Click to edit Master title style What is Gasification? Gasification Workshop March 13-14, 2001 Tampa, Florida
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Click to edit Master titlestyleWhat is Gasification?
GasificationWorkshop
March 13-14, 2001
Tampa, Florida
Dave HeavenDirector, Process Engineering
Introduction
3
Market Drivers
? Rising prices for natural gas
? Increasing demand for electricity
? Decreasing prices for petroleum residuals
? Compliance with stringent environmentalregulations: NOx, SO2, CO2
? Need for Hydrogen– Heavier Feedstocks– “Clean Fuels” Requirement
? (Hazardous) Waste Disposal Costs
Technology Overview
5
Gasification Process Concept
? Objective: Convert carbon-containing solid orliquid to a simple gas mixture of higher economicvalue
? Carbon conversion in a reducing atmosphere at400-1200 psig and 2300 - 2700°F
? Feedstocks: Coal, Petroleum Coke, Heavy Resid.,any carbon containing compound
? Synthesis Gas (Syngas) is primarily CO and H2
? Sulfur is recovered in conventional AGR andClaus Units
6
IGCC Feedstocks
? Vacuum resid
? Visbreaker bottoms
? Deasphalter bottoms
? Petroleum Coke
? Refinery and petrochemical residuals
? Coal / lignite
? Oil emulsion (orimulsion)
? Municipal sewage sludge
? Any carbon-containing material
7
Typical Gasifier Operation
Feed Oxygen Steam Raw Syngas
C 5905.0 kg-moles/hrH2 4174.1 4890.8S 82.3N2 17.7 50.0 66.6 CO 5477.0CH4 33.0CO2 349.3H2S 79.4COS 2.9HCN 0.6NH3 2.3O2 2659.0 0.0Ar 90.0 89.6H2O 1605.0 743.6
8
Typical Syngas Composition
? Composition also depends on gasifier licensor
Syngas Composition, Mole Percent
Component
COH2
CO2
H20
CH4
Ar
N2
H2S
COS
Heavy Oil Feed
45.6
43.3
8.20.3
0.41.0
0.5
0.7
0.0
Coke Feed
47.7
30.3
17.90.1
0.010.8
1.3
1.8
0.02
9
Air
HeatRecovery;
SulfurRemoval
SteamTurbine
Generator
Electricity
Steam
CombustionTurbine
Generator
Electricity
Nitrogen
CleanFuelGasFeed
Oxygen
SulfurPlant
Gasification
HeatRecovery
SteamGenerators
FlueGas
OxygenPlant
Sulfur
HydrogenSeparation H2 Product
Off-gas
SteamHot
ExhaustGas
H2S
IGCC Simplified Block Flow Diagram
RecoveredMetals
10
Gasification Products
Argon, Nitrogen, &OxygenCarbon Dioxide
Sulfur / Sulfuric Acid
Steam
Hot Water
Electricity
Hydrogen
Carbon Monoxide
Ammonia-based Fertilizer
Synthetic Natural Gas
Industrial Chemicals
Methanol / Ethanol
FeedGasification
Facility
Syngas CombinedCycle
Slag forConstruction
MaterialsChemical
Production
NaphthaHigh Cetane DieselJet FuelWax
FischerTropsch
Synthesis
11
IGCC Configuration Options
GasifierRaw GasCooling
Sulfur Removal
& Recovery
Air Separation
Unit
CombustionTurbines
SteamCycle
? Technology:? Texaco? Shell? Others
? Pressure/FuelGas Expander
? Sparing? Soot Recovery? Slurry Preheat? Alternative
Fuels
? Radiant+Convective
? Convective? Quench? Fire Tube? No Gas
Cooling (HotGCU)
? Licensor? Chemical
Solvent? Physical
Solvent? Tail Gas
Recycle? Hot Gas Clean
Up? COS Hydrolysis? O2-blown Claus
? Over-the-fence or not
? Standard LPvs. HP ASU
? Integration:? Partial
Integrated? Fully
Integrated? N2 Return? LOx/GOx
Storage? O2 to Sulfur
Plant
? Vendor? Conventional
vs Advanced? NOx Control:
? SteamInjection
? Fuel? Saturation? Nitrogen
Dilution? SCR
? By-pass stack? Fuel Gas
Heating
? Reheat? Condensing
Temp.? No. of Steam
Turbines? Integration
withGasification
? Export toRefinery
? PressureLevels
?Utility Systems
? Cooling System Type? Utility Integration with
Refinery
12
Typical Heavy-Oil IGCC PlantPerformance Summary
BasisAmbient Temperature 59 °F
Fuel ConsumptionTotal Feed (dry), short
tons/day1,338
Total, MMBTU/h (LHV) 1,923Total oxygen
consumption, tons/day1,509
Power Summary, MWeGas turbine (GE 7F) 192.0Steam turbine 107.1Gross electric power 299.1Gross plant efficiency (LHV), % 53.1
ASU 38Gasification Island 2.9Power Island 2.4Balance of the Plant 5.0Total Auxiliary Power Consumption 48.3
Net Available Power, MWe 250.8Electric Efficiency, % (LHV) 44.5Electric Efficiencywithout ASU, % (LHV)
51.3
13
Refinery IGCC Plant IntegrationPossibilities/Synergies
Raw Gas
VacuumDistillation
Unit
Electricity(to refinery and/or local utility)
CleanGas
Desulfurizationand
ConversionUnits
Heavier OilsCrude Oil Vacuum Oils
Gasifier
Coker
HotHeat
RecoverySteam
Generators
CrudeDistillation
Unit
Slag
Coke
GasCleanup
Unit
GasTurbine
Claus Plant
WastewaterTreatment
Unit
VacuumResid
AtmosphericResid
Acid Gas
Low-Sulfur Oil
Wastewater
Elemental Sulfur
Clean Water forReuse or Discharge
Coker Oils
Hydrogen
Steam(for refinery,
steam turbine,or both)
Refinery
IGCC Plant
AirSeparation
Unit
Air
O2
O2
N2 SolventDeasphalter
Asphaltenes
Lighter Oils (to processing units for gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, kerosene)
(to refinery)
HydrogenSeparation
N2
N2 / Argon (for sale) Off-gas
WasteOils
FuelGas
Exhaust
Gas
14
IGCC Plant Efficiencies
? Efficiency is greater than competing combustiontechnologies for all feedstocks
? Plant efficiency depends on feedstock carbonconversion, heat recovery, gas turbine choice, anddegree of integration
? A well-integrated heavy oil gasification plant usingthe latest advanced turbines will approach 47%thermal efficiency (LHV), including oxygen plantrequirements
? An efficiency of 50% will be achievable in the nearfuture using technologies currently being tested
15
IGCC Availability
? Availability includes planned and unplanneddown time
? Typical power availability is 85-90% from primary feed(depending upon feed type), 92-95% with auxiliary fuel
? All rotating equipment (other than air separation unitcompressors, combustion turbine and steam turbine)are spared
? Critical elements are gasifier and combustion turbine
? Availability of power and hydrogen can be improved to100% by spare trains based on economic analysis
16
Emissions
? Environmental performance bests competingcombustion technologies for all feedstocks
– Sulfur recovery to >> 99%
– NOx levels controllable to < 10 ppm
– CO2 level lower due to higher efficiency, CO2recoverable for sales/sequestration
– Particulate emissions < 10 ppm
– Feedstock metals/minerals produced assalable concentrate or non-leachable slag
17
ManufacturerModel
Fuel: Type Heating Value (LHV)
Power Output @ 59°F
Heat Rate, LHV
Efficiency
Exhaust Temperature
NOx Control
NOx (@15% O2 dry)
CO (dry)
Syngas115 BTU/SCF
197 MWe
8,840 BTU / kW-hr
37.5%
1091°F
Nitrogen Injection
9 ppmv
25 ppmv
Natural Gas910 BTU/SCF
172 MWe
9,420 BTU / kW-hr
35.2%
1116°F
Dry Low NOx Burner
9 ppmv
9 ppmv
General ElectricFrame 7FA
GE Advanced Gas Turbine Syngas andNatural Gas Performance Comparison
18
Gas TurbineNOx Control Technologies
? Primary control is the addition of inerts to gasturbine flame to reduce flame temperature– Steam– Water– Nitrogen
? Low-NOx burners for low BTU gas underdevelopment to eliminate need to add inerts
? Primary controls reduce NOx to 9-25 ppm
? Further NOx reduction to 5-9 ppm possible byselective catalytic reduction (SCR)
19
Sulfur Control Technologies
? MDEA acid gas removal plus Claus plant and tailgas treating achieves ~ 98% sulfur recovery
? Catalytic conversion of COS to H2S improvesMDEA performance and total sulfur recovery >98%
? Combination of approaches gives 99.8% recovery
? Other acid gas removal processes are Purisol,Rectisol, Selexol, Sulfinol
? Use of oxygen rather than air reduces size ofClaus Plant and improves performance
20
Solid Waste
-400
-200
0
200
400
600Sulfur
Sludge
Slag/Ash
BY
-PR
OD
UC
TW
AS
TE
lb/MWh
PCFB AFBC TexacoIGCC
Air Emissions
0
2
4
6
8
10
12SOx NOx
lb/MWh
PCFB AFBC TexacoIGCC
Comparison of Competing TechnologiesSolid Waste and Air Emissions
Gasification Application
22
IGCC Advantages
? Environmentally clean– Low SO2, NOx
emissions– Low solid waste
? High efficiency
? Feed flexibility
? Low water use
? Low CO2 produced
? Low cost feedstocks
? Wide selection oftechnologies /equipment
? Co-product flexibility
? Phased construction
? Modularity
? Continuous performanceimprovement
? Decreasing costs
? Commerciallywell-proven
23
IGCC Disadvantages
? Higher capital cost
? Not as well known, especially by utility companies
24
Favorable Conditions forIGCC Applications
? Low value coal, heavy oil or petroleum coke feedstock
? Favorable demand and sales price for power
? Sales opportunity for byproducts – hydrogen, steam, syngas,oxygen, nitrogen, chemicals, etc.
? Environmental regulations discourage direct combustion ofthe feedstock
? Alternative combined cycle fuels (natural gas) are expensive ornot available
? Existing infrastructure capacity available
? Potential for sale of chemical byproducts to nearby market
? Expensive disposal of solid or liquid wastes
? Large plant size (MW)
25
International Plant NameBuggenum Netherlands Coal Shell
GasifierFeedstockCountry
PernisBGL Schwarze Pumpe Germany Coal/Wastes
Netherlands Residual Oil Shell
Sokolovska UhelnaPrenfloPuertollano Spain Coal/Petcoke
Czech Lignite Texaco
API EnergiaCarbonaIBIL/Sanghi India Lignite
Italy Tar Texaco
Sarlux Italy Residual Oil TexacoTexacoAsphaltISAB Italy
Exxon Singapore Singapore Petroleum TexacoLurgiWood WastesEPZ Netherlands
Fife Power Scotland Coal/Wastes BGL TexacoResidual OilCelanese Singapore Singapore
NPRC Japan Vacuum Resid TexacoLurgiBiomassBioelettrica Italy
Subtotal
Capacity, MW
Start-Up
25360 2000
1997115300 1998
199840053 1997
199922551250085160n.a.12012342
3,238
1995
20032001200320002000200019991999
Gasification Plants in Operation, UnderConstruction, or Under Development Since 1995
26
US
35100240100
4,500
2401,232
Capacity, MW
Wabash River IGCC IN Coal
Plant Name State Feedstock Gasifier
Destec 262Polk Power IGCC FL Coal Texaco 250Texaco El Dorado KS Petcoke TexacoPinon Pine IGCC NV Coal KRWMotiva (Star) DE City DE Petcoke TexacoFarmland Industries KS Petcoke TexacoExxon Baytown TX Resid Oil TexacoSubtotal
World Total
19971998200019992000
Start-Up
19951996
(continued)
Gasification Plants in Operation, UnderConstruction, or Under Development since 1995
27
IGCC Gas Turbines
Project
Cool Water, USADow Plaquemine, USAShell Buggernum, The NetherlandsPSI Wabash River, USATexaco El Dorado, USATampa Electric, USAILVA ISE, ItalySchwarze Pumpe, GermanyPuertollano, SpainShell Pernis, The NetherlandsSokolovska Uhelna, Czech Rep.API Energia, ItalyISAB, ItalyFife Energy, ScotlandMotiva Refinery, USAPinon Pine Sierra Pacific, USASarlux, ItalyFife Electric, ScotlandExxon Singapore, SingaporeIBIL Sanghi, IndiaGeneral Sakiyu K.K. (GSK), JapanBioelecttrica, Italy
Date
1984198719951996199619961996199619961997199719981998199919991999200020002000200120012001
Supplier
GE Frame 7EWestinghouse 501DSiemens V94.2GE Frame 7FAGE Frame 6BGE Frame 7FA3 x GE Frame 9EGE Frame 6BSiemens V94.32 x GE Frame 6B2 x GE Frame 9EABB Type 13E22 x Siemens/Ansaldo V94.2GE Frame 6FA2 x GE Frame 6FAGE Frame 6FA3 x GE Frame 9EGE Frame 9FA2 x GE Frame 6FAGE Frame 6BGE Frame 9ECNuovo Pigone PGT10B
MWe
809215619235192130 (each)4019040 (each)140 (each)175162 (each)7687 (each)61123 (each)28687 (each)3621520
GE is the market leader
IGCC Technology
Cost / Economics
29
Typical IGCC Plant Costs
Notes:(1) Includes oxygen plant(2) Depends upon:
? Site conditions? Size? Plant configuration? Heat recovery option? Sparing? Local labor cost and efficiency
Liquid FeedSolid Feed
$ / kW (1) (2)
900 - 1,2001,000 - 1,300
30
IGCC Economy of Scale
70
80
90
100
200 300 400 500 600 700 800
IGCC Plant Capacity, MW
Cap
ital
Co
st R
elat
ive
to a
200
MW
Pla
nt,
%
31
Typical IGCC PlantCapital Cost Distribution
? Gasification and feed preparation 10 - 20
? Air separation unit 10 - 15
? Gas treating and sulfur recovery 10 - 15
? Power block 25 - 30
? Utilities and support facilities 20 - 30
Key Variables:? Feedstock type (solid, liquid)? Gasification train sparing (none, 100%, 50%)? Sharing of existing utilities and infrastructure
Percent
32
Recent Cost Trends in Last 5 Years
? Decreasing combined cycle costs– From $700 / kW to < $500 / kW
? Decreasing air separation plant costs– From $21,000 to $16,000 / TPD of O2
? Some syngas plant improvements– Deletion / simplification of equipment– Smaller size due to combustion turbine
efficiency improvements
33
Hydrogen Cost
Hydrogen Cost: $/MSCF
From IGCC 1.0
From Steam Methane Reforming
Capital + Operating 2.0
Operating Only 1.2
34
Example Projects
35
Pernis IGCC Plant
Three-Train Gasification UnitFluor provided engineering, procurement, and construction management for this three-train gasification unit, which was part of Shell’s Per+ project at its Pernisrefinery. The Shell gasification process is used to gasify 1,656 metric tons/day of vacuum-flashed cracked residual oil to a syngas. Part of this syngas is used toproduce 285 metric tons/day (118 million standard cubic feet per day) of hydrogen for the hydrocracker. The balance of the syngas is used, after sulfur removal,as fuel for combined-cycle power production via General Electric 6B combustion turbines. The start-up of this gasifier plant is highly automatic and is believed tobe the most advanced control system ever applied to a heavy oil gasifier.Soot Ash Recovery UnitShell was committed to the development of a technology that would reduce the cost of recycling and reprocessing unconverted carbonfrom the gasifiers as partof the Per+ project. Fluor assisted Shell with the pioneer development and detailed design of the soot ash recovery unit (SARU) technology. This includedfiltration of the soot slurry from the gasifiers , followerd by multiple-hearth furnace processing to produce a metals concentrate high in vanadium and nickel,which is of interest to metals reclaimers.Minimum Disruption to OperationsThe project is closely integrated with Shell’s existing operations, and due to constraints regarding site space availability, required relocation of various storageand service facilities. Fluor worked closely with Shell and several other engineering contractors to complete the project with minimum disruption to ongoingrefinery operations.
Project:IGCC Plant
Location:Pernis, The Netherlands
Client:Shell NederlandRaffinaderij B.V. (SNR)
Scope:Engineering, Procurement, &Construction Management
36
Texaco Petroleum Coke IGCC
Process DescriptionThis refinery-based gasification plant (using Texaco technology) consumes 180 tons per day of low/negative-value petroleum coke produced in the refinery and10 tons per day of refinery hazardous waste streams, such as API separator bottoms, acid soluble oil, primary sludge, and phenolic residue, to produce 35megawatts electricity and 180,000 pounds per hour of steam for export to the refinery. The power block consists of one General Electric 6B gas turbine that hasair extraction and nitrogen injection capabilities. The extracted air is fed to the air separation plant to produce the oxygen required for the gasification process,with the nitrogen returned to the gas turbine for NOx reduction. The syngas to the gas turbine is supplemented with natural gas and has the capability of operatingon natural gas only. This gasification cogeneration unit, by converting low-value petroleum coke and refinery wastes into electricity and steam, makes therefinery self-sufficient for its energy needs.
Environmental and Economic BenefitsThe Texaco gasification process proved to be an economic solution for the beneficial destruction of coke and waste materials and a significantly more attractiveoption than incineration or landfilling. Texaco achieved an important regulatory victory when the Environmental ProtectionAgency formally allowed the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to consider the gasification unit a refinery process rather than a waste treatment unit.This allowed for refinery wastes to be fed to the gasifier without being designated as hazardous waste. Also, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions aremuch lower than competing technologies that use coke as the feedstock The process produces a non-leachable slag that comprises only 1 percent of the originalcoke. Texaco expects to save from $12 million to $14 million per year in utility costs and$1 million per year in waste shipment and disposal costs.
Fluor’s RoleAs part of the engineering, procurement, and construction management activities, Fluor was responsible for overall plant design and integration of various units,such as the gasification plant (licensed by Texaco), air separation unit (supplied by Praxair), combustion turbine (supplied by General Electric), and the slurrypreparation unit (suppleid by Svedela).
Project:Petroleum CokeIGCC Plant
Location:El Dorado, Kansas
Client:Texaco Refining
Scope:Engineering, Procurement andConstruction Management
QUESTIONS?
THANK YOU!
Related Documents
