Investigation of Low Rank Coal Gasification in a Two-Stage Downdraft Entrained-Flow Gasifier

Xijia Lu, Ting Wang

Energy Conversion & Conservation Center, University of New Orleans, New Orleans, USA.

DOI: 10.4236/ijcce.2014.31001                

Abstract

Low-rank coal contains more inherent moisture, high alkali metals (Na, K, Ca), high oxygen content, and low sulfur than high-rank coal. Low-rank coal gasification usually has lower efficiency than high-rank coal, since more energy has been used to drive out the moisture and volatile matters and vaporize them. Nevertheless, Low-rank coal comprises about half of both the current utilization and the reserves in the United States and is the largest energy resource in the United States, so it is worthwhile and important to investigate the low-rank coal gasification process. In this study, the two-stage fuel feeding scheme is investigated in a downdraft, entrained-flow, and refractory-lined reactor. Both a high-rank coal (Illinois No.6 bituminous) and a low-rank coal (South Hallsville Texas Lignite) are used for comparison under the following operating conditions: 1) low-rank coal vs. high-rank coal, 2) one-stage injection vs. two-stage injection, 3) low-rank coal with pre-drying vs. without pre-drying, and 4) dry coal feeding without steam injection vs. with steam injection at the second stage. The results show that 1) With predrying to 12% moisture, syngas produced from lignite has 538 K lower exit temperature and 18% greater Higher Heating Value (HHV) than syngas produced from Illinois #6. 2) The two-stage fuel feeding scheme results in a lower wall temperature (around 100 K) in the lower half of the gasifier than the single-stage injection scheme. 3) Without pre-drying, the high inherent moisture content in the lignite causes the syngas HHV to decrease by 27% and the mole fractions of both H₂ and CO to decrease by 33%, while the water vapor content increases by 121% (by volume). The low-rank coal, without pre-drying, will take longer to finish the demoisturization and devolatilization processes, resulting in delayed combustion and gasification processes.

Keywords

Low-Rank Coal; Two-Stage Coal Feeding Gasification; Higher Heating Value (HHV); Syngas Composition

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	BP. Statistical Review of World Energy, 2005.
[2]	J. L. Johnson, “Kinetics of Coal Gasification: A Compilation of Research,” John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1979, p. 324.
[3]	A. Linares-Solano, O. P. Mahajan, L. Philip and P. L. Walker, “Reactivity of Heat-treated Coals in Steam,” Fuel, Vol. 58, No. 5, 1979, pp. 327-332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0016-2361(79)90148-0
[4]	L. Philip, P. L. Walker, S. Matsumoto, T. Hanzawa, T. Muira and I. M. K. Ismail, “Catalysis of Gasification of Coal-Derived Cokes and Chars,” Fuel, Vol. 62, No. 2, 1983, pp. 140-149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0016-2361(83)90186-2
[5]	M. Karthikeyan, Z. H. Wu and A. S. Mujumdar, “Low- Rank Coal Dry Technologies-Current Status and New Developments,” Dry Technology, Vol. 27, No. 3, 2009, pp. 403-415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07373930802683005
[6]	US Department of Energy/NETL, “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Volume 3a: Low Rank Coal to Electricity: IGCC Cases,” 2011.
[7]	D. L. Smoot and P. J. Smith, “Coal Combustion and Gasificatio,” Plenum Press, 1985. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-9721-3
[8]	X. Lu and T. Wang, “Water-Gas Shift Modeling in Coal Gasification in an Entrained-Flow Gasifier, Part 1: Development of Methodology and Model Calibration,” Fuel, Vol. 108, 2013, pp. 629-638.
[9]	C. Chen, M. Horio and T. Kojima, “Numerical Simulation of Entrained Flow Coal Gasifiers,” Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 55, No. 18, 2000, pp. 3861-3833. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2509(00)00030-0
[10]	C. K. Westbrook and F. L. Dryer, “Simplified Reaction Mechanisms for the Oxidation of Hydrocarbon Fuels in Flames,” Combustion Science and Technology, Vol. 27, 1981, pp. 31-43.
[11]	W. P. Jones and R. P. Lindstedt, “Global Reaction Sche- mes for Hydrocarbon Combustion,” Combustion and Flame, Vol. 73, No. 3, 1998, p. 233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-2180(88)90021-1
[12]	P. Benyon, “Computational Modelling of Entrained Flow Slagging Gasifiers,” Ph.D. Thesis, School of Aerospace, Mechanical & Mechatronic Engineering, University of Sydney, Australia, 2002.
[13]	A. Silaen and T. Wang, “Effect of Turbulence and Devolatilization Models on Gasification Simulation,” International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, Vo. 53, 2010, pp. 2074-2091.
[14]	T. H. Fletcher, A. R. Kerstein, R. J. Pugmire and D. M. Grant, “Chemical Percolation Model for Devolatilization: 2. Temperature and Heating Rate Effects on Product Yields,” Energy and Fuels, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1990, pp. 54-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef00019a010
[15]	T. H. Fletcher and A. R. Kerstein, “Chemical Percolation Model for Devolatilization: 3. Direct Use of 13C NMR Date to Predict Effects of Coal Type,” Energy and Fuels, Vol. 6, No. 4, 1992, pp. 414-431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef00034a011
[16]	D. M. Grant, R. J. Pugmire, T. H. Fletcher and A. R. Ker- stein, “Chemical Percolation of Coal Devolatilization Us- ing Percolation Lattice Statistics,” Energy and Fuels, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1989, pp. 175-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef00014a011
[17]	H. Kobayashi, J. B. Howard and A. F. Sarofim, “Coal Devolatilization at High Temperatures,” 16th Symposium (International) on Combustion, 1976, pp. 411-425.