presentation: feasibility study of integrated gasification combined cycle (igcc) in terms of the...

8/18/2019 Presentation: Feasibility study of Integrated Gasification combined cycle (IGCC) in terms of the following parameters: Technology, Reliability and Economy for high high–ash co…

1/14

Feasibility Study of IGCC forHigh-Ash Content Indian Coa

Prithvi JawaharRahul JhingoniaNagendra BandiVinod Kumar


2/14

IGCC- Integrated Gasification Combined• Process in which the fuel is gasified in an oxygen or air-b

gasifier operating at high pressure. Instead of being comas done in conventional pulverized coal fired power plaIGCC coal is gasified and converted into synthetic gas

syngas).

• It is then burned in the gas turbine generator for powergeneration.

• The heat from the raw gas and hot exhaust gas from this used to generate steam which is fed into the steam tupower generation.

IntegrateGasificaCombin


3/14

IGCC- Subsystems of a power plant with igasification

• Gasification plant

• Raw gas heat recoverysystems

• Gas purification with sulphurrecovery

•

Air separation plant (only foroxygen blown gasification)

• Gas turbine with heatrecovery steam generator

• Steam turbine generator


4/14

Higher overall efficiency :

• the average global efficiency of traditionalcoal-fired plants is currently 33% comparedto 45% for the most efficient plants like IGCC,due to the coupling of the gas and steamturbine process to the generation can beachieved. It is estimated that IGCC may beable to deliver an efficiency of 60%.

Environmental Benefits :

• IGCC technology exhibits the highestefficiency and thus the lowest specific CO2accrual.

• Proven lowest NOx, SOx, particulate matterand lower hazardous air pollutants,

• Proven mercury removal

• Lower water usage, lower solids production

• Sulphur and non-leachable slag by-products

IGCC- Advantages


5/14

IGCC- Comparison of Indian Coal with oth

As seen the major drawbacks of the Indian Coal are:

• High Ash Content - 38% compared to 15% otherwise

• Low Calorific Value – Approx. half of that of other va


6/14

• Above gasifiers were based on internationally availabletechnology.

• None of the coal and lignite based gasifier were succehigh-ash Indian coal and all have been decommission

IGCC- Indian Experience in the Fertilizer S


7/14

IGCC- Technological Evolution

• First IGCC plant of India was commissioned in the y1989, a 6.2MW demonstration power plant which wdeveloped by Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHTiruchchirappalli, Tamil Nadu.

• In 1992, the CSIR undertook a feasibility study for aMW IGCC plant

• Primary objective was of selecting a coal gasificatitechnology suitable for Indian coal.

• The study arrived at a comparison between• “entrained bed”,

• “fluidised bed”

• “moving bed” gasifier technologies


8/14

IGCC- Choice of Fluidized Bed GasificatioThe fluid bed gasification process was found to have tecand environmental advantages over the moving bed prosuch as:

• Fluid bed and transport gasifiers can gasify Indian coals

well due to their high reactivity. This was checked at teslocations of GTI, BHEL and EERC.

• No significant improvement was shown by Washed coacompared to ROM coal in terms of gasification.

• The fluidized bed can use any amount of fines whereas moving bed only 10% of fines can be used.

•

Fluidized bed gasifier demonstrated a carbon conversio85%-90%. This could be further improved by parametricoptimization.

• In the fluidized bed process, hydrocarbon, liquid by-such as tar, oil and gas-liquor are not produced andthe pollution is reduced.


9/14

IGCC- Indigenous Research & Developme• There was not much international experience available with PFB.

• BHEL had already set-up three R&D plants based on PFB:• Advanced Pressurized Fluidized Bed Gasifier (APFBG)

• Performance Evaluation and Demonstration Unit (PEDU)•

6.2 MW Combined Cycle Demonstration Plant (CCDP)• This provided a unique opportunity to carry-out experiments and their si

simulations could then be reliably used for arriving at the design of the ~

• BHEL had already made a design for a 100 MW plant. This was the upgratheir 6.2 MW plant based on a similarity principal.

• Design validation of the BHEL’s 100 MW plant with parameters as follows• Carbon conversion efficiency ~85%• Cold gas efficiency ~71%

• Gross efficiency ~ 39%• Gas Calorific Value (LCV) ~ 1000-1100 Kcal/ Nm3

• Results of the experiments done on the CCDP have shown that at a temC, the carbon conversion efficiency in the CCDP was 88-89%, while theefficiency was 68.8%. The LCV was ~ 1100 Kcal/Nm3. These are quite clovalues.

• The technical feasibility of upgrading the 6.2 MWe CCDP of the BHEL tobeen satisfactorily established.


10/14

IGCC- Economics and Commercialization

• The 1992 CSIR study arrived at a cost comparison betwe• “entrained bed”,

• “fluidised bed”

• “moving bed” gasifier technologies (at 1989 prices),

• The study showed that the fluidised bed technology alsthe lowest capital cost.

• However, it was still about a third higher than an equivapulverised coal (P.C.) thermal plant, according to the st

• The World Bank estimates that the cost of an IGCC powcould be 1.5 to 2 times than that of a conventional pulvcoal plant.

• Investment issues have been a major hurdle in the deveof this technology in India. These issues arise due to thefollowing:

• The technology is yet to prove itself in the Indian Context.• Only four plants operating commercially in USA and Europe.• Adoption of a multi-pronged strategy dilutes investment opportunit


11/14

• COMPARISON OF GENERATION COST

• Impacts of CO2 Capture:• 30% hit on IGCC• 70% hit on PC

• COMPARISON OF CAPIT

• Impacts of CO2 Captur• 33% hit on IGCC• 75% hit on PC

IGCC- Economics and Commercialization

Growing environmental concerns makes it important to follow suchsustainability


12/14

IGCC- Barriers and IssuesAsh Content of the Coal:

• Large amount of highly abrasive particulate matter

• At high gasification temperatures(1200 Celcius) the ash content cou

•

Designed filters can handle particulate matter upto 650 Celcuius on• Lowering the syngas temp to 650 celcius would reduce thermal effic

Thermal Efficiency:

• The mentioned thermal efficiency of 60 percent is yet to be demonsa commercially viable situation. In fact, the 45 percent mentioned i

• Demonstrations show that IGCC probably can reach using present t40% efficiency, with low ash coal. This is LESS than what our proven pfired units are capable of (40% - 44% ).

By Products and Gaseous Release:

• Sulphur release does not have much commercial use, unlike the caencourages the use of IGCC there.

• Similarly, for the utilization of released hydrogen, plan for using it in furelated transportation energy needs have to be put in place.

Plant cost and Functioning


13/14

CONCLUSION!


14/14

THANK YOU!

presentation: feasibility study of integrated gasification combined cycle (igcc) in terms of the...

Documents