# January 2012 

# Q U A L I T Y G U I D E L I N E S

F O R E N E R G Y S Y S T E M S T U D I E S



# D e t a i l e d C o a l S p e c i f i c a t i o n s

DOE/NETL

- 2010/???? DOE/NETL

- 401/012111National Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 2 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies



# Disclaimer

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States

Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their

employees, makes any warranty, express or impl ied, or assumes any legal liability or

responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus,

product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.

Reference therein to an y specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name,

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,

recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The

views and opinions of authors expressed therein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the

United States Government or any agency thereof.National Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 3 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies



# Detailed Coal Specifications

DOE/NETL

- 401/012111

January 2012

NETL Contact:

Mike Matuszewski

General Engineer

Office of Program Planning and Analysis

National Energy Technology Laboratory

www.netl.doe.govNational Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 4 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies



## Prepared by:

Energy Sector Planning and Analysis (ESPA)

Vladimir Vaysman

WorleyParsons Group, Inc.

Yixin Lu

WorleyParsons Group, Inc.

DOE Co ntract Number DE

- FE0004001National Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 5 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies



# Acknowledgments

This report was prepared by Energy Sector Planning and Analysis (ESPA) for the United States

Department of Energy (DOE), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) . This work was

completed under DOE NETL Cont ract Number DE

- FE0004001 . This work was performed

under ESPA T ask 341.03.01.

The authors wish to acknowledge the excellent guidance, contributions, and cooperation of the

NETL staff, particularly:

Mike Matuszewski , NETL Technical Project MonitorNational Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Plannin g and Analysis



### 6 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies

This page intentionally left blank.National Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 7 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies



# Table of Contents

1 Objective

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 10

2 Approach

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 11

3 The U.S. Coal Industry

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 12

3.1 Coal Historical and Future Demand

................................ ................................ ........................ 12

3.2 Coal Deposits

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 14

3.3 Coal Production

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 15

3.4 Coal Production Forecast

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 18

3.5 Coal Cleaning

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 19

3.5.1 Nature of Coal Impurities

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 20

3.5.2 Cleaning Methods

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 20

3.5.3 Special Treatment Methods

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 21

4 Definition of Coal Specifications

................................ ................................ ................................ 23

4.1 ASTM Classification by Rank

................................ ................................ ................................ . 23

4.2 Proximate Analysi s

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 23

4.3 Ultimate Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 23

4.4 Higher and Lower Heating Value

................................ ................................ ............................ 23

4.5 Grindability

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 2 5

4.6 Ash Properties

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 25

4.7 Ash Fusion Characteristics

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 25

4.8 Trace Elements

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 25

4.9 Coal Moisture

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 25

5 Coal Types Used in the Previous System Studies

................................ ................................ ...... 27

6 Typ ical Market Quality of Selected Coals

................................ ................................ .................. 31

7 Recommended Coal Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 33

7.1 Low Volatile Bituminous

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 33

7.2 Medium Volatile Bituminous

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 36

7.3 High Volatile Bitum inous

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 38

7.4 “Super

- Compliance” Subbituminous PRB Coal

................................ ................................ ...... 43

7.5 Subbituminous

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 45

7.6 North Dakota Lignite

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 48

7.7 Texas Lignite

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 51

8 References

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 54National Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 8 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies



# Exhibits

Exhibit 3

- 1 U.S. primary energy consumption, 1980

- 2035 (quadrillion Btu)

............................. 12

Exhibit 3

- 2 U.S. electric power industry net g eneration by fuel, 2008

................................ ....... 13

Exhibit 3

- 3 Electricity generation by fuel, 2008 and 2035 (billion kilowatt

- hours)

................... 13

Exhibit 3

- 4 U.S. coal fields

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 15

Exhibit 3

- 5 U.S. coal production versus demand, 1949

- 2009

................................ ..................... 15

Exhibit 3

- 6 Coal production by coal rank and number of mines

................................ ................. 16

Exhibit 3

- 7 2009 coal production by coal

- production region

................................ ...................... 17

Exhibit 3

- 8 Historical coal production by coal rank and location

................................ ............... 18

Exhibit 3

- 9 Current and projected coal production by region (quadrillion Btu)

......................... 19

Exhibit 4

- 1 ASTM D388 classification of coals by rank

................................ ............................. 24

Exhibit 5

- 1 Coal types used in past NETL system studies

................................ .......................... 27

Exhibit 6

- 1 Form 423 summary of 2001

- 200 3 coal quality by coal type

................................ .... 32

Exhibit 6

- 2 Average quality of commercially shipped coal by state per Utah Geological Survey

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 32

Exhibit 7

- 1 Low volatile bituminous coal

................................ ................................ ................... 33

Exhibit 7

- 2 Medium volatile bituminous coal

................................ ................................ ............. 36

Exhibit 7

- 3 High volatile bituminous coal analysis (Pittsburgh No.8)

................................ ........ 38

Exhibit 7

- 4 High volatile bituminous coal analysis (Illinois No. 6)

................................ ............ 40

Exhibit 7

- 5 “Super

- compliance” subbituminous coal analysis

................................ .................... 43

Exhibit 7

- 6 Subbituminous coal from PRB field

................................ ................................ ......... 45

Exhibit 7

- 7 North Dakota lignite analysis (high

- sodium)

................................ ............................ 48

Exhibit 7

- 8 Texas lignite analysis (low

- sodium)

................................ ................................ ......... 51National Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 9 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies



# Acronyms and Abbreviations

APFBC Advanced pressurized fluidized bed

combustion

ASTM American Society for Testing and

Materials

CO 2 Carbon dioxide

CTL Coal

- to

- liquids

DOE Department of Energy

EIA Energy Information Administration

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

FT Fluid temperature

HAP Hazardous air pollutants

HHV Higher heating value

HRSG Heat recovery steam gen erator

HT Hemispherical temperature

HV High volatile

ICR Information collection request IGCC Integrated gasification combined

cycle

IT Initial deformation temperature

LHV Lower heating value

ND North Dakota

NETL National Energy Technology

Laboratory

NYPA N ew York Power Authority

PRB Powder River Basin

QGESS Quality Guidelines for Energy

System Studies

R&D Research and development

SCPC Supercritical pulverized coal

SNG Synthetic natural gas

ST Softening temperature

T&S Transport and storage

TX Texas

U.S. Un ited StatesNational Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 10 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies



# 1 Objective

Specifications for selected feedstocks that are commonly found in the National Energy

Technology Laboratory ( NETL )

- sponsored energy system studies are summarized in NETL ’s

“Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies” (QGESS). T he purpose of this companion

section is to document default QGESS specifications for coal compositions reflecting a spectrum

of seven coal ranks :

**•** North Dakota (ND) lignite

**•** Texas (TX) lignite

**•** “super

- compliance” subbituminous, ~0.2 percent sulfur (as

- recei ved weight percent )

**•** subbituminous, > 0.5 percent sulfur (as

- received weight percent )

**•** high volatile bituminous

**•** medium volatile bituminous

**•** low volatile bituminousNational Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 11 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies



# 2 Approach

The QGESS coal specification selection process was based on the following criteria :

1. Recommendations for QGESS we re selected from the coal analyses most commonly used

in the previous system studies to maximize the comparability of future system studies

with those done in the past. A list was compiled of the coal types used in studies o f coal

fueled energy conversion systems. Based on the frequency of coal types in this listing,

one coal type was recommended as the QGESS default for each of the seven coal ranks

.

2. Selected default coal specifications a re, as much as possible

, representati ve of the typical

coal quality i n the United States ( U

. S .) commercial market (i.e.

, as procured by the power

plants in the U

. S

. ). Some c oal analyses in th is current version of QGESS we re obtained

from the Argonne Premium Coal Sample Program that report as

- mined coal properties

. ( 1

3.5 ) The as

- mined analyses are potentially different from as

- shipped (or as

- received) due

to possible coal beneficiation at the mine prior to shipment (coal preparation at the mine

is described in Section of this report). Since the purpose of these coal analyses is to

provide a consistent basis for energy system modeling, this distinction (as

- mined versus

as

- shipped composition) is not a primary concern. Other coal composition data sources

are docum ented in Section 7

.

3. If there we re compelling reasons to do so, a coal type other than that most frequently

used in past studies could be recommended . For example, the most frequently used

Pittsburgh No. 8 coal composition was similar to the currently us ed Illinois No. 6

composition. Therefore, a n alternative Pittsburgh No. 8 composition was selected to

provide a greater distinction between it and Illinois No. 6 coal.National Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 12 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies



# 3 The U

. S

. Coal Industry

This section provides background information about the U.S. co al industry, including coal

reserves, current and future coal demand, coal production

, and coal cleaning methods at the

mine. Information on characteristics of U.S. coal, transportation

, and utilization at power plants

can be found in the Department of En ergy (DOE) NETL report

, “ Overview of U.S. Coal Supply

and Infrastructure .” ( 2



## 3.1 Coal Historical and Future Demand )

Coal has been a major energy source for more than a century in the U.S . In the last five decades,

coal production grew steadily from 434 milli on short tons in 1960

, to 1,07 3 million short tons in

2009. According to the Energy Information Administration’s ( EIA ) Annual Energy Outlook

2010, although the long

- term

, 25

- year outlook presents uncertainties

-- resulting from the

difficulty of accuratel y predicting future costs of producing and transporting coal, economic

growth, world oil prices, and future greenhouse gas regulations

-- coal demand is expected to be

relatively steady ( Exhibit 3

- 1 )

. ( 3 )

Exhibit 3

- 1 U.S. primary energy consumption , 1980

- 2035 ( quadrillion Btu)

Source: U.S. EIA



### In the last decade, natural gas utilization went through a solid growth period and has increased its

share of the elec tricity market from 13.7 percent in 1997

, to 21.4 percent in 2008. Renewable

energy sources also have increased their share of total net power generation in recent years.

Meanwhile, coal’s share of total net generation continued its downward trend, accou nting for

48.2 percent in 2008 as compared to 52.8 percent in 1997. Nevertheless, coal continues to be the

most important source of energy for the U.S. power industry ( Exhibit 3

- 2 )

. ( 4 )National Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 13 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies

Exhibit 3

- 2 U.S. electric power industry net generation by fuel , 2008

Source: U.S. EIA



### According to the EIA Annual Energy Outlook for 2010, in the next 25 years coal will retain its

largest share position of total electricity gene ration, while most new capacity additions will be

natural gas and renewable energy sources ( Exhibit 3

- 3 )

. ( 3 )

Exhibit 3

- 3 Electricity g eneration by fuel, 2008 and 2035 (billion kilowatt

- hours )

Source: U.S. EIANational Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 14 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies



## 3.2 Coal Deposits

In the U.S.

, coal is found in 37 states, with 6 states containing a bout 75 percent of recoverable

reserves: Montana (28.7 percent ), Wyoming (14.9 percent ), Illinoi s (14.6 percent ), West Virginia

(6.7 percent ), Kentucky (5.6 percent ), and Pennsylvania (4.4 percent )

. ( 5

The U.S. Geological Survey has divided the coal

- bearing areas of the contiguous U.S. into six

main provinces: Eastern, Interior, Gulf, Northern Gre at Plains, Rocky Mountain, and Pacific.

The provinces are subdivided into coal regions, coal fields, and coal districts. The U.S. coal

fields

, by coal rank and geographical location

, are presented in )

Exhibit 3

- 4

. ( 6

The Easte rn province includes anthracite regions of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, the Atlantic

Coast region

, and the Appalachian region. The Appalachian region is of most importance in the

Eastern province. It is one of the great coal producing regions in the U. S

. , and contains the

largest deposits of high

- grade bituminous coal. The Appalachian region includes portions of

Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Maryland, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, and Alabama. )

The Interior province includes all bituminous coal i n the Mississippi V alley area and the coal

fields of Texas and Michigan. This province is subdivided into the Northern region consisting of

the coal fields of Michigan; the Eastern region (a

. k

. a

. Illinois basin) comprising fields of Illinois,

Indiana, and western Kentucky; the Western region including the coal fields of Iowa, Missouri,

Nebraska, Kansas, Arkansas, Oklahoma ; and the S outhwestern region of Texas. The bituminous

coals of the Interior province are of lower rank and higher sulfur content as co mpared to the

Eastern province. Much of the low sulfur, chlorine

, and sodium content surface

- mineable coal in

the Illinois basin has been mined. The remaining coal with high chlorine content will have to be

deep

- mined.

The Gulf province consists of the Mississippi region, including the lignite fields of Alabama,

Mississippi, and Louisiana; and the Texas region that comprises the lignite fields of Arkansas

and Texas. Coals found in the Gulf province are of the lowest quality in the U.S.

, with heating

va lue as low as 4,000 Btu/lb, and moisture content as high as 55 percent.

The Northern Great Pla i ns province includes all coal fields east of the Rocky Mountains,

e ncompassing lignite fields of both Dakotas, bituminous and subbituminous fields of n orthern

Wyoming, and northern and eastern Montana. This province includes immense deposits of low

sulfur, near

- surface, and thick subbituminous coal seams of the Powder River B asin (PRB)

.

The Rocky Mountain province comprises the coal fields of mountainous area s of Montana,

Wyoming, Utah, Colorado

, and New Mexico. The deposits in this province cover a range of coal

rank s

.

The Pacific province is largely confined to the State of Washington, and rang es in rank from

subbituminous through bituminous to anthracite

.National Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 15 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies

Exhibit 3

- 4 U.S. coal fields

Source: U.S. Geological Survey



## 3.3 Coal Production

Unlike petroleum or natural gas, domestic production of coal nearly always exceeds U.S

. consumption ( Exhibit 3

- 5 )

. ( 7 ) U.S. coal production has remained near 1,100 million tons

annually since 1997.

Exhibit 3

- 5 U.S. coal production versus demand , 1949

- 2009

Source: U.S. EI ANational Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 16 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies

The distribution of the U.S. coal production by coal rank for 2009 is presented in Exhibit 3

- 6

. ( 5 )

Exhibit 3

- 6 Coal production by coa l rank and number of mines

Source: Reproduced from U.S. EIA Data



### The U.S. coal production decreased in 2009 by 8.5 percent to a total of 1,07 3 million tons from

2008 record level of 1,17 2 million tons due to the ongoing economic downturn ( Exhibit 3

- 7 )

. ( 8

Both the Appalachian and Western r egions had decreased coal production in 2009

, while the

Interior region remained almost steady, increasing by 0.1 percent. The decrease in coal

produc tion in the Appalachian r egion accounted for about half of the total decrease in U.S. coal

production, while the Western r egion was responsible for the rest of the decrease. )

The EIA uses “regions” as their highest level coal location descriptor as opposed to “provinces”

used by the U.S. Geological Survey. The three coal regions in the EIA lexicon are Appalachian,

Interior

, and Wes tern. The balance of this discussion uses the EIA region descriptors. 495 505

72

2 1,284

33 20 69

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400

Biuminous Submitumonous Lignite AnthraciteMillion Short Tons

Production Number of MinesNational Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 17 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies

Exhibit 3

- 7 2009 coal production by coal

- production region



### Despite the one

- year decrease between 2008 and 2009, Western coal production has been

growing steadily since 1970, especially production of low sulfur subbituminous coals in the

Powder River Basin ( Exhibit 3

- 8 )

. ( 7 )National Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 18 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies

Exhibit 3

- 8 Historical coal production by coal rank and location

Source: U.S. EIA



## 3.4 Coal Producti on Forecast

According to the EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2010 forecast, increase of coal use for electricity

generation, along with projected startup of several coal

- to

- liquid (CTL) plants, should result in

coal production growth averaging 0.2 percent per ye ar from 2008 through 2035. This is

significantly less than the 0.9 percent average growth rate for U.S. coal production during the

1980 to 2008 period. It is also expected that increasingly tight pollutant emissions caps will lead

to more use of low

- sulf ur coal from the W estern mines. Western coal production, which has

grown steadily since 1970, is projected to continue to increase through 2035, but at a much

slower rate than in the past ( Exhibit 3

- 9 )

. ( 3 ) Both new and existing electric power plants are

projected to be major contributors to growth in demand for Western coal. Supplies of low

- costNational Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 19 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies

coal from the Western region are expected to satisfy most of the additio nal fuel needs at coal

fired power plants both west and east of the Mississippi River.

Coal production in the Interior region, which suffered a downward trend since the 1990s, is

expected to rebound somewhat, primarily supplanting more expensive coal fro m Central

Appalachia that is currently consumed at coal

- fired power plants in the Southeast. Much of the

additional output from the Interior region originates from mines tapping into the extensive

reserves of mid

- and high

- sulfur bituminous coal in Illino is, Indiana, and western Kentucky. In

addition, some of the anticipated growth in output from the Interior region results from increased

lignite production in Texas and Louisiana.

Total production of Appalachian region coal is projected to decline from the current levels, as

output shifts from extensively mined, higher cost supplies to lower cost supplies from the

Interior region and the northern part of the Appalachian basin.

Exhibit 3

- 9 C urrent and projected coal production by region (quadrillion Btu)

Source: U.S. EIA



## 3.5 Coal Cleaning

A s

- mined coal contains a mixture of different size fractions, together with unwanted impurities

such as rock and dirt. Coal preparation (also known as bene ficiation) is the stage in coal

production when the mined coal is processed into a range of clean, graded, and uniform coal

products suitable for the commercial market. In a few cases, the mined coal is of such quality

that it meets the user specification without beneficiation, and it is merely crushed and screened to

deliver the specified product. Some power plants are fed from a single source of coal, but many

utilities buy coals from different suppliers, and some blend these in order to give a consiste nt

feed to the power plant. Blending also enables selective purchasing of different grades of coal.

More expensive, higher

- quality supplies can be mixed with lower

- quality coals to produce anNational Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 20 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies

average blend suited to the plant needs, at optimum cost. Eff ective preparation of coal prior to

combustion improves the homogeneity of coal supplied, reduces transport costs, improves the

utilization efficiency, produces less ash for disposal at the power plant, and may reduce the

emissions of oxides of sulfur.

F ew coal seams are clean enough for coal to be shipped without cleaning. Consumers typically

require coal of consistent quality. To prepare fuel conforming to customer specifications

, practically all large, mechanized mines have preparation plants in whic h coal is sized and

cleaned to the exten t economically justified.

**3.5.1 Nature of Coal Impurities** 



### Coal is a heterogeneous mixture of organic and inorganic materials. Coal properties may differ

not only from seam to seam, but also depending upon the coal locatio n and elevation within the

same seam. Coal impurities are typically classified as inherent and removable.

The inherent impurities in ash

- forming mineral matter are organically combined with the coal.

Approximately 2 percent of total coal ash

- forming ma terial is considered inherent mineral

matter

. ( 9

Sulfur is present in the coal in three forms

– pyr i tic sulfur (sulfur combined with iron in the form

of pyrite), o rganic sulfur (sulfur combined with carbon in coal), and sulfate sulfur (sulfur in the

form of calcium or iron sulfate). The latter usually does not exceed 0.1 percent of total sulfur

. ( ) The bulk of the coal mineral matter is interstratified material which settle s into the

coal deposit as a result of water penetration during and after coal formation. Some of the mineral

matter can be intr oduced into the coal during a mechanized mining process as a result of

undesirable mixing with the overburden material. This is less likely for the larger and better strip

mines that do not mine coal near the outcrop. The inherent impurities cannot be ec onomically

separated from the coal during coal preparation while removable impurities can be segregated

and removed using cleaning methods.

9 ) The larger pieces o f pyr i tic sulfur can be removed with mineral matter using coal cleaning

methods. Fines of the pyr i tic sulfur and organic sulfur cannot be economically removed using

modern cleaning methods.

**3.5.2 Cleaning Methods** 



### Most mechanical cleaning processes depend on di fferences in specific gravity of coal and

impurities to facilitate separation. Typically

, most common solid impurities are heavier than

coal and can be removed by gravity concentration. The cleaning process may be wet or dry, with

either water or air use d as a medium. In general, wet processes are more efficient ; h owever,

determination of which process is more suitable for a specific coal depends upon the coal

washability characteristics, i.e.

, properties of the various specific gravity fractions and the

variations of these properties with coal sizing. The most frequently used wet methods are ( 9 ):

Jigs

- Pulsating currents of water pass through a bed of coal resting on a

screen plate. The upward flow, ca lled “pulsion stroke

, ” fluidizes the

coal, and the subsequent downward flow, called “suction stroke

, ”

settles the bed. While coal particles are in suspension they are

separated into fractions and diverted into separate streams.National Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 21 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies

Dense

- Media Method

- Coal is immersed in a medium with specific gravity intermediate

between that of coal and impurities. The impurities sink, and the coal

floats.

Concentration tables

- This method is primarily used for washing fine coal (50 mesh sizing)

Only a small percen tage of the total coal is cleaned by pneumatic (dry) process in the U.S. It is

typically applied to the coal less than 1⁄2 in ch in size. The raw coal may be screened upstream

from the cleaning plant with larger fractions directed to the wet process and sma ller to the

pneumatic process. In pneumatic process es , air is blown upward through the bed of coal resting

on a moving table equipped with riffles. The air flow segregates coal and impurities by bringing

particles with lower specific gravity (mostly coal ) to the top of the bed. Low gravity particles

then move across the table in direction perpendicular to the riffles. The heavy particles (mostly

impurities) settle in the riffles and move along the riffles, discharging at the end opposite to the

coal fee d. Fines suspended in the air are recovered in cyclone separators and/or bag filters.

**3.5.3 Special Treatment Methods** 



### De

- dusting

- De

- dusting is t he process of coal fines removal using air separation. It

is often utilized to remove fines ahead of wet cleani ng. De

- dusting is

accomplished by passing an air stream through the coal with

subsequent fine coal recovery in cyclone separators and bag filters.

The fines may be added to clean coal (if low in ash) or disposed of with

the impurities.

Dewatering

- Lar ger size coal (above 3/8 in ch ) can be dewatered using gravit y with

special hop p ers and bins with drainage, screen conveyors, or perforated

bucket elevators.

When fine sizes need to be dried, or lower moisture content is required

, mechanical dewatering or thermal drying is utilized. Mechanical

dewatering devices include shaker or vibrating screens, centrifuges, and

thickening equipment. Thermal dryers are of fluidized bed, rotary,

cascade, reciprocating screen, and conveyer type. All thermal dryers

requ ire dust collection to recover fines, which may be centrifugal

cyclones, bag filters, or water

- spray system s . Thermal drying is

predominantly used for obtaining low moisture content

, fine

- size coal.

Dust proofing

- Dust proofing is accomplished by spr aying oil and calcium chloride on

stream s of coal falling from chutes or loading booms. When coal is

sprayed by oil, the film causes dust particle s to adhere to the larger

pieces or to agglomerate into larger lumps. About 13 percent of

cleaned bituminous coal is sprayed by oil

. ( 9 ) Sometimes coal is

sprayed with oil and calcium chloride. Calcium chloride absorbs

moisture from the air, providing a wet surface to which dust adheres.National Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 22 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies

Freeze proofing

- Freeze proofing is us ed to prevent coal from freezing during

transportation and storage. The m ost commonly used method is spray

oil application, the same as dust proofing. Sometimes the railroad car

hoppers are sprayed to ease coal unloading at the final destination.

Less o ften freeze proofing is accomplished by thermal drying the fine

coal, especially for high moisture content

, low

- rank coal.National Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 23 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies



# 4 Definition of Coal Specifications

4.1 ASTM Classification by Rank

Coal is a heterogeneous substance, with wide variability in compos ition. A system used for

classifying coals was established by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM),

Exhibit 4

- 1

. ( 9 ) The ASTM D388 classification system uses volatile matter and fix ed carbon

content in the proximate analysis along with the heating value of the coal to establish the coal

rank. This ranking system provides basic information that assists in making judgments about the

combustion properties and the commercial uses of the various types of coal.



## 4.2 Proximate Analysis

The p roximate analysis ( percent by weight) gives information on coal behavior when it is heated,

e. g., how much coal goes off as gas, tar

, and vapor, and how much remains as fixed carbon. The

p roximate analysis i s described by ASTM Standard D3172. This determines volatile matter,

fixed carbon, and ash. The quantity of volatile matter indicates ease of ignition of a coal and

whether supplemental flame stabilization is needed.



## 4.3 Ultimate Analysis

The u ltimate a nalys is ( percent by weight) gives the coal composition by constituent elements.

The u ltimate analysis is described by ASTM Standard D3176. This establishes the quantities of

carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and sulfur content in the coal, as well as the calculated oxygen

content. The u ltimate a nalysis is utilized for combustion calculation s

.



## 4.4 Higher and Lower Heating Value

The heat of combustion is usually determined by direct calorimeter measurements of the heat

evolved. Heating value is either reported as 'highe r heating value ’ (HHV) , or as 'lower heating

value' (LHV). The heating value of a fuel is a measure of the sensible energy released during

combustion when both the fuel and combustion air are brought to standard conditions, the

combustion reactions occur, and the products of combustion are brought back to standard

conditions.

Heating value can be defined in one of two ways depending on the convention chosen for

reporting how hydrogen energy in the fuel is released. The water vapor produced holds the heat

of vaporization of the water. The HHV, also called gross heating value, of a fuel includes the

heat released if all of the water vapor in the combustion products were condensed, releasing the

heat of vaporization of the water in the combustion products. This is typically the situation that

exists when a bomb calorimeter is used to measure the heat of combustion. The procedures for

measuring HHV are described in ASTM Standard D5865. In the U.S.

, HHV is generally used in

the coal power industry.

The LHV i s the second definition frequently used to measure energy released during combustion.

The LHV of a fuel is the heat released if all of the water vapor in the combustion products

remained as a vapor, retaining the heat of vaporization of the water in the c ombustion products.

In the U.S.

, LHV is generally used in the natural

- gas and oil

- fueled gas turbine industry, while in

Europe LHV is typically utilized for all power industry applications.National E nergy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 24 January 2012 Detailed Coal S pecifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy Systems Studies

Exhibit 4

- 1 ASTM D388 classification of coals by rank

Fixed Carbon Limits, %

(Dry Mineral

- Matter

- Free

Basis) Volatile Matter Limits, %

(Dry, Mineral

- Matter

- Free Basis) Calorific Value Limits,

Btu/lb

(Moist, b

Mineral

- Matter

- Free Basis)

Group a Equal or

Greater Than Less

Than Greater Than Equal or

Less Than Equal or

Greater Than Less Than Agglomerating

Character



### Class I

– Anthracitic

1. Meta

- anthracite 98

-- -- 2

-- -- Non

- agglomerating

2. Anthracite 92 98 2 8

-- -- Non

- agglomerating

3. Sem ianthracite c 86 92 8 14

-- -- Non

- agglomerating



### Class II

- Bituminous

1. Low volatile bituminous coal 78 86 14 22

-- -- Commonly

agglomerating

2. Medium volatile bituminous coal 69 78 22 31

-- -- Commonly

agglomerating

3. High volatile A bitumin ous coal

-- 69 31

-- 14,000 d

-- Commonly

agglomerating

4. High volatile B bituminous coal

-- -- -- -- 13,000 d 14,000 Commonly

agglomerating

5. High volatile C bituminous coal

-- -- -- -- 11,500 13,000 Commonly

agglomerating

-- -- -- -- 10,500 e 11,500 A gglomerating



### Class III

- Subbituminous

1. Subbituminous A coal

-- -- -- -- 10,500 11,500 Non

- agglomerating

2. Subbituminous B coal

-- -- -- -- 9,500 10,500 Non

- agglomerating

3. Subbituminous C coal

-- -- -- -- 8,300 9,500 Non

- agglomerating



### Clas s IV

- Lignitic

1. Lignite A

-- -- -- -- 6,300 8,300 Non

- agglomerating

2. Lignite B

-- -- -- -- -- 6,300 Non

- agglomerating

Notes:

a This classification does not include a few coals, principally non

- banded varieties, which have unusual physical and chemical properties and which come within the limits of

fixed carbon or calorific value of the high volatile bituminous and subbituminous ranks. All of these coals either contain l ess than 48 percent dry, mineral

- matter

- free fixed

carbon or have more than 15,500 moist, mineral

- matter

- free Btu/lb.

b Moist refers to coal containing its natural inherent moisture

, but not including visible water on the surface of the coal.

c If agglomerating, classify in low volatile group of the bituminous class.

d Coals having 69 percent or more fixed carbon on the dry, mineral

- matter

- free basis shall be classified according to fixed carbon, regardless of calorific value.

e It is recognized that there may be non

- agglomerating varieties in these groups of the bituminous class, and the re are notable exceptions in high volatile C bituminous group.National Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 25 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies



## 4.5 Grindability

Grindability is an empirical measurement of the relative ease with which a coal can be reduced in

size, and is described by ASTM Standard D409.



## 4.6 Ash Properties

A successful boiler design requires proper sizing and arrangement of the furnace and tube

surfaces. A first priority in any design is to minimize slagging and ash deposition problems.

The slagging and the fouling potential of the coal directly affect furnace design, having a

significant influence on tubing spacing. Ash analyses of the expected fuel source are performed

before undertaking any boiler design, using ash prepared according to ASTM D3174.

**•** The slagging potential of ash is the tendency to form fused deposits on tub e surfaces

exposed to high temperature radiant heat.

**•** The fouling potential is the tendency of ash to bond to lower temperature convection

surfaces.



## 4.7 Ash Fusion Characteristics

Many comparisons of chemical makeup have been developed to analyze the behavior of ash in

boilers

. E mpirical testing of ash

- fusion temperature is still the most basic way of predicting

slagging and fouling

- fusion temperature. This testing is prescribed in ASTM D1857. The test

consists of observing the gradual thermal deformation ( melting) of a pyramid

- shaped ash sample

and recording the initial deformation temperature (IT), softening temperature (ST),

hemispherical temperature (HT), and fluid temperature (FT). The stages at which these

temperatures are recorded are generally measu red under reducing and oxidizing conditions.



## 4.8 Trace Elements

All coals contain trace elements, albeit in very small quantities

, that are measured in parts per

million. Typically

, most trace elements in coal occur in abundances not greatly different from

th ose in rock making up the crust of the earth, with the exception of boron, chlorine

, and

selenium. The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act listed a number of minor and trace

elements that commonly occur in coal as “hazardous air pollutants” (HAP).

Merc ury is the element of greatest immediate concern because it is emitted from the plant stack

, and limiting legislation is due to be finalized in November, 2011 . Deposits containing high

enough concentrations of arsenic and selenium to be of concern have be en observed starting in

low temperature gas cooling all the way through the boiler or heat recovery steam generator

( HRSG )

. Air emissions of lead have been regulated by some states.



## 4.9 Coal Moisture

All coals contain moisture. Total moisture of a coal is co mprised of surface moisture and

inherent moisture. Inherent moisture is a quality of the coal seam in its natural state of

deposition and includes only that water considered to be part of the deposit, and not that moisture

which exists as a surface additi on. Surface moisture is the water from external sources, such as

weather or coal washing processes. The s tandard test method for total moisture in coal is defined

in ASTM D3302.National Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 26 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies

The moisture content of coals varies widely by rank. In the high

- rank

, low volatile bituminous

coals it is frequently under 5 percent. High volatile bituminous coals may have as much as 12

percent moisture and lignite

, and as high as 45 percent as mined

. ( 10 ) Coal as mined, shipped

, and received may also contain varying amounts of water due to gain or loss in coal treatment

processes, transportation

, and storage. Depending on moisture in a coal and the technology

applied, the coal may need to be dried before use. For instance, coals entering dry

- feed gasifiers

typically need to be dried to achieve appropriate gasification temperature and reduce system

thermal loss.National Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 27 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies



# 5 Coal Types Used in the Previous System Studies

A list of coal types utilized in the energy system studies completed since 2004 is tabulated in

Exhibit 5

- 1 . High volatile bituminous coals (such as Illinois No. 6 and Pittsburgh No. 8) have

been utilized in multiple studies. Subbituminous coals from the Powder River Basin as well as

North Dakota lignite are also relatively well represented. There were no system studies

completed since 2004 that considered low volatile bituminous

, medium volatile bituminous or

“super

- compliance” subbituminous coal as a design fuel.

While most of the records include a proximate analysis, an ultimate analysis

, and coal heating

value, a few also contain ash composition and fusion temperatures, grindability index, and trace

element composition.

Exhibit 5

- 1 Coal types used in past NETL system studies

Name Seam/Mine Coal Rank Notes Reports Date

ND Lignite Freedom

- Beulah,

ND Lignite High Sodium Repowering with APFBC Series: Leland Olds

Cost and Performance for Low

- Rank

Pulverized Coal Oxycombustion Energy

Plants

Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil

Energy Plants; Volume 2: Coal to Synthetic

Natural Gas and Ammonia

Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil

Energy Plants; Volume 3b: Low Rank Coal to

Electricity : Combustion Cases

Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil

Energy Plants; Volum e 3a: Low Rank Coal to

Electricity : IGCC Cases Mar

- 04

Oct

- 10

Oct

- 10

Mar

- 11

Apr

- 11

TX Lignite Wilcox Lignite Lignite Low Sodium

Coal analysis

different than

first study Polygeneration of SNG, Hydrogen, Power,

and Carbon Dioxide from Texas Ligni te

Assessment of Alternative FutureGen Plant

Designs, Case 7.1.3 Dec

- 04

Mar

- 06

PRB Dry Fork, WY Subbituminous Repowering with APFBC Series: Leland Olds Mar

- 04

PRB Wyodak Subbituminous Hydrogen Production Process Simulations Mar

- 05

PRB W yodak

- Anderson

Campbell Co. WY Subbituminous KBR transport gasifier study interim report Feb

- 05National Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 28 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies

Name Seam/Mine Coal Rank Notes Reports Date

PRB Western Energy

Area D Rosebud Subbituminous Assessment of Power Plants That Meet

Proposed Greenhouse Gas Emission

Performance Standard s

Baseline Ana lysis of a Coal

- to

- Methanol

- to

Gasoline System

Alternative Coal Feed Strategies for IGCC

Systems Oct

- 09

Apr

- 10

Jul

- 10

Cost and Performance for Low

- Rank

Pulverized Coal Oxycombustion Energy

Plants

Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil

Energy Plants; Volume 3b: Low Rank Coal to

Electricity : Combustion Cases

Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil

Energy Plants; Volume 3a: Low Rank Coal to

Electricity : IGCC Cases Oct

- 10

Mar

- 11

Apr

- 11

Beluga Coal Chuitna/Beluga

Mine Subbitumino us Beluga Coal Gasification Feasibility Study Jul

- 06

Healy Coal Usibelli Mine,

Alaska Subbituminous Alaska Coal Gasification Feasibility Studies

Healy Coal

- to

- Liquids Plant Jul

- 07National Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 29 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies

Name Seam/Mine Coal Rank Notes Reports Date

Illinois No. 6 Old Ben No. 26

Mine HV Bituminous C oal and

Trace Mineral

Data Baseline Technical and Economic

Assessment of a Commercial Scale Fischer

Tropsch Liquids Facility

Pulverized Coal Oxycombustion Power

Plants

Evaluation of Alternate Water Gas Shift

Configurations for IGCC Systems

Systems Analysis of an In tegrated

Gasification Fuel Cell Combined Cycle

Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil

Energy Plants, Volume 4 : Coal

- to

- Fischer

Tropsch Liquids Using a Dry

- Feed Gasifier

Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil

Energy Plants, Volume 1: Bituminous Coal

a nd Natural Gas to Electricity, Revision 2

CO 2 Capture Ready Coal Power Plants

Assessment of Hydrogen Production with

CO 2 Capture, Vol 1: Baseline State

- of

- the Art

Plants

Alternative Coal Feed Strategies for IGCC

Systems

Production of High Purity Hydrog en from

Domestic Coal: Assessing the Techno

Economic Impact of Emerging Technologies

Life Cycle Analysis: Existing Pulverized Coal

Power Plant

Life Cycle Analysis: Integrated Gasification

Combined Cycle (IGCC) Power Plant

Life Cycle Analysis: Supercriti cal Pulverized

Coal ( SC PC) Power Plant

Advancing Oxycombustion Technology for

Bituminous Coal Power Plants: An R&D

Guide

Preliminary Results of the Modified Benfield

Process for CO 2 Capture from Syngas

Ionic Liquids

- Based Absorption Process for

Warm CO 2 Capture from Syngas Apr

- 07

Aug

- 08

Aug

- 09

Aug

- 09

Sep

- 10

Nov

- 10

Apr

- 08

Aug

- 10

Jul

- 10

Aug

- 10

Sep

- 10

Sep

- 10

Dec

- 10

Feb

- 10

Mar

- 10

Oct

- 10National Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 30 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies

Name Seam/Mine Coal Rank Notes Reports Date

Illinois No. 6

(cont.)

Illinois No. 6

coal

composition is

d ifferent than

QGESS Current and Future IGCC Technologies, Vol

1

Eliminating the Derate of Carbon Capture

Retrofits

Greenhouse Gas Reductions in the Power

Industry Using Domestic Coal and Biomass,

Vol. 2: PC Plants

Dry Catalytic Reforming of Fischer

- Trop sch

Tail Gas, Rev. 1

Current and Future Technologies for

Gasification

- Based Power Generation, Vol 2

Comparison of Pratt and Whitney

Rocketdyne IGCC and Commercial IGCC

Performance

Oxy

- Fired Pre s

surized Fluidized Bed

Combustion Assessment

I ndustrial Siz e Gasification for Syngas,

Substitute Natural Gas and Power

Production Oct

- 08

Oct

- 10

Jan

- 11

Feb

- 11

Nov

- 10

Jun

- 06

Sep

- 10

Apr

- 07

Pittsburgh No.

8 HV Bituminous Hydrogen Production Process Simulations Mar

- 05

Power Plant Water U sage and Loss Study

Technical and Economic Assessment of

Small

- Scale Fischer

- Tropsch Liquids

Facilities May

- 07

Feb

- 07

Assessment Of Alternative Future G en Plant

Designs

- Draft Topical Report Apr

- 05

NYPA Bailey

Clean Coal HV A

Bituminous N YPA IGCC Project Site Specific Design Dec

- 04

Southeast

Ohio Coal HV Bituminous Coal and Ash

Data Task 3 Gasification Plant Cost and

Performance Optimization May

- 05National Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 31 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies



# 6 Typical Market Quality of Selected Coals

According to the Keystone Coal Industry Manua l ( 11

The Form 423 )

, mine operators generally hold recent coal

quality data confidential. Publicly available coal

- quality data are 20 or more years old, and 72

percent of these data are from areas that are now mined out. Several public sources of typical

market coal q uality are utilized in this report. However, those sources do not yield consistent

mine and/or seam specific data.

1 

### Database ( 12

Average coal quality of commercially shipped coal in The Utah Geological Survey ( ) contains coal quality information by coal rank and by source.

However, the Supplier field in the Form 423 data base does not provide uniform data. It may

contain the sales company name, the mining company name, the mine name, a seam indication,

or varying abbreviations of these depending on who completed the form. Furthermore, coal in

Form 423 is identified by ra nk, but not by the seam where the coal was mined, i.e.

, bituminous

coals from all regions (Appalachian, Interior, etc.) are grouped into the same category. Not all

data fields are complete for all records.

13

Thus, the average quality of commercially shipped coal from EIA Form 423 and the Utah

Geological Survey

, presented in ) is

reported by state and by county, but not by the coal rank and mine.

Exhibit 6

- 1 and Exhibit 6

- 2

, can be used for indicative

comparison only.

1 The Form No. 423 is a compilation of data for cost and quality of fuels delivered to electric power plants to be

used for determination of elec tric rates. Prior to 2002, the “Monthly Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric

Plants Database” came from FERC Form 423, and included cost information as well as Btu, sulfur, and ash

content, but the specific supplier was not included in the FERC database . Currently the “Monthly Cost and

Quality of Fuels for Electric Plants Database” comes from EIA Form 423 and includes supplier information as

well as Btu, sulfur, and ash content, but the cost information is not included in the database. Both databases a re

available from the EIA website.National Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 32 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies

Exhibit 6

- 1 F orm 423 summary of 2001

- 2003 coal quality by coal type

Wei ghted Average, As Received

HHV, Btu/lb Sulfur, % Ash, %

Illinois No. 6 11,176 2.95 8.29

PRB 8,652 0.34 1, 2 5.03

Texas Lignite 6,482 1.27 17.07

Notes:

1. About 49 percent of PRB supplied coal in 2003 had sulfur content not exceeding 0.3 percent

(AR, by wt ); About 28 percent of PRB supplied coal in 2003 had sulfur content between 0.3

percent and 0.4 percent (AR, by wt); About 16 percent of PRB supplied coal in 2003 (all from

the same source) had sulfur content above 0.5 percent (AR, by wt)

2. The PRB coal supp ly contracts appear to comprise two distinct groups. One group

(approximately 33 percent of total tonnage) is so called “super compliance coal

, ” with the

sulfur content around 0.2 percent ; the second group (approximately 16 percent of total

tonnage) is co al with relatively high sulfur content of 0.5 percent

.

Exhibit 6

- 2 Average quality of commercially shipped coal by state per Utah Geological Survey

State HHV Ash Sulfur Mercury Chlorine

Btu/lb, (dry) (% dry) (% dry) (ppm dry) (ppm dry)

Illinois 1 12,992 9.9 2.6 0.083 1,691

Pennsylvania 1 13,089 13.2 1.9 0.258 1,048

Kentucky 1 13,153 11.2 1.9 0.104 1,054

West Virginia 1 13,264 12.0 1.4 0.119 1,044

Wyoming 2 12,033 8.1 0.6 0.053 131

Montan a 2 11,633 10.0 0.8 0.070 107

North Dakota 3 10,603 14.4 1.3 0.097 159

Texas 3 9,332 25.5 1.6 0.125 370

Notes:

1. Coals from Illinois, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and West Virginia are predominantly high

volatile bituminous

2. Coals from Wyoming and Montana are mostl y from the Powder River Basin and

subbituminous in rank

3. Coals from North Dakota and Texas are mostly ligniteNational Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 33 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies



# 7 Recommended Coal Analysis

The c oal analys e s recommended for the QGESS are presented in the following sections. The

data sources, if known, are documented at the beginning of each coal rank section. Some coal

types have been used in previous system analysis studies and the compositions presented here are

consistent with prior model ing efforts . However, in some instances the original data source for

those compositions is no longer known and therefore simply specified as “previous system

studies.”

It should be noted that low volatile and medium volatile bituminous coals are mostly utilized by

the steel industry. Combustion of these coals in wall

- fired boiler s may present a significant

challenge due to their low reactivity. Regardless, recommended compositions are still provided

for those coal types. Two options for high volatile bituminous coals, Pittsburgh No. 8 and

Illinois No. 6, a re included

. There are also two options for lignite (Texas and North Dakota) and

subbituminous coal (“super

- compliance” and high [ relative ly ] sulfur )

.



## 7.1 Low Volatile Bituminous

The l ow volatile bituminous coal analysis in Exhibit 7

- 1 is based o n the Argonne Premium Coal

Sample Database entry for coal from the Pocahontas No. 3 seam

. ( 1 ) The same source was used

for the ash mineral matter analysis and the ash fusion temperatures.

Exhibit 7

- 1 Low volatile bituminous coal

**Coal Name** N/A

**Coal seam nomenclature** Pocahontas No. 3

**Mine** Buchanan Co. WV

**ASTM D388 Rank** Low Volatile Bituminous

**Proximate Analysis** 2 ,4 As

- Received D ry

Moisture 0.65% 0.00%

Volatile Matter 19.14% 19.27%

Ash 4.74% 4.77%

Fixed Carbon 75.47% 75.96%

Total 100.00% 100.00%

**Ultimate Analysis** 2 ,4 As

- Received Dry

Carbon 86.15% 86.71%

Hydrogen 4.20% 4.23%

Nitrogen 1.26% 1.27%

Sulfur 0.6 6% 0.66%

Chlorine 0.19% 0.19%

Ash 4.74% 4.77%

Moisture 0.65% 0.00%

Oxygen 2.15% 2.17 %

Total 100.00% 100.00%

**Heating Value, Dulong calc.** 1 ,4 As

- Received Dry

HHV (Btu/lb) 14,926 15,024

LHV (Btu/lb) 14,539 14,635

HHV (kJ/kg) 34,718 34 ,946

LHV (kJ/kg) 33,818 34,040National Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 34 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies

**Coal Name** N/A

**Coal seam nomenclature** Pocahontas No. 3

**Hardgrove Grindability Index** 3 100 HGI

**Typical Ash Mineral Analysis** 2

Silica SiO 2 32 .0%

Aluminum Oxide Al 2 O 3 2 0. 1 %

Titanium Dioxide TiO 2 1. 9 %

Iron Oxide Fe 2 O 3 15

. 8 %

Calcium Oxide CaO 12

. 8 %

Magn esium Oxide MgO 2 .0%

Sodium Oxide Na 2 O 2

. 0 %

Potassium Oxide K 2 O 0

. 6 %

Phosphorus Pentoxide P 2 O 5 0. 4 %

Sulfur Trioxide SO 3 12

. 4 %

Undetermined 0 .0 %

Total 100

. 0 0%

**Typical Ash Fusion Temperatures (°F)** 2

Reducing

Initial

- Limite d deformation 2, 183

Softening H=W 2,240

Hemispherical H=1/2W 2,310

Fluid 2,407

Oxidizing

Initial

- Limited deformation 2, 4 00

Softening H=W 2,414

Hemispherical H=1/2W 2,422

Fluid 2,487

**Average trace element composition, dry basis, ppm** 

Arithmetic Mean Standard

Deviation

Arsenic As

Barium Ba

Boron B

Beryllium Be

Cadmium Cd

Cerium Ce

Cobalt Co

Chromium Cr

Copper Cu

Gallium Ga

Germanium Ge

Lanthanum La

Lead Pb

Lithi um Li

Manganese Mn

Mercury 5,6 Hg 0.079 0.009

Molybdenum Mo

Neodymium NdNational Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 35 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies

**Coal Name** N/A

**Coal seam nomenclature** Pocahontas No. 3

**Average trace element composition, dry basis, ppm**

**(continued)**

Arithmetic Mean Standard

Deviation

Nickel Ni

Niobium Nb

Phosphorus P

Thorium Th

Tin S n

Selenium Se

Scandium Sc

Silver Ag

Strontium Sr

Uranium U

Vanadium V

Ytterbium Yb

Yttrium Y

Zirconium Zr

Zinc Zn

Notes:

1. Calculated Dulong as

- received HHV is 14,998 Btu/lb, dry basis is 15,096 Btu/lb

2. Prox imate analysis, ultimate analysis , mineral matter analysis and ash fusion temperatures are

per the Argonne Premium Coal Sample Database ( 1 )

3. Ash analysis and Hardgrove Grindability Index are based on typical values per referenc e ( 9

)

4. This coal type has not been used in previous energy system studies

5. The mercury concentration was determined from 105 records of the EPA Information Collection

Request (ICR) database

6. In previous system stu dies, coal mercury values were the mean plus one standard deviationNational Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 36 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies



## 7.2 Medium Volatile Bituminous

The m edium volatile bituminous coal analysis in Exhibit 7

- 2 is based o n the Argonne Premium

Coal Sample Database for the Upper Freepor t coal seam. This analysis is consistent with the

average quality of commercially shipped coal from Indiana C ounty, Pennsylvania

. ( 13 )

Exhibit 7

- 2 Medium volati le bituminous coal

**Coal Name** N/A

**Coal seam nomenclature** Upper Freeport

**Mine** Indiana Co, PA

**ASTM D388 Rank** Mid Volatile Bituminous

**Proximate Analysis** 2, 4 As

- Received Dry

Moisture 1.13% 0.00%

Volatile Matter 29.43% 29.77%

Ash 13.03% 13 .18%

Fixed Carbon 56.41% 57.05%

Total 100.00% 100.00%

**Ultimate Analysis** 2, 4 As

- Received Dry

Carbon 73.39% 74.23%

Hydrogen 4.03% 4.07%

Nitrogen 1.33% 1.35%

Sulfur 2.29% 2.32%

Chlorine 0.00% 0.00%

Ash 13.03% 13.18%

Moisture 1.13% 0. 00%

Oxygen 4.80% 4.85%

Total 100.00% 100.00%

**Heating Value, Dulong calc.** 1

, 4 As

- Received Dry

HHV (Btu/lb) 13,315 13,467

LHV (Btu/lb) 12,944 13,092

HHV (kJ/kg) 30,971 31,324

LHV (kJ/kg) 30,108 30,451

**Hardgrove Grindability Index** 3 95 HGINational Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 37 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies

**Coal Name** N/A

**Coal seam nomenclature** Upper Freeport

**Typical Ash Mineral Analysis** 2

Silica SiO 2 4 4

. 8 %

Aluminum Oxide Al 2 O 3 24. 1 %

Titanium Dioxide TiO 2 1.3%

Iron Oxide Fe 2 O 3 1 7

. 3 %

Calcium Oxide CaO 4

. 2 %

Magnesium Oxide MgO 1

. 6 %

Sodium Oxide Na 2 O 0. 0 %

Potassium Oxide K 2 O 2. 7 %

Phosphorus Pentoxide P 2 O 5 0.1%

Sulfur Trioxide SO 3 3

. 9 %

Undetermined 0 .0%

Total 100.00%

**Typical Ash Fusion Temperatures (°F)** 2 , 7

Reducing

Initial

- Limited deformation 2,191

Softening H=W 2,250

Hemispherical H=1/2W 2,3 21

Fluid 2,433

Oxidizing

Initial

- Limited deformation 2,140

Softening H=W 2,170

Hemispherical H=1/2W 2,200

Fluid 2,225

**Average trace element composition, dry basis, ppm**

Arithmetic Mean Standard

Deviation

Antimony Sb

Arsenic As

Barium Ba

Boron B

Beryllium Be

Cadmium Cd

Cerium Ce

Cobalt Co

Chromium Cr

Copper Cu

Fluorine F

Gallium Ga

Germanium Ge

Lanthanum La

Lead Pb

Lithium Li

Manganese Mn

Mercury 5

, 6 Hg 0.2 38 0.099

Molybdenum Mo

Neodymium Nd

Nickel Ni

Niobium Nb

Phosphorus PNational Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 38 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies

**Coal Name** N/A

**Coal seam nomenclature** Upper Freeport

Thorium Th

Tin S n

Selenium Se

Scandium Sc

Silver Ag

Strontium Sr

Uranium U

Vanadium V

Ytterbium Yb

Yttrium Y

Zirconium Zr

Zinc Zn

Notes:

1. Calculated Dulong as

- received HHV is 12,897 Btu/lb, dry basis is 13,044 Btu/lb

2. Proximate analysis, ultimate analysis , ash mineral matter analysis, and ash fusion temperatures

are per Argonne Premium Coal Sample Database

3. Hardgrove Grinda bility Index is per reference ( 9

)

4. This coal type h as not been used in previous energy system studies

5. The mercury concentration was determined from 396 records of EPA Information Collection

Request (ICR) databas e

6. In previous system studies, coal mercury values were the mean plus one standard deviation

7. Oxidizing ash fusion temperatures are generally higher than reducing, but these data are as

reported by the Argonne Premium Coal Sample Database



## 7.3 High Volatile Bitu minous

Pittsburgh No. 8 coal ha s been used in s everal past system studies as documented in Exhibit 5

- 1

. However, the properties were fairly similar to Illinois No. 6 coal. To represent high volatile

bituminous coals with a relat ively large deviation in heating value, a new Pittsburgh No. 8 coal

analysis, extracted from the U.S. Geological Survey D atabase ( 14

Exhibit 7

- 3 ) , is presented . The coal

analysis is shown in

.

Exhibit 7

- 3 High volatile bituminous coal analysis (Pittsburgh No. 8)

**Coal name** Pittsburgh No. 8

**Coal seam nomenclature** N/A

**Mine** N/A

**ASTM D388 Rank** High Volatile A Bituminous

**Proximate Analysis** 2,3 As

- R eceived Dry

Moisture 4 2.63% 0.00%

Volatile Matter 35.82% 36.79%

Ash 9.17% 9.42%

Fixed Carbon 52.38% 53.79%

Total 100.00% 100.00%National Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 39 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies

**Coal name** Pittsburgh No. 8

**Ultimate Analysis** 2,3 As

- Received Dry

Carbon 73.15% 75.13%

Hydrogen 4.97% 5.10%

Nitrogen 1.46% 1.50%

Sulfur 2.36% 2.42%

Chlorine 0.04% 0.04%

Ash 9.17% 9.42%

Moisture 2.63% 0.00%

Oxygen 6.22% 6.39%

Total 100.00% 100.00%

**Reported Heating Value** 1,2,3 As

- Received Dry

HHV (Btu/lb) 13,116 13,470

LHV (Btu/lb) 12,658 13,000

HHV (kJ/kg) 30,508 31,331

LHV (kJ/kg) 2 9,443 30,238

**Hardgrove Grindability Index** 2 73 HGI

**Typical Ash Mineral Analysis** 2

Silica SiO 2 41.80%

Aluminum Oxide Al 2 O 3 22.30%

Titanium Dioxide TiO 2 1.03%

Iron Oxide Fe 2 O 3 22.76%

Calcium Oxide CaO 3.20%

Magnesium Oxide MgO 0.70%

Sodi um Oxide Na 2 O 0.48%

Potassium Oxide K 2 O 1.51%

Phosphorus Pentoxide P 2 O 5 0.37%

Sulfur Trioxide SO 3 2.87%

Undetermined 2.94%

Total 100.0%

**Typical Ash Fusion Temperatures (°F)**

Reducing

Initial

– Limited deformation oF 2

, 260

Softening H= W oF 2

, 350

Hemispherical H=1/2W oF

Fluid oF 2

, 430

Oxidizing

Initial

– Limited deformation oF

Softening H=W oF

Hemispherical H=1/2W oF

Fluid oF

**Average trace element composition of selected coal samples, dry basis, ppm** 2

Arithmet ic

Mean Standard

Deviation

Arsenic As 996 749

Boron B 42 15

Beryllium Be 1.2 0.7

Cadmium Cd 0.08 0.06National Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 40 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies

**Coal name** Pittsburgh No. 8

Chlorine Cl 457 367

Cobalt Co 4.0 2.6

Chromium Cr 14.0 6.0

Copper Cu 7.1 3.5

Fluorine F 75.0 105

Mercury 5 Hg 0.23 0.20

Lit hium Li 12.9 7.9

Manganese Mn 19.8 13.3

Molybdenum Mo 2.7 2.6

Nickel Ni 11.1 6.5

Phosphorus P 181 221

Lead Pb 4.3 2.6

Tin S n 0.6 0.5

Selenium Se 1.4 0.8

Thorium Th 1.8 0.7

Uranium U 0.9 1.0

Vanadium V 16.0 8.0

Zinc Zn 12. 6 8.5

Notes:

1. Calculated Dulong HHV, As

- Received

– 13,335 Btu/lb, Dry

– 13,695 Btu/l b

2. Proximate analysis, ultimate analysis, HHV, ash mineral analysis, Hardgrove Grindability Index,

ash fusion temperature and trace element composition were average values b ased on 46

Pittsburgh formation coal samples extracted from the USGS database ( 14 )

3. This analysis is different than Pittsburgh No. 8 coal analyses that w ere used in past system

studies

4. In previous system studies

, this coal was dried to 2.5 percent moisture for dry

- feed gasifiers

5. In previous system studies, m ercury values for coal analyses were the m ean plus one standard

deviation



### The coal analysis from the Old Ben M ine No

. 26 has been utilized in several major studies,

includin g multiple revisions of Volume 1 of the Cost and Performance Baseline Report

. ( 15 ) The

coal quality in this guideline is consistent with the commercial offerings for the high volatile

bituminous rank coal and coals shipped from the state of Illinois . The c omposition documented

in this guideline has been reported previously in other studies dating back to 1996

. ( 16

Exhibit 7

- 4 ) The

high volatile bituminous coal analysis (Illinois No. 6) is presented in

.

Exhibit 7

- 4 High volatile bituminous coal analysis (Illinois No. 6)

**Coal name** Illinois No. 6

**Coal seam nomenclature** Herrin (No. 6)

**Mine** N/A

**ASTM D388 Rank** High Volatile A Bituminous

**Proximate Analysis**  6 As

- Received Dry

Moisture 7 11.12% 0.00%

Volatile Matter 34.99% 39.37%

Ash 9.70% 10.91%

Fixed Carbon 44.19% 49.72%

Total 100.00% 100.00%National Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 41 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies

**Coal name** Illinois No. 6

**Ultimate Analysis** 6 As

- Received Dry

Carbon 63.75% 71.7 2 %

Hydrogen 4.50% 5.06%

Nitrogen 1.25% 1.41%

Sulfur 2.51% 2.82%

Chlorine 0.29% 0.33%

Ash 9.70% 10.91%

Moisture 7 11.12% 0.00%

Oxygen 6.88% 7.75 %

Total 100.00% 100.00%

**Reported Heating Value** 1 ,6 As

- Received Dry

HHV (Btu/lb) 11,666 13,126

LHV (Btu/lb) 11,252 12, 712

HHV (kJ/kg) 27,1 13 30,5 0 6

LHV (kJ/kg) 26,1 5 1 29,44 4

**Hardgrove Grindability Index** 60 HGI

**Typical Ash Mineral Analysis** 2

Silica SiO 2 45.0%

Aluminum Oxide Al 2 O 3 18.0%

Titanium Dioxide TiO 2 1.0%

Iron Oxide Fe 2 O 3 20.0%

Calcium Oxide CaO 7.0%

Magnesium Oxide MgO 1 .0%

Sodium Oxide Na 2 O 0.6%

Potassium Oxide K 2 O 1.9%

Phosphorus Pentoxide P 2 O 5 0.2%

Sulfur Trioxide SO 3 3.5%

Undetermined 1.8%

Total 100.0%

**Typical Ash Fusion Temperatures (°F)** 3

Reducing

Initial

– Limited deformation 2

, 194 oF

Softeni ng H=W 2

, 260 oF

Hemispherical H=1/2W 2

, 345 oF

Fluid 2

, 4 15 oF

Oxidizing

Initial

– Limited deformation 2

, 250 oF

Softening H=W 2

, 300 oF

Hemispherical H=1/2W 2

, 430 oF

Fluid 2

, 450 oF

**Average trace element composition of coal shipped by Illinois mines, dry basis, ppm**  4

Arithmetic

Mean Standard

Deviation

Arsenic As 7.5 8.1

Boron B 90 45

Beryllium Be 1.2 0.7

Cadmium Cd 0.5 0.9National Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 42 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies

**Coal name** Illinois No. 6

Chlorine Cl 1671 1189

Cobalt Co 3.5 1.3

Chromium Cr 14 6

Copper Cu 9.2 2.5

Fluorine F 93 36

Mercury 5 Hg 0.09 0.06

Lithium Li 9.4 7.1

Manganese Mn 38 32

Molybdenum Mo 8.4 5.7

Nickel Ni 14 5

Phosphorus P 87 83

Lead Pb 24 21

Tin S n 0.9 0.7

Selenium Se 1.9 0.9

Thorium Th 1.5 0.4

Uranium U 2.2 1.9

Vanadium V 31 16

Zinc Zn 84.4 84.2

Notes:

1. Calculated Dulong HHV, As

- Received

- 11,634 Btu/lb, Dry

- 13,089 Btu/lb

2. Typical a sh mineral analysis is based on Combustion Technologies Composition Source Book,

May , 20 05

3. Reducing condition ash fusion temperature data are from source ( 16 ), and oxidizing condition

t ypical a sh f usion t emperature data are based on the Combustion Technologies Composition

Source Book, May , 20 05

4. Average trace element composition of coal shipped by Illinois mines is based on 34 samples,

200 4 Keystone Coal Industry Manual ( 11 )

5. A m ercury value of 0.15 ppm was used for Illinois No. 6 in previous system studies, which is the

m ean plus one standard deviation

6. Th e system studies using this co al type are documented in Exhibit 5

- 1

7. In previous system studies this coal was dried to 5 percent or 6 percent moisture for dry

- feed

gasifiersNational Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 43 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies



## 7.4 “Super

- Compliance” Subbituminous PRB Coal

“Super

- compliance” subbitumi nous coal analysis is based on a coal sample reported by the

Sheldon Station power plant for an energy syste m study conducted in 2003 ( 17

Exhibit 7

- 5 ), and is presented

in

.

Exhibit 7

- 5 “Super

- compliance” subbituminous coal analysis

**Coal name** PRB

**Coal seam nomenclature** Wyodak/Anderson

**Mine** Rochelle Coal Co.

**ASTM D388 Rank** Subbituminous C

**Proximate Analysis** 5 As

- Received Dry

Moisture 2 7.42% 0.00%

Volatile Matter 31.65% 43.61%

Ash 4.50% 6.20%

Fixed Carbon 36.43% 50.19%

Total 100.00% 100.00%

**Ultimate Analysis** 5 As

- Received Dry

Carbon 50.23% 69.21%

Hydrogen 3.41% 4.70%

Nitrogen 0.65% 0. 89 %

Sulfur 0.22% 0.30%

Chlori ne 0.02% 0.03%

Ash 4.50% 6.20%

Moisture 27.42% 0.00%

Oxygen 13.55% 18.67%

Total 100.00% 100.00%

**Heating Value** 2,5 As

- Received

(Reported) Dry

(Dulong calc.)

HHV (Btu/lb) 8,800 11,546

LHV (Btu/lb) 8,486 11,113

HHV (kJ/kg) 20,469 26,8 56

LHV (kJ/kg) 19,738 25,850

**Hardgrove Grindability Index** 52 HGINational Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 44 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies

**Coal name** PRB

**Coal seam nomenclature** Wyodak/Anderson

**Ash Mineral Analysis**

Silica SiO 2 33.40%

Aluminum Oxide Al 2 O 3 16.30%

Titanium Dioxide TiO 2 1.20%

Iron Oxide Fe 2 O 3 5.20%

Calcium Oxide CaO 21.50%

Magnesium Oxi de MgO 6.40%

Sodium Oxide Na 2 O 1.90%

Potassium Oxide K 2 O 0.35%

Phosphorus Pentoxide P 2 O 5 1.20%

Sulfur Trioxide SO 3 11.70%

Barium Oxide Ba 2 O 0.56%

Strontium Oxide SrO 0.27%

Manganese Dioxide MnO2 0.02%

Total 100.0 0 %

**Ash Fusion Tempe ratures (°F)** 

Reducing

Initial

- Limited deformation 2

, 170 oF

Softening H=W 2

, 190 oF

Hemispherical H=1/2W 2

, 200 oF

Fluid 2

, 230 oF

Oxidizing

Initial

- Limited deformation 2

, 200 oF

Softening H=W 2

, 220 oF

Hemispherical H=1/2W 2

, 250 oF

Fluid 2

, 290 oF

**Trace element composition, dry basis, ppm** 1, 3

Reported WY Average

Antimony Sb 0.62 <0.4

Arsenic As 1.5 <3

Barium Ba N/A 300

Boron B 43 70

Beryllium Be 0.4 N/A

Cadmium Cd 0.56 <0.15

Cerium Ce N/A <20

Cobalt Co N /A 2

Chromium Cr 6 7

Copper Cu 12 8

Fluorine F 76 N/A

Gallium Ga N/A 3

Germanium Ge N/A <2

Lanthanum La N/A <7

Lead Pb 5 <3

Lithium Li N/A 4.6

Manganese Mn 9 N/A

Mercury 4 Hg 0.1 0.1

Molybdenum Mo N/A 1

Neodymium Nd N/A <15

Nickel Ni 5 5

Niobi um Nb N/A 1.5National Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 45 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies

**Coal name** PRB

**Coal seam nomenclature** Wyodak/Anderson

Phosphorus P N/A N/A

Thorium Th N/A 2.7

Tin S n N/A N/A

Selenium Se 0.3 <0.8

Scandium Sc N/A 1.5

Silver Ag 0.24 N/A

Strontium Sr N/A 100

Uranium U N/A <0.9

Vanadium V 17 15

Ytterbium Yb N/A 0.5

Yttrium Y N/A 5

Zirconium Zr N/A 15

Zinc Zn 8 17.9

Notes:

1. N/A

= not available

2. Calculated Dulong HHV As

- Received

- 8,380 Btu/lb

3. A verage trace element composition found in Wyoming coals is based on 48 published analys e s in

the 2004 Keystone Coal Industry Manual ( 11 )

4. Mercury values for other coal analyses used in previous system studies were the mean plus one

standard deviation

5. Th e system studies using this coal type are documented in Exhibit 5

- 1



## 7.5 Subbitumin ous

The s ubbituminous coal analysis in Exhibit 7

- 6 represents a relatively smaller group of PRB

coals with sulfur content higher than 0.5 percent

. The original source of the composition data is

not known, but it i s very close to the composition reported for Wyoming coal in the Argonne

Premium Coal Sample Database

. ( 1 )

Exhibit 7

- 6 Subbituminous coal from PRB field

**Coal sea m nomenclature**  Montana Rosebud

**Coal field** PRB, Area D

**Mine** Western Energy Co.

**ASTM D388 Rank** Subbituminous

**Proximate Analysis** 2 As

- Received Dry

Moisture 3 25.77% 0.00%

Volatile Matter 30.34% 40.8 7 %

Ash 8.19% 11.0 4 %

Fixed Carbon 35.7 0% 48.09%

Total 100.00% 100.00%National Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 46 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies

**Coal sea m nomenclature**  Montana Rosebud

**Coal field** PRB, Area D

**Ultimate Analysis** 2 As

- Received Dry

Carbon 50.07% 67.45%

Hydrogen 3.38% 4.56%

Nitrogen 0.71% 0.96%

Sulfur 0.73% 0.98%

Chlorine 0.01% 0.01%

Ash 8.19% 11.03%

Moisture 3 25.77% 0.00%

Oxygen 11.14% 15.01 %

Total 100.00% 100.00%

**Heating Value** 1,2 As

- Received Dry (Dulong

calc.)

HHV (Btu/lb) 8,564 11,516

LHV (Btu/lb) 8,252 11,096

HHV (kJ/kg) 19,920 26,787

LHV (kJ/kg) 19,195 25,810

**Hardgrove Grindability Index** 57

**Ash Mineral An alysis** 

Silica SiO 2 38.09%

Aluminum Oxide Al 2 O 3 16.73%

Titanium Dioxide TiO 2 0.72%

Iron Oxide Fe 2 O 3 6.46%

Calcium Oxide CaO 16.56%

Magnesium Oxide MgO 4.25%

Sodium Oxide Na 2 O 0.54%

Potassium Oxide K 2 O 0.38%

Phosphorus Pentoxide P 2 O 5 0.35%

Sulfur Trioxide SO 3 15.08%

Barium Oxide Ba 2 O 0.00%

Strontium Oxide SrO 0.00%

Unknown MnO2 0.84%

Total 100.00%

**Ash Fusion Temperatures (°F)**

Reducing

Initial

- Limited deformation 2

, 238 oF

Softening H=W 2

, 254 oF

Hemisp herical H=1/2W 2

, 270 oF

Fluid 2

, 298 oF

Oxidizing

Initial

- Limited deformation 2

, 284 oF

Softening H=W 2

, 301 oF

Hemispherical H=1/2W 2

, 320 oF

Fluid 2

, 367 oFNational Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 47 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies

**Coal sea m nomenclature**  Montana Rosebud

**Coal field** PRB, Area D

**Trace element composition, dry basis, ppm**

Reported WY Average

Ant imony Sb

Arsenic As

Barium Ba

Boron B

Beryllium Be

Cadmium Cd

Cerium Ce

Cobalt Co

Chromium Cr

Copper Cu

Fluorine F

Gallium Ga

Germanium Ge

Lanthanum La

Lead Pb

Lithium Li

Manganese Mn

Merc ury 4 Hg 0.056 0.025

Molybdenum Mo

Neodymium Nd

Nickel Ni

Niobium Nb

Phosphorus P

**Trace element composition, dry basis, ppm**

**(continued)**

Reported WY Average

Thorium Th

Tin S n

Selenium Se

Scandium Sc

Silver Ag

St rontium Sr

Uranium U

Vanadium V

Ytterbium Yb

Yttrium Y

Zirconium Zr

Zinc Zn

Notes:

1. Calculated Dulong HHV As

- Received

- 8,548 Btu/lb

2. Th e system studies using this coal type are documented in Exhibit 5

- 1

3. In previous system studies, this coal was dried to 5 percent moisture for dry

- feed gasifiers

4. In previous system studies, m ercury values used for coals were the me an plus one standard

deviationNational Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 48 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies



## 7.6 North Dakota Lignite

The North Dakota lignite analysis is based on a coal sample reported by the Lela nd Olds plant

for a 2004 system analysis study ( 18 Exhibit 7

- 7 ), and is presented in

.

Exhibit 7

- 7 North Dakota lignite analysis (high

- sodium )

**Coal name** High Sodium Lignite

**Coal seam nomenclature** Beulah

- Zap

**Mine** Freedom, ND

**ASTM D388 Rank** Lignite A

**Proximate Analysis** 5 As

- Received Dry

Moisture 36.08% 0.00%

Volatile Matter 26.52 % 41.4 8 %

Ash 9.86% 15.43%

Fixed Carbon 27.54% 43.09%

Total 100.00% 100.00%

**Ultimate Analysis** 5 As

- Received Dry

Carbon 39.55% 61.88%

Hydrogen 2.74% 4.29%

Nitrogen 0.63% 0.98%

Sulfur 0.63% 0.98%

Chlorine 0.00% 0.00%

Ash 9.86% 15.43%

Moisture 36.08% 0.00%

Oxygen 10.51% 16.44%

Total 100.00% 100.00%

**Heating Value** 2,5 As

- Received Dry (Dulong

calc.)

HHV (Btu/lb) 6,617 10,427

LHV (Btu/lb) 6,364 10,032

HHV (kJ/kg) 15,391 24,254

LHV (kJ/kg) 14,804 23,335

**Hardgro ve Grindability Index**  Not applicableNational Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 49 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies

**Coal name** High Sodium Lignite

**Ash Mineral Analysis**

Silica SiO 2 35.06%

Aluminum Oxide Al 2 O 3 12.29%

Titanium Dioxide TiO 2 0.58%

Iron Oxide Fe 2 O 3 5.12%

Calcium Oxide CaO 14.39%

Magnesium Oxide MgO 6.61%

Sodium Oxide Na 2 O 5.18 %

Potassium Oxide K 2 O 0.64%

Phosphorus Pentoxide P 2 O 5 0.00%

Sulfur Trioxide SO 3 16.27%

Barium Oxide Ba 2 O 0.56%

Strontium Oxide SrO 0.27%

Manganese Dioxide MnO2 0.02%

Unknown 3.00%

Total 100.0 0 %

**Ash Fusion Temperatures (°F) 6** 

Re ducing

Initial

- Limited deformation 2

, 045 oF

Softening H=W 2

, 085 oF

Hemispherical H=1/2W 2

, 125 oF

Fluid 2

, 165 oF

Oxidizing

Initial

- Limited deformation 2

, 125 oF

Softening H=W 2

, 1 55 oF

Hemispherical H=1/2W 2

, 1 9 0 oF

Fluid 2

, 215 oF

**Trace element composition, dry basis, ppm** 3

As Reported 1

Antimony Sb N/A

Arsenic As 67

Barium Ba 7000

Boron B 1590

Beryllium Be N/A

Cadmium Cd 0.89

Cerium Ce N/A

Cobalt Co N/A

Chromium Cr 29

Copper Cu 50

Fluorine F N/A

Gallium Ga N/A

Germanium Ge N/A

Lanthanum La N/A

Lead Pb 38.7

Lithium Li N/A

Manganese Mn N/A

Mercury 4 Hg 0.116

Molybdenum Mo N/A

Neodymium Nd N/A

Nickel Ni 27

Niobium Nb N/ANational Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 50 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies

**Coal name** High Sodium Lignite

Phosphorus P N/A

**Trace ele ment composition, dry basis, ppm** 

**(continued)**

As Reported

Thorium Th N/A

Tin S n N/A

Selenium Se 11

Scandium Sc N/A

Silver Ag N/A

Strontium Sr N/A

Uranium U N/A

Vanadium V 77.2

Ytterbium Yb N/A

Yttrium Y N/A

Zirconium Z r N/A

Zinc Zn 73.8

Notes:

1. N/A

= not available

2. Calculated Dulong HHV As

- Received

– 6,665 Btu/lb

3. Trace element composition is as reported in the sample

4. Mercury value is the mean (0.081 ppm) plus one standard deviation (0.035 ppm) of selected

samples f rom the EPA Information Collection Request database

5. Th e system studies using this coal type are documented in Exhibit 5

- 1

6. Ash fusion temperatures are the midpoint of a rangeNational Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 51 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies



## 7.7 Texas Lignite

Texas lignite was used in several energy system stud ies since 2004

. ( 19

, 20

11 ) The coal

composition used in the two studies was not consistent. The c oal analysis presented in the

QGESS does not exactly match either study composition, but is based on mean values of the

Texas Wilcox G roup lignite coals from the 2004 Keystone Coal Industry Manual

. ( ) The

Keystone Coal reference provided values closest to the weighted average Texas lignite values for

the coals sold on the U.S. market ( Exhibit 6

- 1 ) , and are also very close to the FutureGen study

composition

. ( 19 ) Ash of Wilcox Group lignite contains less than 1 percent sodium. Thus, both

low

- sodium and high

- sodium lignite (ND lignite) are represented in the QGESS

. The Texas

lignite analysis is presented in Exhibit 7

- 8

.

Exhibit 7

- 8 Texas lignite analysis (low

- sodium )

**Coal seam nomenclature** Wilco x Group

**Coal name** Mean Values

**Mine** TX

**ASTM D388 Rank** Lignite

**Proximate Analysis** 1,3 As

- Received Dry

Moisture 32.00% 0.00%

Volatile Matter 28.00% 41.18%

Ash 15.00% 22.06%

Fixed Carbon 25.00% 36.76%

Total 100.00% 100.00%

**Ul timate Analysis**  1,3 As

- Received Dry

Carbon 37.70% 55.44%

Hydrogen 3.00% 4.41%

Nitrogen 0.70% 1.03%

Sulfur 0.90% 1.32%

Chlorine 0.02% 0.03%

Ash 15.00% 22.06%

Moisture 32.00% 0.00%

Oxygen 10.68% 15.71%

Total 100.00% 100.00%

**Heating Value, Dulong calc.**  3 As

- Received Dry

HHV (Btu/lb) 6,554 9,638

LHV (Btu/lb) 6,277 9,231

HHV (kJ/kg) 15,243 22,417

LHV (kJ/kg) 14,601 21,472

**Hardgrove Grindability Index** 60 HGINational Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 52 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies

**Coal seam nomenclature** Wilco x Group

**Typical Ash Mineral Analysis**

Silica SiO 2 44.10%

Aluminum Oxide Al 2 O 3 15.03%

Titanium Dioxide TiO 2 1.03%

Iron Oxide Fe 2 O 3 8.96%

Calcium Oxide CaO 11.91%

Magnesium Oxide MgO 2.67%

Sodium Oxide Na 2 O 0.70%

Potassium Oxide K 2 O 0.78%

Phosphorus Pentoxide P 2 O 5 0.00%

Sulfur Trioxide SO 3 11.77 %

Undetermined 3.05%

Total 100.00%

**Typical Ash Fusion Temperatures (°F)** 2

Reducing

Initial

- Limited deformation 2,152

Softening H=W 2,260

Hemispherical H=1/2W 2,248

Fluid 2,362

Oxidizing

Initial

- Limited deformation

Softening H=W

Hemispherical H=1/2W

Fluid

**Average trace element composition, dry basis, ppm**

Arithmetic Mean Standard

Deviation

Antimony Sb

Arsenic As

Barium Ba

Boron B

Beryllium Be

Cadmium Cd

Cerium Ce

Cobalt Co

Chromium Cr

Copper Cu

Fluorine F

Gallium Ga

Germanium Ge

Lanthanum La

Lead Pb

Lithium Li

Manganese Mn

Mercury 4 Hg 0.148 0.058

Molybdenum Mo

Neodymium Nd

Nickel Ni

Niobium Nb

Phosphorus P

Thorium ThNational Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 53 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies

**Coal seam nomenclature** Wilco x Group

Tin S n

**Average trace element composition, dry basis, ppm**

**(continued)**

Arithmetic Mean Standard

Deviation

Selenium Se

Scandium Sc

Silver Ag

Strontium Sr

Uranium U

Vanadium V

Ytterbium Yb

Yttrium Y

Zirconium Zr

Zinc Zn

Notes:

1. Coal analysis is based on mean values for Texas Wilcox Group Coals, 2004 Keystone Coal

Industry Manual ( 11 )

2. Ash fusion temperatures (reducing) are for Northeast of Wilcox Group

3. Th e system studies using this coal type (but not this composition) are documented in Exhibit 5

- 1

4. In previous system s studies, m ercury values used for other coals were the mean plus one

standard deviation

5. In previous system s s tudies, this coal was dried to 15 percent , 12 percent or 8 percent moisture

for dry

- feed gasifiersNational Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 54 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies



# 8 References

1 Argonne National Laboratory. (2012). Argonne Premium Coal Samples . Re trieved on

May 7, 2013, from http://www.anl.gov/PCS/

2 National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). (2010). Overview of U.S. Coal Supply

and Infrastructure. DOE/NETL

- 403/081709.

3 U.S. Energy Information Administrat ion (EIA). (2010). Annual Outlook 2010. DOE/EIA

0383.

4 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (20 08 ). Electric Power Annual 2008.

DOE/EIA

- 0348.

5 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (20 10 ). Annual Coal Report 2009.

DOE/EIA 0584.

6 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). ( 1999 ). The Demonstrated Reserve Base,

U.S. Coal Reserves: 1997, Update.

7 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2010). Annual Energy Review 2009.

DOE/EIA

- 0384.

8 U.S. Energy Information Administration ( EIA). (20 09 ). U.S. Coal Supply and Demand:

2009 Review.

9 Babcock & Wilcox Company (2005). Steam, its generation and use . 41st edition.

10 Combustion Engineering Inc. (1981). Combustion

– Fossil Power Systems (3rd edition).

11 Keystone Coal Industry Ma nual. (2004). Published by Coal Age, a Mining Media

publication.

12 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (n.d.). Electricity: Survey

- level Detail

Data Files . Retrieved on May 7, 2013, from

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/data.html

13 Quick, Jeffrey. C, David E. Tabet, Sharon Wakefield, and Roger L. Bon. (2004).

Optimizing Technology to Reduce Mercury and Acid Gas Emissions from Electric Power

Plants. P repared by t he Utah Geological Survey . P repared for the U.S. DOE. DE

- FG26

-

03NT41901.

14 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

. (2004). National Coal Resources Data System: US Coal

Quality Database . Retrieved on May 7, 2013, from

http://energy.er.usgs.gov/coalqual.htm

15 National Energy Technology Laboratory. (2010). Cost and Performance Baseline for

Fossil Energy Plants; Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity,

Revision 2 . DOE/NETL

- 2010/1397.National Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Program Planning and Analysis



### 55 January 2012 Detailed Coal Specifications

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies

16 Doctor, R.D., J.C. Molburg, and P.R. Thimmapuram. (1996). KRW Oxygen

- Blown

Gasification Combined Cycle: Carbon Dioxide Recovery, Transp ort, and Disposal

. Prepared by Argonne National Laboratory, Energy Systems Division. Sponsored by U.S.

DOE, ANL/ESD

- 34.

17 Repowering the Sheldon Station with Advanced Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion.

DOE Contract No. DE

- AM26

- 99FT4046, 2003.

18 Repowe ring Leland Olds Unit 2 with Combustion Hybrid Technology. DOE Contract No.

DE

- AM26

- 99FT40465, July 2004.

19 Assessment of Alternative FutureGen Plant Designs, Case 7.1.3

– Series #7 Base Case

with Shell Gasifier for Pow e r Only w/o CO 2 

### Capture . Internal Di stribution Only.

DOE/NETL

- 310/032406, March 2006.

20 Gray, David, Salvatore Salerno, Glen Tomlinson, and John Marano. (2004).

Polygeneration of SNG, Hydrogen, Power, and Carbon Dioxide from Texas Lignite

. Prepared by Mitretek Systems. Prepared for U.S. DO E.