ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF INDIANA COALS FOR INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED CYCLE (IGCC)

PERFORMANCE; ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING DATA AND PROPOSAL OF NEW RESEARCH

FINAL REPORT TO THE CENTER FOR COAL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH

By

Maria Mastalerz Agnieszka Drobniak

John Rupp Nelson Shaffer

Indiana Geological Survey Indiana University

611 North Walnut Grove Bloomington, IN 47405-2208

December, 2005

3

CONTENT Page

SUMMARY 4 1. INTRODUCTION 6 1.1 Importance and justification of the proposed study 6 1.2 IGCC process overview 7 1.3 Influence of coal quality on IGCC processes 12 1.3.1 Indiana coal and IGCC 13 2. OBJECTIVES OF THIS STUDY 14 3. STRATEGY AND METHODOLOGY 14 4. REPORT ON VISITS TO GASIFICATION PLANTS 15 5. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING DATA ON COAL QUALITY 20 5.1 Identifying properties of Indiana coals that are of major importance for IGCC performance

20

5.2 Assessing availability of data on coal properties needed to assess IGCC performance

23

5.3 Identifying areas in which more data are necessary to adequately assess coal performance for IGCC

23

6. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF INDIANA COAL FOR IGCC BASED ON THE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE DATA

24

7. BARRIERS TO USING INDIANA COAL IN IGCC PLANTS 57 8. PROPOSED NEW RESEARCH 58 8.1 Mineral matter composition 58 8.2 Ash melting point and slag viscosity 59 8.3 Petrographic composition 59 8.4 Chlorine in Indiana coals 60 8.5 Modeling of IGCC performance of Indiana coals 60 8.6 Task and milestones 60 8.7 Project deliverables and distribution of results 61 8.8 Project management, personnel and collaborators 61 8.9 Budgetary considerations 62 REFERENCE CITED 63

4

SUMMARY

Evaluation of Indiana coals for their application in Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC technologies) is important and timely. Indiana has large coal resources that could be utilized as feedstock in IGCC plants with very low emissions. This would be very advantageous for Indiana’s coal industry and our State in general. The purpose of this scoping study was to outline new research that needs to be conducted on Indiana coals to adequately predict their performance in IGCC processes. In order to identify needs and propose new research, assessment of the existing data on Indiana coals has been made during this project, and the specific objectives were to:

1. Identify properties of Indiana coals that are of major importance for IGCC performance; 2. Assess availability of data on coal properties needed to access IGCC performance; Identify

the areas in which more data are necessary to adequately assess coal performance for IGCC; and

3. Provide a preliminary assessment of the Indiana coal properties that influence IGCC behavior.

In the early stages of the project we have identified leading studies and reports that are major references on IGCC. These are: 1. Major environmental aspects of gasification-based power generation technologies. NETL

Final Report, 2002. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, December 2002, 270 p.

2. Tampa Electric Polk Power Station Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Project. Final report August, 2002, 260p, http://www.tampaelectric.com/pdf/TENWPolkDOEFinalTechReport.pdf.

3. Innes, K., 1999. Coal quality handbook for IGCC. Technology Assessment Report 8. Cooperative research Centre for Coal in Sustainable Development, Australia, 66 p.

4. Clean Coal Technology Topical Report (CCT) Number 20, 2002. The Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project, An update, 24 p.

We also made visits to operating IGCC plants, Eastman Gasification Plant in Kingsport, Tennessee, Polk Station Power Plant, Florida, and Wabash River Gasification Plant, Indiana in order to get familiar with technical aspects of the gasification, and to discus the influence of the feed properties on the gasification process with plant personnel.

During this project, we have identified coal properties that are of critical importance for IGCC and have generated a database that, among other parameters, includes those coal parameters that are of primary importance to IGCC. This database was used for the analysis of data availability and identification of the areas that have poor data coverage. Table below shows ranges, averages, and numbers of data points available for selected coal properties, and demonstrates that while many analyses exist for moisture, fixed carbon and volatile matter, no data are available for ash fusion temperature and slag viscosity, parameters very important for IGCC.

5

We have mapped distributions of coal properties such as moisture, heating value, sulfur, ash yield, volatile matter, and fixed carbon. These maps, together with maps of fuel ratio (fixed carbon/volatile matter) and O/C ratios were used to provide preliminary assessments of Indiana coals for IGCC. This analysis demonstrates that Indiana coals are generally good feedstock for IGCC, although variations in properties exist both between the coal beds and within coal beds, and the maps generated can help in identifying the most favorable areas. Insufficient data on mineral matter properties and slag behavior in a gasifier and chlorine content are identified as major coal-quality related barriers of using Indiana coals for IGCC application. Other barriers are the same as for IGCC plants in general and they include: high capital cost, unfamiliarity of the technology to utilities, relatively long time to gain full plant capacities, reliability concerns, project financing, and economic and public perception about any new coal-fired power plants. New research to provide good evaluation of Indiana coals for IGCC should include new laboratory testing of coal and integration of the new findings into the currently available data. We propose to conduct new testing of major coal beds in the following areas:

1) Mineral matter composition; 2) Ash melting point and slag viscosity; and 3) Chlorine content.

These new data, in conjunction with the currently available information, will allow more complete evaluation of coal properties critical for IGCC, and will help to give recommendations about modeling of the performance of Indiana coals in IGCC plants. It is expected that Indiana mining companies will actively participate in the project. Other potential collaborators are CCTR and Purdue University researchers, power plants (e.g., Cinergy) and researchers from Center for Coal in Sustainable Development in Australia.

6

ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF INDIANA COALS FOR INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED CYCLE (IGCC) PERFORMANCE; ANALYSIS OF THE

EXISTING DATA AND PROPOSAL OF NEW RESEARCH Maria Mastalerz, Agnieszka Drobniak, John Rupp, and Nelson Shaffer, Indiana Geological Survey, Indiana University, 611 North Walnut Grove, Bloomington, IN 47405-2208

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Importance and justification of the proposed study There are several reasons to evaluate the applicability of Indiana coals for IGCC technology. First, more than 90 percent of Indiana’s electricity comes from coal. The overwhelming majority of the coal mined in Indiana (73 percent) is used for generating electricity. Annually, Indiana uses twice as much coal as it produces (70 million short tons used versus 34 million short tons produced). Most of the non-Indiana coal that is consumed is imported from Wyoming. These simple facts demonstrate that coal is vital to the economy of our state. Secondly, Indiana has significant coal reserves (~ 57 billion short tons); approximately 17.5 billion short tons are available for either surface or underground mining (Mastalerz et al., 2004) which, at the current level of production, can suffice for hundreds of years. However, most Indiana coals are high in sulfur (average sulfur content for all coal beds is 3.1 percent) and, as such, cause significant SO2 emissions from power plants upon combustion. Wet scrubbers have to be used in power plants to reduce these emissions. In addition, recent mercury regulations from coal-fired power plants (EPA, 2000, 2005) force the plants to search for the most efficient and least costly ways to address these issues. Thirdly, IGCC units are much cleaner than standard power plants; they can achieve greater than 99 percent SO2 removal. Another benefit is the possibility of removing mercury and carbon dioxide upstream of the combustion process at a lower cost than conventional plants. The technology uses less water than a conventional coal-fired power plant with currently required pollution control equipment. However, the total cost of an IGCC plant is high. At present, IGCC cost projections are 10 to 30 percent higher than for plants using pulverized coal with wet scrubbers, with similar time needed for their construction. The cost, however, decreases with time and experience (Fig. 1) and it may become especially attractive when additional installations of new pollution control devices become necessary. Lastly, IGCC technology is continuously gaining momentum both nationally and internationally. The first IGCC plant with CO2 capture is being built in Australia, and several IGCC plants are being considered in China. Two IGCC power plants currently operate in the US, and more are being planned. Also, Cinergy/PSI, the General Electric Company and Bechtel Corporation signed a letter of intent to study the feasibility of constructing an IGCC generating station, and Edwardsport, Indiana, is being the favored location (press release of October 26, 2004, Pashos, 2005).

7

Fig. 1. IGCC cost progression as a result of gaining experience. Source: GE Power Systems, Power-Gen 2002, in Eastman Gasification Overview, 2005). 1.2. IGCC Process Overview IGCC technology is becoming increasingly more competitive and may be a technology of choice in the future of electricity generation. In the IGCC process, plants turn coal to gas, removing most of the sulfur dioxide and other emissions before the gas is used to fuel a combustion turbine generator. The hot gases are then used to heat steam, driving a steam turbine generator. In this technology, coal could be gasified in various ways, by properly controlling the mix of coal, oxygen, and steam within the gasifier. In a typical IGCC unit, coal gasification takes place in the presence of a controlled 'shortage' of air/oxygen, thus maintaining reducing conditions. The process is carried out in an enclosed pressurized reactor, and the product is a mixture of CO + H2 (called synthesis gas, syngas, or fuel gas). The product gas is cleaned and then burned with either oxygen or air, generating combustion products at high temperature and pressure. The sulfur present mainly forms H2S that can be readily removed from the system. No NOx is formed during gasification. A typical IGCC process is shown in figure 2. Within each unit of the IGCC plant, there are various options regarding coal preparation, coal gasification, gas cleaning, combined cycle system, air delivery, etc. A summary of these options is presented in Table 1.

8

Fig. 2. Generic gasification system showing a variety of end products (Williams, 2004).

Several options are in use for controlling the flow of coal during gasification, namely fixed-bed, fluidized-bed, and entrained-flow systems, with oxygen being used as an oxidizing medium in most units. Specifics about these techniques can be found, for example, in Durie and Smith (1975) and Radulovic and others (1995); below we provide their brief characteristics. Fixed (moving) bed gasifiers closely resemble a blast furnace (Fig. 3A). They operate at 26 bar (377 psi) and coal and fluxes are placed on the top of a descending bed in a vessel. Moving downwards, the coal is gradually heated and put in contact with an oxygen-enriched gas flowing upwards. Pyrolysis, char gasification, combustion and ash melting occur sequentially. The temperature at the top of the bed is typically 450oC (842oF)and at the bottom 2000oC (3632oC). All coal mineral matter melts and is tapped as interslag. Ash melt characteristics influence bed permeability, and fluxes may need to be added to modify slag flow characteristics. Fixed bed gasifier offgas contains tar that must be condensed and recycled. This production of tar makes downstream gas cleaning more complicated compared to other IGCC gasifiers. The residence time of a fixed bed gasifier is 30 minutes to one hour, long compared to other types of gasifiers.

9

Table 1. Options in IGCC plant design (from Innes, 1999).

Primary operations Design options

Coal preparation • Delivered coal is milled to desired size specifications and, if necessary, combined with a flux

• Slurry feeding • Dry pneumatic feeding • Fine coal briquetting

Coal gasification • Coal is fed into a high temperature and pressure environment where it undergoes partial oxidation with air, Oxygen, or steam

• Gasifier design • Oxidant type

Gas cleaning • Raw fuel gas undergoes a series of physical and chemical processing steps to eliminate particulates, alkali metals, sulfur and ammonia from the gas

• Hot or cold gas cleaning • Sulfur removal system • Ammonia removal

Combined cycle system • Clean fuel gas is mixed with compressed air and undergoes

combustion with expansion through a gas turbine (GT) • The hot combustion gases pass through a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) to produce superheated steam to drive a steam turbine (ST) generator

• Air compressor integration • NOx emissions reduction system

Air delivery • Air undergoes compression before entering gasifier and GT

combustor or; • Air undergoes separation to produce high purity oxygen and

nitrogen. Oxygen is fed to the gasifier; nitrogen and compressed air are fed to the GT combustor

• Gasifier oxidant type • Air separation unit (ASU)

selection • Level of integration between

ASU and remainder of IGCC plant

Auxiliary operations

By-product solids & water treatment • Slag and fly ash disposal systems • Process water cleaning systems • Brine removal systems

• Pneumatic or slurry removal

Sulfur recovery • Present or absent

10

Fig. 3. Three types of gasifiers: A. – fixed (moving) bed gasifier; B – fluidized bed gasifier; C –entrained-flow gasifier.

11

Fluidized bed gasifiers are reactors in which fine particles are kept in suspension by a gas and, consequently, the whole bed exhibits a fluid like behavior (Fig. 3B). This type of reacting system is characterized by high heat and mass transfer rates between the solid and gas. In such a gasifier, rising oxygen enriched gas reacts with suspended coal at a temperature of 950-1100oC (1742-2012oF) and pressure 20-30 bar (290-435 psi). To ensure stable fluid operation, gasification temperatures are kept below the ash fusion temperature (AFT) of the coal. Above this temperature, particles become sticky, agglomerating, resulting in bed defluidization. The unusual characteristics of fluidized bed gasifier is that the majority of the bed material is not coal but accumulated mineral matter and sorbent. Such an operation with inert bed material has a number of advantages: 1) The coal experiences high heat transfer rates on entry; 2) The gasifier can operate at variable load (high turndown flexibility).

Low temperature operation limits the use of fluidized bed gasifiers to reactive and predominantly low rank coals. Most fluid bed gasifiers have a high level of entrained fines recycled to achieve 95-98% conversion. To reduce the size of the fines recycle stream, it has been proposed that the gasifier is linked with a fluid bed combustor (Air Blown Gasification Cycle). In this process, the coal is first gasified to 70-80% carbon conversion. The unreacted char is then fed to the combustor where generated heat is used for steam production. This cycle enables the use of low reactivity, high ash fusion temperature coals. Entrained flow gasifiers – this is the most aggressive form of gasification, with pulverized coal and oxidizing gas flowing simultaneously (Fig. 3C). High reaction intensity is provided by a high pressure (20-30 atm, 293-440 psi), high temperature (>1400oC, 2552oF) environment. Extremely turbulent flow causes significant backmixing of the coal particles, and the residence time is as short as seconds. Entrained flow gasification is specially designed for low reactivity coals and high coal throughput. Single pass carbon conversions are in the range of 95-99%. To have a smooth operation, the gasifier temperature must be above the AFT, otherwise fluxes which lower the melting temperature of the coal mineral matter must be used.

Entrained flow and fluidized bed gasifiers are selected for the majority of IGCC plants. Selection of one over the other depends on the feed coal and desired system capacity (Table 2). Table 2. Temperature, feed coal and capacity of the gasifiers.

Temperature Coals Capacity Fluidized bed 950-1100oC

1742-2012oF Reactive, low rank coals. AFT> 950-1100oC>1742-2012oF

<200MWe

Entrained flow >1400oC >2552oF

More variable properties AFT <1400oC,<2552oF

>500 MWe

12

1.3. Influence of coal quality on IGCC processes

Understanding the influence of coal properties on IGGC plant performance is an important part in plant design and will be a factor in its ability to compete with other plants. Fig. 4 compares capital cost for IGCC and pulverized coal (PC) technologies depending on coal rank, comparing Pittsburgh #8 coal, Illinois #6 coal, Wyoming Powder River Basin coal, and Texas lignite. Capital cost decreases with coal rank, primarily because less coal needs to be used when coal has higher heating value. Even though this is a general rule, little is known how various coals will behave in IGCC plants of a specific design or an IGCC plant in general. In addition to heating value, volatile matter content, moisture content, and especially ash composition and ash fusion temperature strongly influence the gasification process and smooth slag flow. Numerous studies have been or being conducted on ranking on coals for ICCC. One of the first studies of this type was conducted by the Korea Electric Power Corporation (Dai-Hong et al., 1995). Out of 22 coals imported to Korea, only 10 were shown to be applicable for IGCC. Several studies have been conducted on Australian coals (Harris and Kelly, 1996; Laughlin and Sullivan, 1996; Patterson and Hurst, 1996, Patterson et al., 2000, 2002). They emphasize the importance of understanding how coal quality affects plant performance. Each existing gasification plant tested a suite of coals, and a lot of information can be gained from their reports (http://www.tampaelectric.com/pdf/TENWPolkDOEFinalTechReport.pdf; Clean Coal Technology Topical Report 20, 2002).

Fig 4. Comparison of IGCC and PC costs depending on the coal rank. Source: EPRI, 2004 . Below is a list of studies that we have identified as being of critical importance for the application of coal in IGCC technologies. These studies provide a wealth of information both from research as well as applied viewpoints:

13

1. Major environmental aspects of gasification-based power generation technologies. NETL Final Report, 2002. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, December 2002, 270 p.

This comprehensive report provides an outstanding reference resource for gasification-based technologies. In addition to details about IGCC process, it examines environmental performance and regulatory considerations in individual states affecting planning and operation of commercial plants.

2. Tampa Electric Polk Power Station Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Project. Final report August, 2002, 260p, http://www.tampaelectric.com/pdf/TENWPolkDOEFinalTechReport.pdf.

This report summarizes the history of the Polk Station plant operation from its construction in 1996 through the end of 2001. It provides detailed descriptions of the technologies and processes used, the impact and resolution of all key issues of the demonstration period, and plant technical and environmental performance and economics. This document is very relevant to Indiana because Indiana coals were tested in this plants, and the results of these tests show good performance of our coals.

3. Innes, K., 1999. Coal quality handbook for IGCC. Technology Assessment Report 8. Cooperative research Centre for Coal in Sustainable Development, Australia, 66 p.

This handbook provides an excellent reference for people interested in IGCC technology. It gives an overview of IGCC technologies and discusses selection of unit operations. It also includes a description of operating IGCC plants. The principal value of this handbook is that it discusses impact of coal quality parameters on the performance of various IGCC units.

4. Clean Coal Technology Topical Report (CCT) Number 20, 2002. The Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project, An update, 24 p.

This report is of special importance to Indiana coals because it discusses an IGCC plant located in Indiana and designed for the use of Indiana coals. The report summarized the history of the plant from its construction in 1995 to the end of the demonstration period in 1999, and demonstrates that Indiana coal is a good feedstock for IGCC, and that emission levels from Indiana coals could be very low.

1.3.1. Indiana coals and IGCC

The Illinois Basin coal is a proven feedstock in IGCC processes (Lizzio, 1997). High sulfur Indiana coals have been used in the two US gasification plants that produce electricity: the Wabash River Coal Gasification Plant and Polk Station Power Plant. The Wabash River Gasification plan was designed to use a range of local Indiana coals having a maximum sulfur content of 5.9 percent.

Some Indiana coals, along with Illinois #6 coal, have also been tested in Polk Power Station (http://www.tampaelectric.com/pdf/TENWPolkDOEFinalTechReport.pdf) and Table 3 summarizes their testing.

14

Table. 3. Coal from Indiana tested in Polk Station Power Plant, Florida.

Coal Mine Year and days in operation Indiana Indiana #5 and #6 Somerville 1997 (6 days) Indiana #7 Somerville 2001 (28 days) Indiana coal blended with pet coke

Somerville 2001 (63 days)

Indiana coals performed well in tests, giving 95.5 to 96% per-pass conversion with a two year liner life. Successful results were achieved also on blends of low fusion temperature Indiana #7 coal with South American coal and petroleum coke; this gave excellent liner life and acceptable conversion. These examples of performance of Indiana coals are a testimony that Indiana coal can be a successful feedstock for IGCC technology.

2.0 OBJECTIVES OF THIS STUDY The principal objective of this scoping study is to outline a new three-year research that needs to be conducted on Indiana coal to adequately assess its performance for IGCC (chapter 8). We outline research areas and specific tests and analysis that are needed, together with the budgetary considerations. It is our intent that after this three-year bench scale project has been completed, the adequate information will be available to move to a pilot scale operations. In order to design the new research, a preliminary assessment of the existing data on Indiana coals has been made during this project. Specifically, we:

1. Identify properties of Indiana coals that are of major importance for IGCC performance; 2. Assess availability of data on coal properties needed to access IGCC performance; 3. Identify the areas in which more data are necessary to adequately assess coal performance

for IGCC; and 4. Provide a preliminary assessment of Indiana coals for IGCC that forms the basis for the

comprehensive evaluation of Indiana coals for IGCC technologies in the future.

3.0 STRATEGY AND METHODOLOGY 3.1 Literature review – literature related to coal gasification has been reviewed with a special emphasis on IGCC performance 3.2 Analysis of existing available to us data – available to us databases of coal quality have been searched and a new database including IGCC-important parameters has been created for Indiana coals 3.3 IGCC plant visits – plant visits were organized to Eastman Gasification Plant in Kingsport, Tennessee, Polk Station Power Plant near Tampa, and Wabash River Gasification Plant near Terre Haute. Short summaries of these visits are given in Chapter 4. Discussions with plant personnel

15

about influence of coal quality on coal IGCC behavior in different unit type were helpful in defining directions of most needed future research. 3.4 Discussions of IGCC technologies with other researchers – we contacted other groups that have been working on evaluation of coal for IGCC in order to learn from their experience, discuss issues related to IGCC as well as explore possibilities of future collaborations. 4. REPORT ON VISITS TO THE GASIFICATION PLANTS, EASTMAN, POLK STATION, AND WABASH RIVER 4.1. Eastman Gasification Plant, Kingsport, Tennessee Facts:

• Founded in 1920 as part of Eastman Kodak, wood to methanol plant • It was the first commercial U.S. gasification facility in 1983 • Entrained flow one stage gasifier – GE Technology • 98-99% availability with a spare gasifier; >98% on-stream time since 1984 • Remove >99.9% sulfur converting it to marketable elemental sulfur and sulfuric acid • Low cost vapor-phase removal >90% mercury (on activated carbon) for 22 years • Low risk option for CO2 capture, if needed • Solid residue: vitrous non-reactive material, that of the larger grain size being sold, the

smaller grain size is rich in carbon and is land filled

Feeds and Products: Feed: Blends of petroleum coke and bituminous coal from eastern Kentucky (~1200 ton a day gasified) Main Products:

o Acetic anhydrite o Acetic acid o Methanol o Methyl acetate

Comments: A range of coal ranks can be used in the plant, but consistency in heating value is important. The main concern about coal properties is ash composition and ash fusion temperature. Changes in these properties cause costly maintenance problems (corrosion, slagging, etc). Char reactivity is not as critical because it is one stage fast gasification. Chlorine is a problem if above 0.2%. Preferable sulfur content in coal is ~3.5%, this guarantees best quality and quantity of sulfur products.

16

Fig. 5. A view of Eastman Gasification facility in Kingsport, Tennessee.

Fig. 6. Schematics of gasification process at Eastman.

17

Fig. 7. Mercury removal vessels with activated carbon plates inside at Eastman.

4.2. Polk Station Power Plant, Florida Facts:

• Entrained flow one stage slurry fed gasifier – GE Texaco Technology • 250MW plant opened in 1996 as DOE IGCC demonstration project • Remove >95% S that is recovered as sulfuric acid • >80% (>90% on-peak) availability with no spare gasifier • No mercury removal, but low cost vapor-phase removal (like at Eastman) possible if

needed • Low risk option for CO2 capture, if needed • Solid residue as a vitrous slag; the larger grain size slag is sold to cement industry, the

smaller grain size (rich in carbon) is recycled. Nothing is landfilled.

Feeds and Products: Feed: Feed has changes over years. Petroleum coke (60%), Venezuelan coal (25%), and Illinois #6 coal (15%) were used for a couple of years. The current feed: petroleum coke (50%) and South American coal (50%). They expect the percentage of petroleum coke to increase, because of low cost and high heating value. Even though petroleum coke has low reactivity, these two factors make petroleum coke an attractive feed. Product: Electricity Comments: A range of bituminous coal ranks can be used, subbituminous coals are not looked as favorable. The main concern about coal properties is ash composition and ash fusion temperature.

18

Changes in these properties cause costly maintenance problems (corrosion, slagging, etc). Char reactivity is not as critical because it is one stage fast gasification. Chlorine is a problem if above 0.2%. Because they use blends of coal and high sulfur petroleum coke, sulfur content in coal is chosen to have ~3.5% S in the bulk feed.

Fig. 8. View of a gasifier tower at Polk Station Power Plant. The gasifier is located behind the white screen in the upper part of the tower. In the lower part, there is a cooling system for syngas.

Fig. 9. Schematics of the gasification facility at Polk Station Power Plant.

19

4.3 Wabash River Gasification Plant

Facts: • Entrained flow two stage slurry fed gasifier – Philips/Conoco Technology • 260MW plant opened in 1990 as DOE IGCC demonstration project • Sulfur recovered as sulfuric acid

The Wabash River Coal Gasification Project, a joint venture of Destec Energy of Houston, and PSI Energy of Plainfield, Indiana. The plant opened near Terre Haute, Indiana, in 1990. In this plant, coal is gasified in an oxygen-blown, entrained-flow gasifier with continuous slag removal and a dry particulate removal system (Fig. 10). The resulting synthesis gas is used to fuel a gas combustion turbine generator. Its exhaust is integrated with a heat recovery generator to drive a refurbished steam turbine generator. The carbon conversion rate was more than 95 percent and emissions of SO2 and NOx were far below regulatory requirements (CCT Topical Report No. 20, 2000), making it one of the cleanest coal-based power generation facilities in the world. Currently the plant is part of SG Solutions. Feeds and Products: Feed: Feed changes. The plant was designed to use high sulfur Indiana coal from Hawthorn mine (currently closed). Currently, the feed is petroleum coke of high sulfur content (>5%), low mineral matter content (<1%) and high Btu (>15000). Approximately 2000 tons of petroleum coke is used daily. Products: Electricity, elemental sulfur (100 tons a day) Comments: Mixing feeds of different properties (for example, coal and petroleum coke) could be a problem because of two-stage gasifier design; second stage requires consistent char properties. Current feed (petroleum coke) has very low mineral matter content and they need to add more mineral matter to the gasifier. Their slag after previous gasification of coal is used and proves to be an excellent resource for this purpose. Mineral matter properties of the feed are of major influence on the gasification operation.

Fig. 10A. View of the Wabash River Gasification Plant.

20

Fig. 10B. Schematics of the Wabash River Coal Gasification Plant.

5. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING DATA ON COAL QUALITY PARAMETERS MOST RELEVANT TO IGCC TECHNOLOGY

5.1. Identifying properties of Indiana coals that are of major importance for IGCC

performance

Based on the review of available material, we have identified several parameters of coal quality are very important for the performance in an IGCC system, and they include: a) Moisture influences gasifier efficiency and can determine whether the process must be dry or

slurry fed. b) Heating value influences generation capacity. To obtain the same energy from a lower heating

value coal (for example, Western coal), a greater tonnage must be gasified. c) Mineral matter properties such as ash content, ash fusion temperatures (AFT), and slag

viscosity have a number of critical impacts on an IGCC system. In general, low ash content (<10 percent) coals are preferable for IGCC. Ash fusion temperature is very important, but its influence varies drastically between different plant designs. For example, for entrained flow gasifiers, AFT should be below 1500oC (2732oF), but for fluidized bed gasifiers temperatures above 1100oC (2012oC) are preferred.

d) Volatile matter and char reactivity determine the extent and rate of gasification reactions. Coal consumption during gasification consists of two steps: volatile pyrolysis (fast process) and char gasification (slow process). Generally, the higher the char yield and the lower the char reactivity, the longer the time required for complete gasification. Therefore coals that have low char yield and high char reactivity are generally preferred, although these requirements vary depending on the gasifier type.

e) Other important parameters include sulfur, nitrogen, and chlorine.

21

Table 4. Fixed-bed gasifiers

Parameter Importance Requirements Moisture • influences gasifier efficiency

• determines if process must be dry or slurry fed - for dry feed – 2% - for slurry feed – 10%

Volatile matter • determine the extent and rate of gasification reactions

- A range of volatile matter contents are used

Heating value • determines plant dimensions • influences generation capacity

- A range of heating values are used

Ash content • lowers system efficiency • increases slag production and disposal coast

<15%

AFT (flow, reduction)

• influence melting ability of discharged slag (it needs to be melted below performance temperature

<1400oC (2552oF)

Slag viscosity at 1400oC (2552oF)

• viscosity must be sufficiently low to ensure smooth slag flow between packed

bed particles

<5Pa-s (pascal second) <50 poise

Char reactivity • influence the extent of carbon conversion - a range of reactivities can be used because of high operational temperature

Sulfur • can cause corrosion of heat exchanger surfaces - Preferred S <1.5% Nitrogen • contributes to NOx emissions Chlorine • forming HCl can poison gas cleaning

system catalysts • HCl can cause chloride stress corrosion

<0.4% (air dry) <0.2% preferred

Table 5. Fluidized-bed gasifiers

Parameter Importance Coal Requirements Moisture • influences gasifier efficiency (higher moisture -

lower efficiency) - A range of moisture contents are used

Volatile matter • determine the extent and rate of gasification reactions

- A range of volatile matter contents are used

Heating value • determines plant dimensions • influences generation capacity (higher heating

value – higher capacity and efficiency)

- A range of heating values are used

Ash content influences net cycle efficiency • influences flux addition rate

<40%

AFT (flow, reduction)

• Since mineral matter is expelled as ash, it is important that AFT is higher than operation temperature for the ash particles not to become sticky and agglomerate

>1100oC (2012oF)

Slag viscosity • Not much of concern Char reactivity • Fundamental importance - low reactivity chars are not

suitable because of low carbon conversion at relatively low temperature

Sulfur • can cause corrosion of heat exchanger surfaces - Preferred S <1.5% Nitrogen • contributes to NOx emissions Chlorine • forming HCl can poison gas cleaning syst

catalysts • HCl can cause chloride stress corrosion

<0.4% (air dry) <0.2% preferred

22

Table 6. Entrained-flow gasifiers

Parameter Importance Coal Requirements Moisture • influences gasifier efficiency (higher moisture -

lower efficiency)

- A range of moisture contents are used

Volatile matter • influences the extent and rate of gasification reactions

- A range of volatile matter contents are used

Heating value • determines plant dimensions • influences generation capacity (higher heating

value – higher capacity and efficiency)

- A range of heating values are used

Ash content • influences net cycle efficiency (higher ash – lower efficiency)

• influences flux addition rate

<25%

AFT (flow, reduction)

• influence melting ability of discharged slag (it needs to be melted below performance temperature • influences operating costs (higher temperature– higher costs)

<1500oC (2732oF)

Slag viscosity • viscosity must be sufficiently low to ensure smooth slag flow down the gasifier walls

- <15Pa-s (150 poise) - Used up to 25 Pa-s (250 poise)

Char reactivity • influence the extent of carbon conversion (higher reactivity – higher cycle efficiency)

• influences oxygen consumption

- A range of reactivities can be used because of higher operational temperature

Sulfur • can cause corrosion of heat exchanger surfaces

• influences operating costs (higher sulfur – higher costs)

- Preferred S <1.5%

Nitrogen • contributes to NOx emissions Chlorine • forming HCl can poison gas cleaning

system catalysts • HCl can cause chloride stress corrosion

<0.4% (air dry) <0.2% preferred

Tables 4-6 below present a summary how these coal properties influence IGCC behavior and what the requirements are for three types of gasifiers. These need to be considered as general guidelines only; because specific requirements can vary between individual units, it is not possible to be more specific with regard to the existing or expected requirements.

23

5.2. Assessing availability of data on coal properties needed to access IGCC performance

We have built a database of Indiana coal characteristics (Mastalerz et al., 2005) that include parameters that are of primary importance to IGCC. The averages of the following parameters: moisture, heating value, fixed carbon, volatile matter, ash yield, ash fusion temperatures, and chlorine content have been calculated and together with the ranges and the number of samples for individual coal beds are given in Table 7. Some parameters (for example, moisture content, ash yield, heating value, volatile matter content, and fixed carbon) have good coverage of data for all major Indiana coal beds (Table 7). For these parameters, maps have been generated to document the character of lateral variability. Such maps for the Danville, Hymera, and Springfield Coal Members are presented in Figures 11 through 25. For some other parameters, for example, ash fusion temperatures and slag viscosity, data are sparse to nonexistent (Table 7).

Table 7. Data availability for selected coal properties for selected Indiana coal beds. n – number of data points available.

5.3. Identifying areas in which more data are necessary to adequately assess coal performance

for IGCC

The analyses of the parameters important for IGCC as outlined in chapter 5.1 and the database described in 5.2 (the summary of which is given in Table 7) indicate that gaps exist in the parameters of char reactivity and slag behavior. Evaluation of coals with respect to char reactivity will be provided in chapter 6 using proxies for char reactivities such as fuel ratio (FR, calculated as a ratio of fixed carbon to volatile matter content, daf basis) and O/C ratio. These parameters have been shown to have primary influence on char reactivity and conversion rate during gasification. No data are currently available on Indiana coals to predict slag behavior, and acquiring these type

24

of data will be discussed in chapter 8, where further research to adequately evaluate IGCC performance of Indiana coals is outlined. 6. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF INDIANA COAL FOR IGCC BASED ON THE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE DATA In this chapter, we present a preliminary evaluation of the Indiana coals for IGCC based on the data currently available, such as heating value, moisture content, ash yield, fixed carbon, and volatile matter content, or parameters that we have generated based on the existing data, such as fuel ratio and O/C ratio. Heating value (presented on dry basis, Fig. 11-13) shows a range from less than 10,500 to greater than 13,500 Btu/lb for the three coal beds presented, with large portion of the resource having heating value higher than 12,000 Btu/lb. Heating value determines IGCC plant dimensions and generating capacity. To obtain the same energy from a lower heating value coal, a greater tonnage must be gasified, contributing to higher cost (Fig. 4). Therefore, lower heating value coals such as Powder River Basin sub-bituminous coals or lignites are less desired for IGCC than bituminous coals, such as those from Indiana. Moisture content (Fig. 14-16) in Indiana coal vary from less than 5% to, locally, more than 20%, with the highest moisture generally occurring close to the basin margin, that is in shallow coals. Moisture content influences gasifier efficiency and can determine whether the process can be dry or slurry fed. The higher the moisture, the more water must be injected into the slurry-fed gasifier. High moisture content is also a problem, because, in order to maintain gasifier temperature, additional coal and oxygen must be used to evaporate the water. Significant resources of Indiana coals have more than 10% moisture, which is somewhat high for IGCC use. On the other hand, with regard to moisture , Indiana coals are far better for IGCC than lower rank high moisture coals of the Powder River Basin (28% on average). Ash yield distribution maps (Figs 17-19) show that the Danville and Springfield coals have lower ash yield than the Hymera coal, making them more suitable for IGCC. Low ash contents are favorable because lower coal volumes need to be gasified to get the same amount of energy, and also because the slag yield will be lower. Significant resources of Indiana coals have high sulfur contents. In the Danville Coal, there is a split between low sulfur (<1.5%) areas in the north and high sulfur (>2.5%) in the south (Fig. 20). In the Hymera Coal (Fig. 21), sulfur content is dominantly high. In the Springfield Coal, sulfur content is more than 3%, except some areas in Gibson and Sullivan Counties (Fig. 22). For IGCC plants, high sulfur content are preferred, because in the process, sulfur is transformed into sulfuric acid and high purity elemental sulfur, profitable selable products. As a result of sulfur recovery, sulfur emissions from IGCC plants are minimal. For instance, in Polk Station IGCC plant and Eastman Gasification plant, the feed with ~3.5% is preferred, while they can use feed with up to 5.8% sulfur. Thus, with regard to sulfur content, Indiana coals are ideal for IGCC.

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

Two things of special importance for coal gasification are: 1) ability of coal and coal char to gasify, and 2) the ability of slag to be removed from the system. As mentioned in chapter 5.3, no direct data on char reactivity are available for Indiana coals. However, it has been demonstrated that selected properties relate well to gasification rate and degree of conversion. Gasification rate is related to carbon content, decreasing when carbon content increases (Miura et al., 1989), and oxygen content (gasification rate increases with O content). For two-step char conversion, char reactivity correlates with fuel ratio (Fig. 23), expressed as a ratio of fixed carbon and volatile matter(negative correlation with R2 of ~0.85 within a range of fuel ratio of 0.25 to 1.7, (Zevenhoven and Hupa, 1997), and with O/C molar ratio of the parent fuel (positive correlation with R2 up to 0.96, within a O/C range of 0.1 to 0.7, Fig. 24). For one step conversion (simultaneous devolatilization and char gasification), the values of char conversion will be modified (chars from one-step process are likely more reactive than from 2-step process), but the trends are expected to remain the same.

Fig. 23. Relationships between fuel ratio and char reactivity (after Zevenhoven and Hupa, 1997)

Fig. 24. Relationships between O/C ratio and char reactivity (after Zevenhoven and Hupa, 1997) Maps of fixed carbon and volatile matter content are shown in Figs 25-27 and Figs 28-30, respectively.

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

Frequency histograms of fuel ratio (FR) for the Danville, Hymera, Springfield, and the Lower Block coals are presented in Fig. 31. The most frequent FR values for the Danville, Hymera, and Springfield coals are within 1.0-1.25 range, with the average values 1.2 for the Springfield to 1.25 for the Danville, whereas for the Lower Block, the most frequent values are 1.25-1.5, and an average is 1.31. Because reactivity decreases with increasing fuel ratio (Fig. 23), the most reactive, and the most adequate in this respect for gasification, would be the Springfield and least reactive would be the Lower Block. Within each coal bed there are lateral changes in the fuel ratio, and these variations are mapped in Figs 32-35.

FC/VM (daf)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

<=1 1-1.25 1.25-1.5 >1.5

HymeraDanvilleSpringfieldLB

Fig. 31. Fuel ratio (fixed carbon/volatile matter) of selected Indiana coals.

The ratios of O/C (molar and weight) for the Danville, Hymera, Springfield, and the Lower Block are presented in Fig. 36. The average ratios are almost identical for all coals (~0.3 for weight ratio, and ~0.2 for molar ratios). However, frequency distribution of molar ratios are different for the Danville, Hymer, and Springfield versus Lower Block, in the Lower Block the ratio being shifted towards lower values, indicating lower reactivity. Distribution of O/C ratios are shown in Figs 37-44, and the coals in the areas of higher ratios would have higher char reactivity, favorable for gasification.

O/C (daf)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

<=0.2 0.2-0.4 0.4-0.6 >0.6

HymeraDanvilleSpringfieldLB

Fig. 36. O/C ratio of selected Indiana coals.

In summary, based on the above discussion, Indiana coals appear to be very suitable feedstock for IGCC. Their applicability for IGCC technologies has been demonstrated in tests and commercial operations in the existing IGCC plants in Indiana and Florida.

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

7. BARRIERS TO USING INDIANA COALS IN IGCC PLANTS As discussed in this report, Indiana coals have adequate properties for use in IGCC plants, either as coal-exclusive feedstock on in mixtures with other feeds, such as petroleum coke. Sulfur content of the majority of Indiana coals is ideal for most IGCC plants, providing desirable amounts of commercial sulfuric acid and elemental sulfur produced. Chlorine content is usually low enough not to cause much slagging problems. Yet, not much Indiana coal has been used in IGCC so far, and to our knowledge, no Indiana coal is being used in IGCC currently. What are the barriers of using Indiana coals in IGCC? The main barriers are the same as those for using IGCC technologies and building new IGCC plants in general, and they, among others, include:

1) High capital cost, 2) Unfamiliarity of the technology to utilities (IGCC plants are more chemical plants than boilers), 3) Relatively long periods to gain full plant capacities (this, however changes with experience) 4) Reliability concerns, 5) Project financing – bankers need guarantees or assurance that gasifiers will perform well, 6) Economic uncertainties – tax incentives, multi-pollutant legislations, and 7) Public perception about any new coal-using power plants, and others.

The barriers that are specifically related to the properties of Indiana coals and that might prevent potential IGCC plants from selecting Indiana coal as IGCC feedstock include:

1) Insufficient information about mineral matter characteristics such as ash composition and ash melting properties and, consequently, difficulty of predicting slag behavior in a gasifier. Contents of both major oxides in the feedstock influences ash melting characteristics are responsible for the ability of the slag to flow smoothly through the gasifier. Contents of trace elements such as mercury, arsenic is also important because these are the elements that need to be captured. Neither oxide composition of the ash nor trace element contents are routine coal analysis, and therefore, far fewer data are available than for such parameters as heating value, sulfur content, etc.;

2) Insufficient information about chlorine content of Indiana coals. High chlorine content is not desired in IGCC plants; chlorine can cause chloride stress corrosion and can also poison gas cleaning system catalysts (e.g., COS hydrolysis shift catalysts). Specifications for Cl in IGCC plants are <0.4%, but the feed with Cl content <0.2% is preferred. Most Indiana coals have Cl content <0.2, however, there is a perception that Indiana coals, similar to some Illinois coals, are high in chlorine. This is not the case, but not enough data are available to disprove it, and

3) Price of the coal. Most IGCC plants are relatively flexible with regard to the feed. In numerous cases, plants that were designed for a specific coal, made a successful switch to a feedstock composed of mixture of coal and petroleum coke, or petroleum coke exclusively, and economics played a significant role in the switch. In order to be selected as feedstock, Indiana coal needs to be competitive with regard to price with other types of feedstock, unless special tax credits, etc. become available.

We believe that new research outlined in chapter 8 below would contribute to reducing, if not eliminating, the barriers related to the insufficient information about the coal properties of Indiana coals.

58

8. PROPOSED NEW RESEARCH As demonstrated in chapter 5, the main deficiency towards understanding of IGCC behavior of Indiana coals is in the lack of direct data on the reactivity of chars produced from our coals, and on properties that govern slag behavior in a gasifier. Proxies for char reactivity were discussed in chapter 6, and they demonstrate that Indiana coals have adequate reactivities for IGCC. Therefore, in proposing new research we concentrate on studying parameters that will help to predict slag behavior in the gasifier. Properties of mineral matter, and specifically, ash chemical composition, ash melting point, slag viscosity and possibility of forming buildup and corrosion of the gasifier is one of the most critical issues for IGCC plants.

8.1 Mineral matter composition Ash yield is usually used a proxy for mineral matter content. Mineral matter content is calculated using Parr formula, where Mineral matter = 1.08Ash + 0.55Sulfur. Coal ash consists almost entirely of decomposed residues of silicates, carbonates, sulfides, and other minerals, and is usually expresses as oxides. These mineral components are important for gasification because they are responsible for forming buildups and for ash viscosity characteristics. Ash composition analysis is not as common analysis of coal as proximate analysis (fixed carbon, volatile matter, moisture, ash) and, therefore, only limited data are available on Indiana coals. We propose to carry our well designed study of ash composition on four Indiana coal beds of major economic importance: the Danville, Hymera, Springfield, and Lower Block. The sampling locations will be selected in such a way that: 1) they give best distribution of data points so that, using new and existing data, variations of individual parameters important for IGCC could be determined and mapped; and 2) they utilize available coal mines and drilling locations to obtain fresh samples. At least 15 new locations for each of these coal beds need to be studied. Based on ash composition, numerous parameters need to be calculated for individual coal beds, and those of special importance are: base/acid ratio, silica/alumina ratio, silica ratio, and slagging index (see Table 8 for their derivation). These parameters will help predicting slag behavior after gasification. Table 8. Derivation of fouling and slagging parameters for coal-fired boilers (Schmidt, 1976).

Parameter Equation

Total coal alkali %Na2O+0.6589(%K2O) x 90 ash/100

Total base Fe2O3+CaO+ MgO+K2O+Na2O

Base/acid ratio (Fe2O3+CaO+MgO+ K2O+Na2O)/(SiO2+TiO2+Al2O3)

Silica/alumina ratio SiO2/Al2O3

Silica ratio SiO2/(SiO2+Fe2O3+CaO+MgO)

Slagging index Base/acid ratio x %S

Fouling index Base/acid ratio x Na2O

59

8.2. Ash melting point and slag viscosity Ash fusion characteristics, dependent mainly on the nature of mineral matter in coal, are extremely important in pulverized fuel boilers. They are also very important in gasifiers. Coals that have low ash fusion temperatures may cause slag deposits on gasifier surfaces. Moreover, ash melting point and slag viscosity are critical for smooth slag flow in slag-type gasifiers. Within a given gasifier, changes in ash melting point of the feed coal frequently cause serious and costly maintenance consequences. We propose to obtain new analyses of ash fusion temperature and ash viscosity on Danville, Hymera, Springfield, and Lower Block coals. The sampling locations will be the same as for ash composition, which is approximately 15 locations for each coal bed. However, because very few data of this type are available on Indiana coals, in addition to whole seam channel samples, bench samples (subsections of a coal bed) will be collected and analyzed. On average, 3 bench samples from each location will be collected, resulting in 60 samples for each coal bed (15 whole seam channel samples plus 45 bench samples). This number of samples will permit documenting regional lateral variations of these parameters in each coal bed, and also help us understand factors that influence these parameters on a local scale. In order to determine controls on ash fusion temperature and ash viscosity, other coal analyses need to be performed on coal samples, and Table 9 shows the inventory of the analyses that need to be conducted on each coal bed. Because four coal beds are considered, the total number of analyses will be four times higher than the total in Table 9. This number of samples may vary depending upon the available funding. 8.3. Petrographic composition

In addition to mineral matter characterization, all the coal samples collected will be characterized petrographically, including both maceral composition of coal and mineral composition. Whereas chemistry of ash will be obtained on ash samples, mineralogical composition of mineral matter will be investigated microscopically. Maceral composition of the organic fraction will also be conducted, and vitrinite reflectance will be measured. Maceral composition influences coal reactivity, while vitrinite reflectance reflects changes in coal rank. Char reactivity increases from inertinite (lowest reactivity) through vitrinite to liptinite (highest reactivity). Table 9. Proposed analyses for each coal bed.

Analysis Whole seam channel samples Bench samples Total

Ash composition 15 analyses 45 analyses 60

AFT 15 analyses 45 analyses 60

Ash viscosity 15 analyses 45 analyses 60

Proximate analysis 15 analyses 45 analyses 60

Sulfur 15 analyses 45 analyses 60

Heating value 15 analyses 0 15

Ultimate analysis 15 analyses 45 analyses 60

Cl 15 analyses 45 analyses 60

Ro 15 analyses 0 15

Maceral composition 15 45 60

60

8.4. Chlorine content in coal

Chlorine in coal is of special concern because it may contribute to the formation of gasifier deposits and severe corrosion during gasification. For IGCC plants, Cl content should not exceed 0.4% (Table 4-6). The average Cl content in the Illinois Basin coals 0.06 percent (Mastalerz et al., 2004). This is not a high value, thus it is adequate for coal utilization, however, it is important to note the Cl content may be elevated locally. For example, Gluskoter and Rees (1964) reported values as high as 0.65 percent for Illinois coals. In fact, high chlorine is frequently mentioned as one of the major concerns for Illinois coals for IGCC applications. The average concentration of Cl for all Indiana coals is 0.05 percent, and ranges from 0.02 percent in several coals to 0.19 percent in the Springfield (Mastalerz et al., 2004). In the Danville coal, the majority of the analyses available show Cl content below 0.02 percent. In the Springfield coal, Cl content is higher, dominantly above 0.2 percent. In the Lower Block coal, Cl content is low. However, the number of data points with Cl values is currently too low to map the variations. An addition of Cl data in 15 new locations for each coal bed would significantly enhance our understanding of their consistency and distribution, which would contribute to fuller evaluation of our coals for IGCC.

8.5. Modeling of IGCC performance of Indiana coals One of the main objectives of evaluating coals for IGCC is to be able to predict their behaviors in future IGCC plants. Of special importance are predictions of the slag viscosity in the gasifier at the specific temperature. This is achieved by modeling the performance of the feed in the specific plants and conditions. At the conclusion of the project, recommendations will be given regarding modeling of several typical Indiana coals for their performance in the IGCC process. This will also include predicting the properties of the solid gasification residue, such as slag, ash, etc. Current models used by IGCC plants and researchers worldwide need to be reviewed, if not confidential, and modifications suggested that would suit Indiana coals best. This part will require close collaborations with other researches. Collaboration with Australian researchers associated with CCSD (Center for Coal in Sustainable Development), who have worked on these issues for several years has been initiated and will be valuable for the project.

8.6. Task and milestones Tasks and milestones for the proposed project are suggested in Fig. 36. As with the number of samples, the timing of individual tasks, being funding dependent, may vary.

61

Fig. 36. Tasks and milestones of the project proposed. 8.7. Deliverables and distribution of results The new research proposed would provide: 1) A comprehensive document on the evaluation of Indiana coals for IGCC application. The report would include tables and summaries of coal properties important to IGCC, maps of parameter distributions, discussions and recommendations related to selection of coals for different gasifier types, and possibility of modeling IGCC behavior of Indiana coals; and 2) An updated coal properties database that would include the new data obtained during the project as well as data already included in our database. This database would provide, in addition to currently existing parameters, information related to slag behavior. The report and the database will be available to funding agencies, and collaborators as well as coal companies, utilities, policy makers, personnel of the existing IGCC plants, and any other interested parties. A workshop on “Indiana coals for IGCC” will be conducted and results will be presented. The results will be also presented at national and international conferences. 8.8. Project management, personnel, and collaborators It is suggested that the project proposed is administered by the Indiana Geological Survey, Indiana University, in Bloomington. Maria Mastalerz, Agnieszka Drobniak, John Rupp, and Nelson Shaffer will be participating personnel. One research scientist would be designated full time for this project.

62

It is expected that the project would be supported by local mining companies, such as Black Beauty and Solar Sources and researchers from CCTR and Purdue University. We have a long history of collaboration with Indiana mining companies, and we hope to have their continuing support. Collaboration with utilities (for example, Cinergy) also needs to be pursued. We would like also to collaborate with researchers that have experience in modeling coal behavior in gasifiers. While our team at the IGS has a lot of experience with coal properties, we are not experienced in IGCC modeling. An Australian team from CCSD has been involved in modeling for a long time, and they are interested in working with us on this issue. 8.9. Budgetary considerations The funds needed to carry out the proposed project include those for analytical work (A), research personnel (B), supplies (C) and travel (D).

A. The laboratory analyses proposed will cost ~$165,360, as outlined in table below.

Unit price ($US) Anal. number Total ($US) Ash composition 180 240 43,200 AFT 75 240 18,000 Proximate 50 240 12,000 Sulfur 15 240 3,600 Heating value 15 60 960 Ultimate 100 240 24,000 Cl 40 240 9,600 Ro 100 60 6,000* Maceral composition

200 240 48,000*

165,360 Note: * These analyses could be performed in-house at the Indiana Geological Survey. Other analyses will be carried out at Standard Laboratories in Evansville. B. Research personnel Research Scientist – full time – 3 years - ~45 per year plus benefits ~160,000 Summer salary for Project Director – 2 months each year ~ 36,000 Consulting personnel: modeling 25,000 for two years ~50,000 C. Supplies Supplies – 2500 each year – lab, field, and research supplies ~7,500 D. Travel Travel – IGCC plants, conferences, cooperation -$7000 each year ~21,000

Total budget $439,860

63

REFERENCES CITED Clean Coal Technology Topical Report (CCT) Number 20, 2000. The Wabash River Coal

gasification repowering project, An update, 24 p. Dai-Hong, Jon-Jin, K., Man-Ho K., 1995. A study of the impacts of changes in coal quality on the

performances of gasification processes and IGCC. Annual Pittsburgh Coal Conference , September 1995, 187-192.

Durie, R.A., and Smith, I.W., 1975. Production of gaseous and liquid fuels from coal. In Cook, A.A. (Ed) Australian Black Coal – Its occurrence, mining, preparation and use. Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Illawara Branch, 161-172.

EPA, 2000. Regulatory finding on the emissions of hazardous air pollutants from electric utility steam generating units. U.S. Federal Register 65 (245), 79825-79831.

EPA, 2005. Standards for Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Steam Generating Units; Final Rule. Federal Register. Part II. Vol. 70, No. 95. May 18, 2005.

Eastman Gasification Overview, Version 7, 2005. CD. Kingsport, Tennessee. Gluskoter, H.J. and Rees, O.W., 1964. Chlorine in Illinois coals. Illinois State Geological

Survey Circular 372, 23 p. Harris, D.J., and Kelly, M.D., 1996. Effects of coal cleaning of the gasification reactivity of some

Australian coals in IGCC power generation. Conference Proceedings – Impact of Coal Quality of Thermal Coal Utilisation, Brisbane, September 1-4, 1996.

Innes, K., 1999. Coal quality handbook for IGCC. Technology Assessment Report 8. Cooperative Research Centre for Coal in Sustainable Development. Australia, 66p

Laughlin, K.M. and Sullivan, J.M., 1996. Testing of Australian coals under gasification conditions. ACARP Report C4059, September 1996.

Lizzio, A.A., 1997. Methods to evaluate and improve the gasification behavior of Illinois coal. Final Technical Report. http://www.icci.org/97final/finliz.htm

Mastalerz, M., Drobniak, A., and P. Irwin, 2005. Indiana Coal Quality Database (ICQD). ). IGS Open File-Study 05-02.

Mastalerz, M., Drobniak, A., Rupp, J., and Shaffer, N., 2004. Characterization of Indiana’s coal resource: Availability of the reserves, physical and chemical properties of the coal, and present and potential uses. IGS Open-File Study 04-02, 74p, 102 figures, 67 tables.

Miura, K., Hashimoto, K., and Silveston, P.L., 1989. Factors affecting the reactivity of coal chars during gasification, and indices representing reactivity. Fuel 68, 1461-1475.

NETL Final Report, 2002. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, December 2002, 270 p.

Pashos, K., 2005. IGCC- An important part of our future generation mix. Presentation at IGCC Conference, October, 2005 http://www.gasification.org/

Patterson, J.H., and Hurst, H.J., 1996. Slag characteristics of Australian bituminous coals for utilization in slagging gasifiers. Conference Proceedings – Impact of Coal Quality of Thermal Coal Utilisation, Brisbane, September 1-4, 1996.

Patterson, J.H. et al., 2000. Evaluation of the slag flow characteristics of Australian bituminous coals in slagging gasifiers. Final Report for ACARP Project C7052.

Patterson, J.H. et al., 2002. Slag compositional limits for coal use in slagging gasifiers. Final Report for ACARP Project C10062.

Radulovic, P.T., Ghani, M.U., and Smoot, L.D., 1995. An improved model for fixed bed coal combustion and gasification. Fuel 74, 582-594.

64

Schmidt, R.A., 1976. Consumer coal criteria as a guide to coal exploration. In: W.L.G. Muir (Ed.) Coal Exploration. Miller Freeman, San Francisco, 610-635.

Tampa Electric Polk Power Station Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Project. Final report August, 2002, 260p http://www.tampaelectric.com/pdf/TENWPolkDOEFinalTechReport.pdf.

Williams, R.H., 2004. IGCC: Next step on the path to gasification-based energy from coal. November 2004, www.westgov.org/wga/initiatives/ cdeac/IGCC-NEC-Chapter4.pdf, accessed June 2, 2005

Zevenhoven C.A.P. and Hupa, M. 1997. Characterisation of fuels for second-generation PFBC. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion, Vancouver, B.C., Macada, May 11-14, vol. 1, 213-227. F.D.S. Preto (Editor), ASME, New York.