic

competitiveness.

Ease of integration with other

advanced technologies

As advanced technologies for

gasification, turbines, fuel cells, gas

separation, gas cleaning, and

syngas conversion become available, they can be readily integrated

to improve overall efficiency.

In addition, both coproduction and

coal gasification with gas cleaning

can be readily added to existing

natural gas combined-cycle plants.

Advantages of Gasification

The need for liquid fuels is projected

to be a critical element in this Nation’s

energy future in the 21st century. The

objective of the Program is to develop,

in partnership with industry and other

government organizations, environmentally superior fuel technologies based

on the conversion of coal-derived

syngas. These technologies will help

the U.S. meet increasingly stringent

vehicle emission standards to reduce

pollution from the transportation sector.

For intermediate term deployment, the

The DOE Transportation Fuels & Chemicals Program

Program is focusing on the three

Early Entrance Coproduction Plant

projects that are co-sponsored with

the Gasification Technologies Program and described in this document. To provide the foundation for

fuel conversion technologies that will

be deployed longer-term, the Program is supporting research in critical process system science, including

the development of iron-based catalysts, reactor design and reaction

chemistry.
22

Bibliography

W.R. Brown and F.S. Frenduto, “Fuel and

Power Coproduction -- The Integrated Gasification/ Liquid Phase Methanol

(LPMEOHTM) Demonstration Project,” First

Annual Clean Coal Technology Conference

(Cleveland OH), September 1992.

P. Amick and J. Cook, “The Wabash River

Coal Gasification Repowering Project -- Program Update,” Second Annual Clean Coal

Technology Conference (Atlanta GA), September 1993.

D.E. Pless, “Tampa Electric Company: Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle System,” Second Annual Clean Coal Technology

Conference (Atlanta GA), September 1993.

D.E. Pless, “Tampa Electric Company Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Project

-- Current Status,” Third Annual Clean Coal

Technology Conference (Chicago IL), September 1994.

W.R. Brown and R.B. Moore, “Flexible

Electric Power Generation: The Integrated

Gasification/Liquid Phase Methanol

(LPMEOHTM) Demonstration Project,”

Third Annual Clean Coal Technology Conference (Chicago IL), September 1994.

D.E. Pless, “Status Update -- Polk Power

Station,” Fourth Annual Clean Coal Technology Conference (Denver CO), September

1995.

E.S. Schaub, V.E. Stein, E.C. Heydorn, and

E.R. Osterstock, “An Update on Liquid Phase

Methanol (LPMEOHTM) Technology and the

Kingsport Demonstration Project,” Fourth

Annual Clean Coal Technology Conference

(Denver CO), September 1995.

E.J. Troxclair and J. Stultz, “Wabash River

Coal Gasification Repowering Project -- First

Year Operation Experience,” Fifth Annual

Clean Coal Technology Conference (Tampa

FL), January 1997.

D.P. Drown et al., “Fuel and Power

Coproduction – The Integrated Gasification/

Liquid Phase Methanol (LPMEOHTM)

Project at Kingsport,” Fifth Annual Clean

Coal Technology Conference (Tampa FL),

January 1997.

C.G. Keeler and J. Stultz, “Operating Experience at the Wabash River Coal Gasification

Repowering Project,” Sixth Clean Coal Technology Conference (Reno NV), April 1998.

J.E. McDaniel and C.A. Shelnut, “Tampa

Electric Company Polk Power Station

IGCC Project -- Project Status,” Sixth Clean

Coal Technology Conference (Reno NV),

May 1998.

E.C. Heydorn, V.E. Stein, P.J.A. Tijm,

B.T. Street, and R.M. Kornosky, “Commercial Scale Demonstration of the Liquid

Phase Methanol (LPMEOHTM) Process:

Initial Operating Experience,” Sixth Clean

Coal Technology Conference (Reno NV),

May 1998.

“Economic Analysis: LPMEOHTM Process

as an Add-on to Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) for Coproduction,” prepared by Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.,

for U.S. Department of Energy, 1998.

Topical Report No. 11, “Commercial-Scale

Demonstration of the Liquid Phase Methanol (LPMEOHTM) Process,” U.S. DOE,

April 1999

S.L. Douglas, “Wabash River in its Fourth

Year of Commercial Operation,” Seventh

Clean Coal Technology Conference (Knoxville TN), June 1999.

J.E. McDaniel and C.A. Shelnut, “Tampa

Electric Company Polk Power Station IGCC

Project -- Project Status,” Seventh Clean

Coal Technology Conference (Knoxville

TN), June 1999.

B.W. Diamond, E.C. Heydorn, P.J.A. Tijm,

B.T. Street, and R.M. Kornosky, “Commercial- Scale Demonstration of the Liquid Phase

Methanol (LPMEOHTM) Process: Operating

Experience Update,” Seventh Clean Coal

Technology Conference (Knoxville TN),

June 1999.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, “Annual Energy

Outlook 2000 with Projections to 2020,”

December 1999.

U.S. Department of Energy and the Gasification Council, “Gasification – Worldwide Use

and Acceptance,” January 2000.

“Merchant Power Projects Push for Competitive Edge,” Power, pp. 32-39, January/

February 2000.

Topical Report No. 19, “The Tampa Electric

Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle

Project, An Update” U.S. DOE, July 2000.

Topical Report No. 20, “The Wabash River

Coal Gasification Repowering Project, An

Update,” U.S. DOE, August 2000.
23

P. Amick, R. Geosits, S. Kramer, J. Rockey,

and S. Tam, “IGCC Plant Performance &

Cost Optimization Study,” Seventeenth Annual Pittsburgh Coal Conference (Pittsburgh

PA), September 2000.

D. Gray and G. Tomlinson, “Potential of

Gasification in the U.S. Refining Industry,”

Seventeenth Annual Pittsburgh Coal Conference (Pittsburgh PA), September 2000.

D.E. Benedict and D. Strickland, “The

Wabash River Integrated Methanol and

Power Production from Clean Coal Technologies (IMPPCCT) Project,” Seventeenth

Annual Pittsburgh Coal Conference (Pittsburgh PA), September 2000.

R.A. Bailey, “The Kentucky Pioneer Energy Project,” Seventeenth Annual Pittsburgh Coal Conference (Pittsburgh PA),

September 2000.

L. Shah and C. Schrader, “DOE Early Entrance Co-production Plant Update,” Seventeenth Annual Pittsburgh Coal Conference

(Pittsburgh PA), September 2000.

C. Schrader and L. Shah, “Texaco Gasification and Fischer-Tropsch (TGFT) Process,”

Seventeenth Annual Pittsburgh Coal Conference (Pittsburgh PA), September 2000.

R.M. Hinkle, A. O’Neill, M. Bradaic, and

S.S. Tam, “A Roadmap for Evaluating Gasification Investments in International Markets,” Seventeenth Annual Pittsburgh Coal

Conference (Pittsburgh PA), September

2000.

U.S. Department of Energy, Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program -- Program

Update, April 2001.
24

As public and private R&D funding becomes increasingly limited, DOE has implemented an aggressive outreach program to partner with those who have a stake in

the outcome of gasification R&D, including power generators, industrial firms, financial institutions, environmental

groups, legislators, and taxpayers. DOE will educate

stakeholders on the technical, economic, and environmental benefits of gasification systems, coordinating activities with other Federal, State, and local agencies and

organizations. Formation of multinational partnerships,

consortia, and user groups will ensure coordinated research and commercialization activities for gasificationbased technologies.

To meet energy market demands and facilitate global

commercial acceptance of gasification-based technologies, the DOE Gasification Technologies Program strategy emphasizes increased efficiencies, cost reduction,

feedstock and product flexibility, near-zero emissions of

pollutants, and reduction of CO2.

DOE sponsors R&D contracts with industry, academia,

nonprofit institutions, and government laboratories to

achieve gasification technology development goals.

• Research on advanced gasifier designs has the

potential to reduce capital and O&M costs, improve

thermal efficiency, and expand the use of alternative

feedstocks.

• Refractory materials research and instrument

development are being pursued to improve gasifier

performance, operational control, and reliability.

• Fluid dynamic data and advanced computational fluid

The DOE Gasification Technologies Program

dynamic models support improvements to the gasifier.

• Use of biomass and municipal waste as gasifier

feedstocks for power and coproduction applications is

undergoing evaluation.

• Novel technologies for gas cleaning and conditioning

are undergoing development to reduce capital and

operating costs. New technologies are needed to

supply ultra-clean gas for fuel cell and catalytic

conversion of synthesis gas to improve efficiency,

enable effective CO2 separation, and minimize

consumables and waste products.

• Advanced membranes and concepts to provide

lower cost separation of oxygen from air are being

developed. These have the potential for very

significant improvement in economics.

• Research in advanced gas separation technologies

for concentrating syngas constituents targets capital

and operating cost reductions, improved plant

efficiency, and concentration and capture of CO2.

Investigations include hydrogen and CO2 separation

technologies capable of operating at high

temperatures and pressures and in the presence of

contaminants.

• Technologies to generate value-added products to

minimize waste disposal and improve process

economics are undergoing evaluation. Improving

the quality of the ash and sulfur by-products not only

enhances plant revenues, but also uses resources

more effectively.
25

The Clean Coal Technology Program

The Clean Coal Technology (CCT)

Demonstration Program, sponsored

by the U.S. Department of Energy

(DOE) and administered by the National Energy Technology Laboratory

(NETL), has been conducted since

1985 to develop innovative, environmentally friendly coal utilization processes for the world energy

marketplace.

The CCT Program, which is cofunded by industry and government,

involves a series of commercial-scale

demonstration projects that provide

data for design, construction, operation, and technical/economic evaluation of full-scale applications. The

goal of the CCT Program is to enhance the utilization of coal as a

major energy source.

The CCT Program has also

opened a channel to policy-making

bodies by providing data from cutting-edge technologies to aid in formulating regulatory decisions. DOE

and the participants in several CCT

projects have provided the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with

data to help establish targets for nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from coalfired boilers subject to compliance

under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA).

Coal gasification systems demonstrated on a commercial scale in the

CCT Program include:

• The Tampa Electric Integrated

Gasification Combined-Cycle Project,

which uses the Texaco gasification

technology

• The Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project, which

uses Global Energy’s E-GASTM technology

An additional CCT project recently

authorized, the Kentucky Pioneer Energy Project, involves gasification of a

variety of feedstocks including lowgrade coal and municipal solid waste,

using BGL gasification technology.
26

Contacts for CCT Projects

and U.S. DOE CCT Program

Participant Contacts

John W. Rich, Jr.

Waste Managment and Processors, PTY.,

LLC.

Main Street

Gilberton PA 17934

(570) 874-1602

(570) 874-2625 fax

jwrich@ultracleanfuels.com

Doug Strickland

Gasification Engineering Corp.

444 West Sandford Avenue

West Terre Haute IN 47885

(812) 535-6082

(812) 535-6101 fax

dtstrickland@globalenergyinc.com

John H. Anderson

Texaco Energy Systems, Inc.

1111 Bagby

Houston TX 77002

(713) 752-4754

(713) 752-4681 fax

anderjh@texaco.com

U.S. Department of Energy Contacts

Stewart Clayton

U.S. Department of Energy, FE-22

Germantown MD 20874-1290

(301) 903-9429

(301) 903-2713 fax

stewart.clayton@hq.doe.gov

Victor Der

Director, Office of Power Systems

U.S. Department of Energy, FE-24

Germantown MD 20874-1290

(301) 903-2700

(301) 903-2713 fax

victor.der@hq.doe.gov

C. Lowell Miller

To Receive Additional

Information

To be placed on the Department

of Energy’s distribution list for future information on the Clean Coal

Technology Program, the demonstration projects it is financing, or

other Fossil Energy Programs,

please contact:

Robert C. Porter

Director, Office of Communication

U.S. Department of Energy, FE-5

1000 Independence Ave SW

Washington DC 20585

(202) 586-6503

(202) 586-5146 fax

robert.porter@hq.doe.gov

Otis Mills, Jr.

Public Information Office

U.S. Department of Energy

National Energy Technology Laboratory

P.O. Box 10940

Pittsburgh PA 15236-0940

(412) 386-5890

(412) 386-6195 fax

mills@netl.doe.gov

This report is available on the

Internet at U.S. DOE, Office of

Fossil Energy’s website:

www.fe.doe.gov, and on the Clean

Coal Technology Compendium

website: www.lanl.doe.gov/

projects/cctc

Director, Coal Fuels & Industrial Systems

U.S. Department of Energy, FE-24

Germantown MD 20874-1290

(301) 903-9451

(301) 903-2238 fax

lowell.miller@hq.doe.gov

Edward Schmetz

U.S. Department of Energy, FE-24

Germantown MD 20874-1290

(301) 903-3931

(301) 903-2238 fax

edward.schmetz@hq.doe.gov

Gary J. Stiegel

Product Manager, Gasification Technologies

National Energy Technology Laboratory

P.O. Box 10940

Pittsburgh PA 15236-0940

(412) 386-4499

(412) 386-4822 fax

gary.stiegel@netl.doe.gov

John C. Winslow

Product Manager, Transportation Fuels and

Chemicals

National Energy Technology Laboratory

P.O. Box 10940

Pittsburgh PA 15236-0940

(412) 386-6072

(412) 386-4822 fax

john.winslow@netl.doe.gov
27

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

b/d ............................................................... barrels/day

Btu .............................................................. British thermal unit

CAAA ......................................................... Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

CCT ............................................................ Clean Coal Technology

CH4 ............................................................. methane

CO............................................................... carbon monoxide

CO2 ............................................................. carbon dioxide

DOE ............................................................ U.S. Department of Energy

EECP .......................................................... early entrance coproduction plants

EPA ............................................................ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPRI ........................................................... formerly the Electric Power Research Institute

F-T .............................................................. Fischer-Tropsch

H2 ................................................................ hydrogen

H2S ............................................................. hydrogen sulfide

IGCC .......................................................... integrated gasification combined-cycle

kWh ............................................................ kilowatt hour

LPMEOHTM................................................ Liquid Phase Methanol

MCFC ......................................................... molten carbonate fuel cell

MWe ........................................................... megawatts of electric power

MWth.......................................................... megawatts of thermal power (1 MWth = 3.413 x 106 Btu/hr)

NETL .......................................................... National Energy Technology Laboratory

NH3 ............................................................. ammonia

NOx ............................................................ nitrogen oxides

O2 ................................................................ oxygen

psia.............................................................. pressure, pounds per square inch (absolute)

RDF ............................................................ refuse derived fuels

R&D ........................................................... research & development

ROE ............................................................ return on equity

SO2 ............................................................. sulfur dioxide

syngas ......................................................... synthesis gas

WMPI ......................................................... Waste Management and Processors, Inc.
28