Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Cleaning Up on Dirty Coal

A novel gasification process for low-quality coal heads to China.

By Peter Fairley

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

The industrial boomtown of Dongguan in southeast China's Pearl River Delta could soon host one of the country's most sophisticated power plants, one that uses an unconventional coal-gasification technology to make the dirtiest coal behave like clean-burning natural gas. Its developers, Atlanta-based utility Southern Company and Houston-based engineering firm KBR, announced the licensing deal with Dongguan Power and Chemical Company this month.

Cheap coal: This demonstration plant in Wilsonville, AL, uses a transport gasifier to turn two tons of cheap, low-quality coal per hour into a clean-burning gas. A plant based on similar technology is scheduled for China.
Credit: KBR

Dongguan Power plans to implement the gasification scheme at an existing 120-megawatt natural-gas-fired power plant, turning it into an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plant that uses cheap, moisture-laden lignite coal. The retrofit should be operating in 2011. That will provide its developers with a demonstration to determine whether technology will work in larger IGCC plants and whether it is a process suitable to integrate carbon capture and storage technology, according to John Thompson, director of the Coal Transition Program for the Clean Air Task Force, a nonprofit environmental consulting firm based in Boston. "They want to show that this works," says Thompson.

Southern and KBR's gasification design can use dirty coal because, compared to other gasification reactors, it uses a relatively slow, low-temperature process. Conventional gasifiers, such as General Electric's and Shell's, rely on temperatures around 1,500 潞C to turn finely ground coal into a combustible mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen known as syngas. Unfortunately, such temperatures melt ash and other mineral contaminants in the coal, forming a glassy slag that eventually eats through the ceramic tiles that protect the reactors' steel walls. Even reactors using high-quality coal have to be taken out of service for installation of new tiles at least every three years. They are thus ill-adapted for lower-quality coals that would produce several times more slag.

Dongguan's gasifier will sidestep those issues by operating at just 925 潞C to 980 潞C, below the contaminant melting temperature, explains Randall Rush, Southern Company's general manager for gasification systems. Coal nevertheless gasifies completely at these lower temperatures because it spends twice as long in Southern and KBR's process.

The technology is an adaptation of the fluidized catalytic cracking employed in refineries since the 1940s, which processes petroleum by "transporting" it around a loop along with solid catalyst particles. In the gasification reactor, the incoming feed of fresh coal is transported with a looping flow of solid coal contaminants, primarily ash. The hot mass drives off most of the coal's energy content as syngas. The solids left over simply join the flow.

Story continues below

Southern and KBR began designing the technology in 1988 and, with support from the U.S. Department of Energy, started up a demonstration reactor at Wilsonville, AL, in 1996 that can gasify two tons of coal per hour. Four years ago they redesigned it, incorporating what they'd learned at Wilsonville. Rush says the result will be a comparatively reliable and affordable IGCC design. In the absence of slag, a reactor's ceramic lining should last 10 to 20 years, says Rush.

The technology is attractive to Dongguan Power because it can use coal that is cheaper and less desirable. Presentations by the firm note that a doubling in fuel costs between 2004 and 2006 eliminated the company's profit margin. And while Dongguan Power initially commissioned a reactor from the Chinese Academy of Sciences' Institute of Engineering Thermophysics, which built a demonstration-scale transport gasifier last year, the firm has now opted for KBR and Southern's design.

Comments

  • A future for coal?
    One should assess the environmental footprint of coal looking at the fuel cycle as a whole, not only at the fact of having a more or less "clean" powerplant to burn it.

    Coal mining alone is very aggressive for the environment, using such destructive techniques as the Mountain top removal.

    A conventional (not supercritical, no CO2 capture) 1 Gigawatt pulverized coal plant (same power as a medium nuclear plant for today's standards) burns 416 metric tons of coal per hour and generates more than 127 metric tons per hour of solid and liquid wastes (see the MIT report The Future of Coal , Appendix 3.B).

    From the same source we learn that a 1 GW IGCC plant would consume 370 metric tons of coal per hour, mainly because a combined cycle has higher efficiency than a single stage Rankine (steam turbine) cycle. It would also generate 55 metric tons of wastes. These are better figures, but the cost of an IGCC plant is much higher than that of a conventional plant.

    In my opinion is a nonsense to burn coal in order to produce electric energy when one can obtain it from other sources (i.e. nuclear and renewables); I believe it is much wiser to keep coal as a raw material for making synthetic gasoline and other fuels (via gasification and Fischer-Tropsch or similar process) when fossil fuels will be exhausted.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    eliraul
    09/29/2009
    Posts:4
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
  • Coal's destiny
    Eli, you had me until your last paragraph.  I'm no fan of coal, but the transport of synthetic fuels to fueling stations all over the country is much less efficient than pushing electricity over transmission lines to electric vehicles. (granted, they are still a futuristic item).  The habit of transporting tons of liquid fuel to our vehicles via fueling stations is rarely sustainable even if said liquid approaches a neutral footprint. 
      Sufficient transition to/expansion of nuclear and wind power will take many years/decades.  Without a stopgap of cleaner coal, is the transition to wind and nuclear economically viable (it is certainly not palatable)?  Meanwhile, let's not add more momentum to the fuel transport industry by shipping synfuel all over the country.
      I am with you all the way on evaluating the full-life cycle costs.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    pstiff
    09/29/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
    • Re: Coal's destiny
      I agree on the fact that liquid fuels have several drawbacks, but with current technology I fail to see any reasonable alternative to susbtitute them. This is mainly for two facts: 1) they have higher energy density than any current or conceivable battery or other means for storing electricity and 2) they are liquid at room temperature, thus they can be transported and stored in a relatively safe and convenient way (see this Wikipedia graph). By comparison, hydrogen has a much a higher energy per mass unit (yet lower per volume unit) than most liquid fuels, but is much more difficult and hazardous to store.

      In truth, one must account for the fact that an electric motor has a higher efficiency than any thermal (fuel burning) engine due to the laws of thermodynamics (Carnot's principle), thus electric motors are much more efficient in using the energy of batteries (they can even be used for regenerative braking).

      Transportation is not just about urban cars. For this purpose you can use an electric vehicle (with several shortcomings), but for other uses there is just no alternative to known liquid fuels now and in the foreseeable future. Could you ever imagine a truck or a Jumbo going on batteries?
      Rate this comment: 12345

      eliraul
      10/03/2009
      Posts:4
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
  • Cleaning up Dirty Coal
    Might want to checkout www.hybridpwr.com

    Hybrid marriage of coal gasification, combined-cycle and nuclear gas reactor technologies that drastically reduces greenhouse gas emissions without any particular need for sequestrating of CO2.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    kellermfk
    09/29/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    1/5
  • Carbon sequestration is a bad idea
    I think carbon dioxide sequestration is a bad idea. If all carbon dioxide currently released into the atmosphere by humanity were sequestered, the oxygen in the air would last for less than 200,000 years; the calculation for this can be easily performed by the data given at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere. Using up just 1/20th of the oxygen would probably cause serious trouble for humanity, and this would take less than 10,000 years. Currently, whatever carbon dioxide is released is at least partly recycled by plants into oxygen.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    matica
    09/29/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
  • There Is No Future in Coal
    But then again, there is no future in oil, nuclear, hydro-electric, geothermal, wind, solar, tidal, and other forms of energy production either. Why? Because a new, unlimited and clean energy source will soon appear on the world stage. Here is why:

    A reevaluation of our understanding of the causality of motion leads to the inevitable conclusion that we are immersed in an immense lattice of energetic particles. This realization will unleash an age of bountiful energy and extremely fast transportation. Soon, we鈥檒l have vehicles that will go almost anywhere at tremendous speeds, negotiate right angle turns without slowing down and without incurring any damage as a result of inertial effects. Floating cities, earth to Mars in hours, New York to Beijing in minutes. That's the future of energy and travel.

    You don't understand motion even if you think you do:
    http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2009/09/physics-problem-with-motion-part-i.html
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Mapou
    09/29/2009
    Posts:53
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
  • Yawn
    Coal as an energy source will not be around in 10 years.  We will all be using totally green energy sources that are virtually free.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    enantiomer20...
    09/29/2009
    Posts:42
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: Yawn
      That's quite a tease. I think I know where you're going with this, but could you elucidate or give a link?
      Rate this comment: 12345

      Phineas
      09/30/2009
      Posts:81
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
  • Clean Coal?? Not so sure!!
    It is definitely encouraging that the coal power plants are being retrofitted with some sort of scrubbing technology. However, what would be really interesting is to have large scale production of biomethane (natural gas via anerobic digestion of wastes and energy crops). That would not only help reduce landfills, but also, avoid issues associated with coal mining!
    Rate this comment: 12345

    prasanna.pad...
    09/29/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    4/5

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Changing A Cell's Biological Battery
Technology Review September/October 2009

Current Issue

The TR35
Technology Review presents its ninth annual list of leading young innovators.
•  Subscribe
Save 36%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.