Return to DOE Report Table of Contents

Biomass Gasification and Power Generation Using Advanced Gas Turbine Systems,
Final Report October 2002

David Liscinsky

United Technologies Research Center
Pratt & Whitney Power Systems
University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center
kraftWork Systems, Inc.
Connecticut Resource Recovery Authority

In this pdf format, this document has 84 pages and is 2.8MB.

Table of Contents

PROJECT PARTICIPANTS iii
  United Technologies Research Center iii
Pratt & Whitney Power Systems iii
University of North Dakota Energy and Environmental Research Center iii
kraftWork Systems, Inc iii
Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v
LIST OF FIGURES xi
LIST OF TABLES xiii
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS xv
INTRODUCTION 1
GASIFICATION TECHNOLOGY 3
  Introduction 3
Second-Generation Advanced Power Systems 3
  Fixed-Bed Gasifiers 5
Entrained-Flow Gasifiers 5
Fluidized-Bed Gasifiers 6
Gasifier Recommendation 7
POWER SYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES 9
  Introduction 9
Gasifier Model 9
Power System Configuration 10
Alternative Power System 12
Power System Technology Requirements 14
COMBUSTION MODELING 15
  Introduction 15
Simulation and Estimation of Combustor Extinction Times 15
BIOMASS FEEDSTOCK EVALUATION 17
  Introduction 17
Municipal Solid Waste Availability 19
Refuse-derived Fuel Characterization 22
  Physical Composition 22
Chemical Composition 22
RDF Preparation and Feed System 24
  Estimation of RDF Processing Rate 24
Major Unit Operations 25
Vendor Discussion 25
Cleaning RDF with Commercial Air Classifier 28
PROJECTED PLANT EMISSIONS AND CONTROL 29
  Particulate Emissions and Control 29
Sulfur Dioxide Emissions 29
Halide Emissions 29
Nitrogen Oxide Emissions 30
Mercury and Trace Element Emissions 31
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 33
  Introduction 33
Capital Cost 33
  RDF Processing Costs 33
Advanced Transport Gasifier Costs 34
Combined Cycle 36
Balance of Plant 36
Engineering Services 36
Contingency 36
Process Plant Cost Estimate 36
Additional Capital Cost Items 37
Cost of Electricity and Comparisons 38
MARKET ANALYSIS 41
  Introduction 41
World Market 41
New Factors Specific to the U.S. market 43
CONCLUSIONS 47
RECOMMENDATIONS 49
REFERENCES 51
APPENDIX A 55
  Review of Current Gasifier Technology 55
  The Texaco Gasifier System 55
The Global Energy E-Gas Gasifier System 56
The Shell Gasifier System 57
British Gas/Lurgi 59
High-Temperature Winkler (HTW) 60
Kellogg Rust Westinghouse (KRW) Gasifier 62
Advanced Transport Reactor 63
The GTI RenuGas™ Gasification Process 64
The FERCO SilvaGas Process 65
Appendix A - References 67
APPENDIX B 69
  Images of Fractions from Hand-Sorting of RDF 69
Images of Air-Classifier and Fractions of RDF Recovered from Air-Classification 71
APPENDIX C 73
  Trace Element Removal 73
Appendix C - References 77
 
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Simplified Schematic of a Biomass Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle System 4
Figure 2 EERC Advanced Transport Gasifier 8
Figure 3 ATG Module used for Simulation 9
Figure 4 PWPS FT8 TwinPac™ Installation 11
Figure 5 Flow Sheet for Biomass Gasification Combined Cycle Power System 12
Figure 6 Flow Sheet for Biomass Gasification Steam Injected Gas Turbine Power System 13
Figure 7 Flow Sheet for Biomass Gasification Hybrid SOFC/Gas Turbine Power System 13
Figure 8 Equilibrium Temperatures vs Fuel Composition and Equivalence Ratio 16
Figure 9 Inverse Extinction Time vs. Fuel Composition and Equivalence Ratio 16
Figure 10 Availability and Quantity of MSW/RDF in the US 18
Figure 11 Cross-sectional Schematic of the ATG used to obtain Vendor Quotes 35
Figure 12 Impact of Fuel Cost on the Cost of Electricity 39
Figure 13 Projected market for Biomass Gasification in the U.S. 43
     
Figure A 1 Texaco Gasifier System 55
Figure A 2 E-Gas IGCC System 57
Figure A 3 Shell Gasifier 58
Figure A 4 British Gas Lurgi Fixed-Bed Gasification 60
Figure A 5 HTW Gasifier 61
Figure A 6 KRW Gasifier 63
Figure A 7 Advance Transport Gasifier 64
Figure A 8 U-Gas Gasifier 65
Figure A 9 FERCO - Silva Gasifier 66
     
Figure B 1 Paper, Cardboard, and plastic film fraction in RDF 63
Figure B 2 Wood fraction in RDF 63
Figure B 3 Glass fraction in RDF 63
Figure B 4 Container plastic fraction in RDF 63
Figure B 5 Dense plastic fraction in RDF 63
Figure B 6 Metal fraction in RDF 63
Figure B 7 Forsberg air-classifier 64
Figure B 8 Light (product) fraction from air-classification 64
Figure B 9 Heavy (reject) fraction from air classification 64
Figure B 10 Combustibles in reject fraction from air-classification 64
Figure B 11 Non-combustibles in reject fraction from air-classification 64
Figure B 12 Non-combustibles in product fration from air-classification 64
 
Figure C 1 Solid-gas partioning of trace elements for Test P0501 74
Figure C 2 Trace element concentration and solid-gas partioning measured at the inlet and outlet of the HGFV during Test P051 74
 
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 U.S. DOE Goals for Future Market-Driven Coal-Fired Power Systems 4
Table 2 Comparison of Gasifier Characteristics 7
Table 3 Comparison of SOAPP Results and Gasifier Test Data 10
Table 4 Fuel Blends Used in PSR Calculations 15
Table 5 Waste Wood Availability in Connecticut and Northeast 18
Table 6 MSW Generation, Recovery, and Disposal Rates for the U.S. in 2000 19
Table 7 Ranking of Metropolitan United States by Population of Cities Larger than Hartford 21
Table 8 Composition of CRRA RDF Based on Manual Sorting 22
Table 9 Properties of RDF (sample from CRRA Mid-CT Facility) 23
Table 10 Ash XRFA for CRRA RDF (wt%) 23
Table 11 Composition Variation (as-received) of RDF (data from CRRA Mid-CTFacility) 24
Table 12 Cost and Utility Estimates for Major Unit Operations in RDF Feed System 27
Table 13 RDF Processing Equipment Cost Estimate 34
Table 14 Process Plant Cost Estimate for an 85MW BIGCC Plant 36
Table 15 Total Capital Cost Calculations 37
Table 16 Biomass-Fired System Operating Cost Parameters 37
Table 17 Advantages of Biomass Gasification 42
Table 18 Significant gasification & Pyrolysis Suppliers for MSW Applications 42
Table A 1 Typical Fuel Gas Compositions of Selected Gasifier Technology (% by vol) 56
Table C 1 Trace Element Removal Efficiencies of the HGFV 73