Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle -

Underground Coal Gasification

DUAL DEGREE DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY & MASTERS OF TECHNOLOGY
in
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
by
NITESH PRAKASH
(05D02017)

Under the guidance of
PROF. SANJAY M MAHAJANI

DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BOMBAY
MUMBAI - 400076
MAR 2013

i

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BOMBAY
DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING


ACCEPTANCE CERTIFICATE

The Dual Degree Dissertation report entitled Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle -
Underground Coal Gasification submitted by Mr. Nitesh Prakash (Roll No. 05D02017) may
be accepted for evaluation.

Place: Dept of Chemical Engineering
IIT Bombay
Date: 13
th
Mar, 2013 (Prof. Sanjay M. Mahajani)


ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my sincere gratitude towards my supervisor, Prof. Sanjay M.
Mahajani, for bestowing on me the opportunity to work under his able guidance on such an
interesting topic. His consistent support, counselling and encouragement all along the project
course converted this research work into an invaluable learning experience. I would also like
to thank all the UCG group mates for their help and cooperation throughout the project.



Nitesh Prakash
13
th
Mar, 2013






iii

ABSTRACT
Underground Coal Gasification is an industrial process converting coal into product gas.
UCG is in-situ gasification process of underground coal using injection of oxidants, and
bringing the product gas to surface through production wells that can be used as a chemical
feedstock or as fuel for power generation. Its a two step process where extraction process
like coal mining and conversion process is happening in one step producing a high quality
synthetic gas. The gas can be used for heating, power generation, hydrogen production or
manufacture of key liquid fuels.
In this study, we focus on the power generation from the synthetic gas through a well known
technology of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, IGCC. Understanding the IGCC
technology and the integration of the UCG and IGCC are the initial steps, and then find the
best possible efficiency for the power generation.




Keywords: Underground Coal Gasification (UCG); Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle
(IGCC)





iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acceptance Certificate .............................................................................................................. i
Acknowledgement .................................................................................................................... ii
Abstract ................................................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... vii
List of Symbols ..................................................................................................................... viii
Chapter 1:
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Motivation .................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Objective ..................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Organisation of the Report .......................................................................................... 3
Chapter 2:
Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) ................................................................................. 5
2.1 Limitations and Concerns of UCG .............................................................................. 6
2.2 Worldwide UCG Projects & Developments ............................................................... 7
Chapter 3:
Modelling of UCG Process .................................................................................................... 11
3.1 Back-mixed Reactor Model ...................................................................................... 11
3.2 Model Results and Discussions ................................................................................ 14


v

Chapter 4:
Integration Gas Combined Cycle ......................................................................................... 22
4.1 IGCC Technology .................................................................................................... 23
4.2 Aspen IGCC Simulation............................................................................................ 23
4.2.1 Gas Turbine Cycle .............................................................................................. 24
4.2.2 Steam Turbine Cycle........................................................................................... 26
4.2.3 Net IGCC-UCG Cycle ........................................................................................ 27
Chapter 5:
Aspen IGCC Simulation ........................................................................................................ 29
5.1 Efficiency Analysis: IGCC........................................................................................ 29
5.2 Case Study- New Power Output = 100 MW ............................................................. 32
5.2.1 Mass Flow Rate and Temperature Impacts ......................................................... 33
5.2.2 Mass Flow Rate and Composition Impacts ........................................................ 33
Chapter 6:
Conclusions & Future Work ................................................................................................. 35
Appendix A: ............................................................................................................................ 37
Reaction Rates ........................................................................................................................ 37
References ............................................................................................................................... 41


vi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Comparison of cost of energy generation through various energy sources ........... 3
Figure 2.1: Schematic of the overall UCG process................................................................... 5
Figure 2.2: Chinchilla UCG gas production, Dec 1999 to Feb 2002 ......................................... 9
Figure 2.3: Number of patents in the UCG area for the period from 1988 2007 .................. 10
Figure 3.1: Calorific Value at different Steam/ Oxygen ratio ................................................. 15
Figure 3.2: Solid and gas phase temperatures with time ......................................................... 16
Figure 3.3: Reactions rates with time ...................................................................................... 17
Figure 3.4: Molar compositions with time ............................................................................... 19
Figure 3.5: Solid Char density with time ................................................................................. 20
Figure 3.6: Calorific value of product gas with time ............................................................... 20
Figure 3.7: Calorific value of product gas at different flowrates ............................................. 21
Figure 4.1: Process flow sheet of the IGCC Aspen Plus ......................................................... 24
Figure 4.2: Gas Turbine Cycle and T-S diagram for the gas turbine ....................................... 25
Figure 4.3: Steam Turbine Cycle and T-S diagram for the steam turbine ............................... 27
Figure 5.1: Effects of mass flow rate on gas turbine power output ........................................ 32
Figure 5.2: Effects of mass flow rate (composition changes) on gas turbine power output ... 32
Figure 5.3: Changes in firing temperature with mass flow rate for 100MW power ................ 33
Figure 5.4: Changes in mass flow rate with change in composition (CO
2
, CO) for 100MW
power........................................................................................................................................34
Figure 5.5: Changes in mass flow rate with change in composition (H2, CH4) for 100MW
power........................................................................................................................................ 34


vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Input parameters for the simulation of back mixed reactor model ......................... 14
Table 4.1: Combustion reaction reactants and products .......................................................... 25
Table 5.1: Input parameters for the Aspen simulation of IGCC .............................................. 30
Table 5.2: Output parameters of the IGCC Aspen simulation ................................................. 31









viii

LIST OF SYMBOLS
Symbol Names and Units
a
ij
Stoichiometric coefficient of species i in reaction j
C
gi
Gas phase concentration of species i (kmol m
-3
)
C
pi
Heat capacity of species i (kcal kmol
-1
K
-1
)
C
gw
Concentration of water vaporized to steam in the cavity (kmol m
-3
s
-1
)
h

Convective heat transfer coefficient (kcal m
-2
K
-1
s
-1
)
H
i
Enthalpy of species i (kcal kmol
-1
)
Hc
i
Heat of combustion of species I (kcal kmol
-1
)
H
j
Enthalpy of reaction j (kcal kmol
-1
)
M
i
Molecular weight of species i (g mol
-1
)
P Operating pressure (kPa)
R Universal gas constant (J mol
-1
K
-1
)
R
j
Rate of reaction j (kmol m
-3
s
-1
)
t Time (s)
T
g
Gas phase temperature (K)
T
s
Solid phase temperature (K)
v Outlet volumetric flow rate (m
3
s
-1
)
v
0
Inlet volumetric flow rate (m
3
s
-1
)
V Volume of cavity (m
3
)
y
i
Mole fraction of species i


ix

Greek Symbols
Density (kg m
-3
)
Parameter to be estimated
Residence time (s)

s
Sampling time

Subscripts
g Gas
s Solid
0 Parameter value at the inlet
.
1

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Coal has the highest reserves among all the fossil fuels. It has been predicted that increase in
coal usage of 55% to 2030 as emerging nations develop industrial infrastructure and world
moves on a depleting supplies of oil and gas (Webref 1).
However, nearly 85% of known coal reserves are called as unmineable instead of highly
sophisticated surface mining techniques, being too deep, too remote, and too uneconomical or
of poor quality. The majority of countries with large coal reserves have few alternative
indigenous energy sources; many of the poorest nations have low rank coals that emit
noxious chemicals and low energy when conventionally mined. It is in these regions that
UCG technology has much to offer. Hence most of these regions are looking into UCG as a
saviour gearing up to incline their resources and investments to avail the benefits of the
technology.
1.1 MOTIVATION
Coal will increasingly be used - but UCG offers, a cleaner, cheaper and safer method. The
benefits of UCG has been categorised under two main headings: Environmental and Financial
Environmental Benefits
- No coal is brought to the surface - environmental impacts are greatly reduced
- No personnel are required below ground - safer
- Lower emissions
- No surface gasifier is required - making the method less intrusive
.
2

- Low risk of surface water pollution
- Significant lower surface hazard liabilities on abandonment
- CO2 is captured and removed
Financial Benefits
- Capital and operating costs are lower than in traditional mining
- Reduced cost of plant installation - No Surface Gasifier
- Syngas can be piped directly to the end-user, reducing the need for rail / road infrastructure
- Lowers the cost of environmental clean up as solid waste being confined underground
- CCGT power plants can be switched from natural gas to cheaper UCG product gas
- Manufacture of chemicals such as ammonia and fertilizers
- Synthesis of liquid fuels at low cost
- Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) by injection of stripped CO
2


The reason of consistently increased interest and investigation worldwide in UCG is simply
the access to the vast quantities of coal in a clean, economical and safer way. Therefore, the
reach and the scope of UCG projects in the world have increased.
Indian economy is growing steadily, limited only to a few things which include the coal
consumption and the power generation. India has huge reserves of coal, stands third when it
comes to coal production but most of it is low grade with high ash content. In addition, the
coal lies in steeply dipping deposits that are difficult to mine conventionally. Use of coal
gasification has potential in India as it will eliminate environmental hazards associated with
ash. Hence, UCG is well suited for the electricity and emerging energy demands.
1.2 OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study is to observe the UCG, and find out the best composition of the
synthetic gas produced at a commercial level. The composition is observed and optimised for
the highest calorific value possible for the given coal and conditions around.
.
3



Figure 1.1: Comparison of cost of energy generation through various energy sources
(Webref 2)
We here, also study the IGCC process and use the same synthetic gas to maximize the
efficiency of the IGCC process with the combined cycle of gas turbines and steam turbines.
The efficiency is calculated in Aspen Plus with the entire flow sheet drawn and input data
verified with the commercial data available on the web.
1.3 ORGANISATION OF THE REPORT
The report is divided into six chapters. Chapter 1 introduces UCG in brief and explains the
motivation behind its practise. Chapter 2 gives a detailed picture of UCG and the
technological progresses around the world and in India. Chapter 3 explains the model of the
UCG followed, and the reactions along with the synthetic gas produced with various other
.
4

parametric studies. Chapter 4 studies the entire IGCC technology and the developments
across the globe. Chapter 5 studies the Aspen Simulation for the IGCC and the synthetic gas
from UCG and analysis to maximize the power generation. Chapter 6 concludes the report
and presents the scope for the next steps.



.
5

CHAPTER 2
UNDERGROUND COAL GASIFICATION (UCG)
Gasification scientifically refers to a chemical process wherein solid/ liquid fuel is converted
into a combustible gas that can further be used for heat/ power generation or chemical
feedstock for the chemical products. Underground Coal Gasification (UCG), is the
gasification of coal in-situ, moving the entire process of coal gasification underground.
Figure 2.1 schematically represents the overall UCG process.

Figure 2.1: Schematic of the overall UCG process
(Webref 3)
Wells are drilled in the coal seam deep down to reach to the coal well enough to inject
oxidants and product gas is extracted through the production well. The injection well and the
.
6

production well are connected to facilitate gas flow and cavity development. Air is blown to
the injection well to dry the coal seam enough for the ignition process. The oxygen and steam
are injected through the injection well to trigger the conversion of coal through combustion
and gasification reactions producing gas, char and vaporised tars. Combustion produces heat,
carbon dioxide and some syngas (through partial combustion). When the temperature of the
seam becomes sufficiently high, char gasification and other reactions takes place. The main
constituents of the product gas are H
2
, CO
2
, CO, CH
4
and steam. The composition, pressure
and the temperature of the gas depends on the many factors like the coal properties, injection
fuel ratio, operating pressure and temperature, water present in coal seam and spalling
conditions.
2.1 LIMITATIONS AND CONCERNS OF UCG
As when experiments and research in labs widespread to the commercialization, this
expansion leads to many challenges and concerns, related to either environment or
investment. This leads to a different path of research and development to overcome or
minimize the effect. With so many advantages, the technology has limitations and potential
concerns.
- The UCG process poses the potential risk of groundwater contamination. Because the
operations are conducted deep underground, and because waste and by-products from
UCG become permanently inaccessible, ground water contamination due to UCG could
be extremely detrimental to surrounding ecosystems(Bell et al., 2011).
- Potential waste contamination occurring during site development, coal mining and from
aromatic by-products remains the biggest concern to surface water. Other contamination
.
7

is also possible through interaction with groundwater discharge and potential spills during
the process itself (Bell et al., 2011).
- Subsidence is a sinking or downward settling of the land surface as a result of loss of
subsurface support due to either natural or manmade cause, one of them could be UCG
(Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 2011). Several secondary UCG processes have been
identified as contributing to subsidence directly or indirectly. Three of the most
commonly seen are 1) post process pyrolysis activity in the cavity, 2) post process
leaching of cavity coal ash by returning groundwater and 3) post process leaching of
overburden (Burton, 2004).
- The primary environmental concern is the potential for the air pollution. The main
concern here is not from the UCG process but the composition of the product gas which
contains significant proportions of CO
2
and water vapour.
- If inserted, CCS has the potential to reduce GHS emissions between 80 and 90 percent
(Holloway, 2007). However, there are challenges associated with the technologys effect
on the environment, both in its construction and operations minor adverse environmental
impacts as well as due to the risk of CO
2
leakage and seismic activity.
2.2 WORLDWIDE UCG PROJECTS & DEVELOPMENTS
UCG research and development has been conducted in several countries, including long term
commercial operation. This has been practised since 1920s and 1930s resulting in several
tests and pilot plants.
With continuous increase in the prices of the fuel and oil, interest and necessity have been
growing for the UCG technology. Few research and developments of special importance
across the globe are:
.
8

1. USSR: In the former Soviet Union, an intensive R&D program on UCG was conducted
from the 1930s leading to the operation of the operation of several industrial-scale UCG
plants. In the 1960s, five gas production stations were operating but it is generally
believed that UCG declined in the 1970s as a result of the discovery of extensive natural
gas resources. It can be seen that, after some period of inactivity, chronologically
corresponding to the worst economic situation, UCG R&D is currently being reactivated
in Russia and Ukraine.
2. United States: Initial UCG tests in the U.S. were conducted in Alabama in the 1940-50s.
Later the UCG program was renewed, and more than 30 experiments were conducted
between 1972 and 1989 under various mining and geological conditions across various
parts of the country, including 4 in Wyoming, 4 in Texas, 1 in Washington and 1 in
Virginia. The Controlled Retraction Injection Point (CRIP) were used in the Rocky
Mountain trial, which is considered to be the most successful test in the U.S. Along with
CRIP, another linking technology the so called Extended Linked Well (ELW) was tested.
The ELW test lasted 57 days, consuming 4443 t of coal ad producing an average heating
value of 9.7 MJ/m3. The CRIP lasted a total of 93 days, gasified a total of 11227 t of coal
with average has heating value of 10.7 MJ/m
3
.
3. European Union: A number of tests have been carried out in Western Europe. A
significant of these tests in the large depth of coal seams (600-1200 m as compared with
< 300 m in the USSR and the U.S.). Currently, the Hydrogen Oriented Underground Coal
Gasification for Europe (HUGE) project is being conducted by research organizations.
Major attention in this project is paid to the integration of gasification processes with heat
and mass transfer phenomena occurring in geological multi phase systems in complex
geometry.
.
9

4. China: It has emerged as the UCG technology development leader. This is confirmed by
the relatively large number of patents in the UCG area China has executed at least 16
pilots since 1991, and has invested in extensive research programs. Current technological
projects include construction of a pilot industrial UCG plant. The $112 Million project is
a joint venture between the China University of Mining and Technology and Hebei
Xinao group.
5. Canada: In Canada, Ergo Exergy Technologies Inc. and Laurus Energy Inc. are the active
UCG companies, with licenses of UCG technology. Laurus Energy is developing a
commercial project targeting power generation and supply of fuel and hydrogen for the
local industrial markets near Edmonton. On the other hand, Ergo Exergy collaborated
with university and developed new models for reverse and forward combustion.
6. Australia: Currently, commercial UCG projects are being developed by at least three
Australian companies: Cougar Energy Ltd., Linc Energy Ltd., and Carbon Energy Ltd.

Figure 2.2: Chinchilla UCG gas production, Dec 1999 to April 2002
(Blinderman et. al, 2002)
.
10

The Chinchilla trail was conducted by Linc Energy, using the technology provided by the
Ergo Energy. The project involved drilling 9 injection/ production wells and 19
monitoring wells to a coal seam with average depth of 140m. Around 35000 t of coal was
gasified, with 95% recovery of the coal source and 75% total energy recovery. This
resulted in the production of 80 x 106 Nm
3
of gas(heating value, 4.5-7 MJ/m
3
)
7. India: India looks to utilize its fourth largest coal reserves in the world to reduce its
dependency on oil and gas imports. ONGC is carrying extensive research to use the
estimated 350 billion tons of coal reserves in India.

Figure 2.3: Number of patents in the UCG area for the period from 1988 2007. Countries
indicates where the inventors work
(Shafirovich et. al., 2009)

.
11

CHAPTER 3
MODELLING OF UCG PROCESS
In the model studied, the cavity is considered to be back mixed reactor model where the all
the gases are in steady state. The aim of the model is to study the reactor and analyse the
product gas composition profiles, temperature profiles and reaction rates. Here the main aim
to study the gas with the higher heat content.
3.1 BACK-MIXED REACTOR MODEL
The back-mixed reactor model used in this work is optimization and parametric study of a
model previously developed (Samdani, 2012). The analysis of the cavity inside is studied
through simulation in MATLAB, solving time variant heat and mass balances for all the solid
and gaseous species.
The various assumptions and important features of the model are as follows:
- There are no spatial variations in the temperature and compositions of solid and gas.
Uniform mixing takes place inside the cavity
- Mass and energy balances are written separately for all the solid and gaseous species
- A set of eight reactions, including 4 heterogeneous (gas-solid), 3 gas phase oxidation
and water gas shift reaction
- Gas phase : N
2
, O
2
, H
2
O, H
2
, CH
4
, CO and CO
2

- Solid phase : Char and ash
- Pyrolysis is not considered in the model as it is supposed that coal is already pyrolised
.
12

- Heat transfer takes place between gas and solid phase through convection
- The char rubble is heated for some time to achieve a sufficiently high temperature to
ignite reactions
The mathematical equations for the gas phase and solid phase mass and energy balance are
described through the equations 3.1 to 3.5
Gas Phase Species Mass Balance
j
n
j
S gi o gi
gi
R a
v
v
C C
t
C
ij

=
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
c
c
1
0
,
1
t
(3.1)
Initial condition: At t = 0, C
gi
= C
gi,0

where C
gi
and C
gi,0
- the cavity and inlet gas phase concentrations of species i respectively
v and v
0
- outlet and inlet volumetric flow rate respectively
a
ij
- stoichiometric coefficient of species i in reaction j
R
j
- the rate of reaction j
V - the cavity volume
= 0 - the residence time.
Gas Phase Outlet Volumetric Flow rate
n
ij j gi,0
i j 1 i
0
gi
i
a R C
v
v
C
=
| |
t +
|
\ .
=

(3.2)
Gas Phase Energy Balance
( )
n n
g
pi gi T g s gi,0 i.0 i j j
j 1 i j 1
dT
1
C C h T T C (H H ) H R
dt
= =
| |
= + A
|
t
\ .

(3.3)
Boundary condition: At t = 0, T
g
= T
g,0
.
13

where, C
pi
- the heat capacity of species i
T
g
and T
g,0
- the cavity gas phase and inlet gas temperatures respectively
T
s
- the solid phase temperature
H
i
and H
i,0
- the enthalpies of species i in the cavity and at the inlet respectively
H
j
- the enthalpy of reaction j
h
T
- convective heat transfer coefficient.
Solid Phase Species Mass Balance
n
i
i ij j
j 1
d
M a R
dt
=

=

(3.4)
Initial Condition: At t = 0,
i
=
i,0

where,
i
and M
i
- the density and molecular weight of species i respectively.
Solid Phase Energy Balance
( )
n
S
ps,i i T g s j j
i j 1
dT
C h T T H R
dt
=
= A

(3.5)
Initial condition: At t = 0, T
s
= T
s,0

The stiff ordinary differential equations in time for the gas and solid phase balances are
solved in MATLAB to obtain the time dependent temperature, composition and reaction
profiles. All the variables are initialized and the differential equations are integrated using the
ode15s ODE solver in MATLAB to obtain the solid and gas phase temperature at different
times.
The input parameters used for the simulation are listed below in the Table 3.1, while the
reaction and their kinetics are mentioned in the Appendix A.
.
14

Table 3.1: Input parameters for the simulation of back mixed reactor model
S. No. Parameter Value
1 Cavity Volume 0.1 m
3

2 Inlet Gas Mole percentage /Composition
Oxygen 16.67
Steam to Oxygen ratio 5
Steam 83.33
Nitrogen 0
3 Ignition Time 30 s
4 Inlet Pressure 4.8 atm
5 Feed and initial Solid Temperature 430 K
6 Initial Char Density 200 kgm
-3

7 Molar flux into the reactor 0.2 kmolm
-2
s
-1

8 Initial Ash Density 0
9 Cross Section Area 0.356054 m
2


3.2 SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
In this section, mentioned are the different profiles of the temperature of the gas and the solid
phase, reaction rates, composition and most importantly Calorific value of the product gas
with respect to time. Along with the profiles, the reason codes for the trend are also
mentioned justifying the results obtained.
Figure 3.1 shows the Calorific Value profiles for different steam-oxygen ratio. The intent of
the experiment is to find out the ratio where we can get the maximum heat content in the
product gas, which we currently measuring in terms of Calorific Value.

.
15


Figure 3.1: Calorific Value at different Steam/ Oxygen ratio


Figure 3.2: Solid and gas phase temperatures with time
.
16

As we observe the trend of Calorific value at different ratios, we will fix this ratio for rest of
the simulation and, observe and analyse the other parameters. Figure 3.2 shows the
temperature profiles of both gas and solid phases with respect to time keeping all the other
parameters constant. For an early time period of 30 seconds, theres sudden temperature rise
because of the external source of heat being used to raise the temperature of the solid char. As
soon as the temperature reaches a particular value, sufficiently enough for the combustion of
char to start, oxygen and steam is fed which triggers the combustion reactions. Combustion
reactions are exothermic in nature, hence theres further rise in temperature which also
triggers the rest endothermic reactions. Hence both the reaction types (endothermic +
exothermic) are happening simultaneously leading to steady state in the cavity and the cavity
moving across the length of the bed. Since it is a back mixed reactor, hence there will be
uniform mixing inside the cavity which leads to the fact the solid and gas profiles are very
close to each other all the times. The high heat transfer coefficient also leads to the similar
trend for the close proximity of the temperature of both the phases.
The temperature trend is the result of the reactions inside the cavity. As we have already
discussed the set of eight chemical reactions happening inside the cavity simultaneously,
figure 3.2 shows the trend of all these reaction rates. We will analyse each reaction one by
one.
The reaction rates for all the oxidation reactions (methane + carbon monoxide + hydrogen)
dont differ with each other in terms of the magnitude of the reaction rate, as kinetics for all
of them are driven by oxygen which is their common limiting reagent.
The char oxidation reaction raises the temperature inside the cavity which leads to the other
reactions. The char oxidation reaction is mass controlled reaction where after reaching a
particular temperature, it runs at a constant rate.

.
17


Figure 3.3: Reactions rates with time
Like char oxidation reaction, steam gasification rates are higher than other reaction rates
which reaches a steady state with time. The water gas shift reaction rate is quite comparable
.
18

to the steam gasification rate while, the rate of boudard, methanation and gas phase
oxidations are quite low compared to rest of the reactions. Methanation and Boudard reaction
rates increases very slowly with time because of their endothermic in nature.

Figure 3.4: Molar compositions with time
As we have observed the different reaction rates and their trend, it would be easy to analyse
the molar composition of all the reactants and products. Figure 3.4 shows the trend in molar
composition of product gas coming out of the cavity from the production well. Talking about
the reactants first, the inlet gas consumption- steam and oxygen concentration decreases with
time. Steam molar concentration decreases as it gets used up in steam gasification and water
gas shift reaction which has comparable higher reaction rates. Similarly oxygen almost gets
consumed inside the cavity through char combustion and gas phase oxidation reactions, and
is present in trace amounts in the product gas. The concentration of hydrogen remains
inversely proportional to the steam concentration owing to its formation by the same
reactions; hence it increases constantly with the decrease in the steam. Carbon monoxide
.
19

concentration increases with time, as the rate at which it is being produced by steam
gasification is lower than its consumption rate in water gas shift reaction. Methane
concentration increases exactly according to the commencement of the methanation reaction.
The gas phase species concentrations are not much affected by the boudard and gas phase
oxidation due to their low kinetics as compared to the other reactions inside the cavity.
Char is continuously getting consumed with time along with the length of the cavity .Figure
3.5 shows the trend in the decrease in char density with time due to heterogeneous reactions.
Initially only char combustion takes place, but commencement of other endothermic reaction
instigates the oxidation reaction.
( )
CO CO H2 H2 CH4 CH4
Calorific value kJ / kmol Hc y Hc y Hc y = + +
(3.6)
where, H
i
represents the heat of combustion of species
y
i
and i represents the mole fraction of species i in product gas

Figure 3.5: Solid Char density with time
.
20

With the molar fraction known for the product gas, the calorific value is calculated and
plotted against time. The heat of combustion of species is mentioned in (Khadse et al., 2006).
It is clear from the figure 3.6 that Calorific value increases with time, because of the reason
that molar fraction of the contributing responsible gases increases with time inside the cavity
because of the reaction rates. As with time, the molar concentration of the gases becomes
constant, the calorific value attains a constant value.

Figure 3.6: Calorific value of product gas with time
Figure 3.7 shows the calorific value of the product gas at different flow rates of the inlet gas.
It is clearly evident that with the increase in the flow rate, the absolute value of Calorific
Value at the steady state doesnt change because it will not cause any impacts on the molar
composition of the product gas. With the initial increase, the product gas reaches its steady
state value at a lesser time because of increase in the reaction rates. After a certain flow rate,
the Calorific value will steeply decrease to zero because of 100% consumption of the char.
.
21

Increase in the flow rate will also lead to unreacted oxygen and steam in the product gas
which is not beneficial for the purpose of power generation.

Figure 3.7: Calorific value of product gas at different flowrates

.
22

CHAPTER 4
INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED CYCLE
Use of energy is closely related to the development of an economy. Often per capita
consumption of energy is considered as an index of the living standard of the people of a
country. Though the efficiency of energy usage has a strong impact on energy consumption,
the demand for energy is always expected to increase with the growth in population and
living standards. The most useful form of energy in the modern world is electricity.
(Breuhaus et al)
Coal has to be considered as energy source for power generation because of its availability
and relatively wide geographic distribution. These developments include coal based electric
power technologies, where the integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) is an
alternative to pulverized coal (PC) combustion systems as they obtain higher efficiencies and
better environmental performance.
In comparison with modern coal combustion technologies (pulverized coal combustion
(PCC), fluidized bed combustion (FBC), supercritical and ultra-supercritical technologies),
IGCC systems are characterized by lower SOx and NOx emissions, comparable vapour
organic carbon (VOC) emissions, 20% less CO2 emissions and use of 2040% less water.
They operate at higher efficiencies, thus requiring less fuel and producing less emission
(Zheng & Furinsky, 2005). Commercially available IGCC power plant technologies produce
substantially smaller volumes of solid wastes (1/2) than the new conventional coal plants
(Shilling & Lee, 2003). Furthermore, IGCC solid wastes are less likely to cause
environmental damage than fly ash from conventional coal plants because IGCC ash melts in
the gasification process (Shilling & Lee, 2003).
.
23

4.1 IGCC TECHNOLOGY
The IGCC process model is developed for the UCG gasifier. The product of the UCG is the
after being combusted in the combustion chamber of the turbine. The heat from the gas
turbine exhaust is used to generate steam superheated steam in the heat recovery steam
generator (HSRG). The generated superheated steam drives a steam turbine, producing
additional power.
Apart from design considerations, IGCC performance depends on numerous integration
options and can be improved by process optimization. These considerations include
(Christopher & Zhu, 2006)
1. Gas Turbine air extraction to the air separation unit
2. Increase the gas turbine power
3. High and low temperature heat recovery
4. Steam generation conditions
5. Utility Balance
In the study done, we have increased the gas and steam turbine power. Other than that, we
have also looked into the high heat recovery in HSRG. Rest aspects like ASU and Utility
Balance will be a part of the future work as Utility balance will include the cost analysis of
the plant.
4.2 ASPEN IGCC SIMULATION
Aspen Plus, commercial process engineering software by Aspen Tech has been used to
simulate the IGCC along with products of the UCG. The process sheet has been shown in the
figure 4.1.
.
24


Figure 4.1: Process flow sheet of the IGCC Aspen Plus
4.2.1 Gas Turbine Cycle
The analysis of ideal gas turbine cycle is based on the following ideal conditions:
a) Compression and expansion process are reversible and adiabatic, i.e. isentropic
b) The change in kinetic energy between inlet and outlet is negligible
c) There are no pressure losses
d) The working fluid has the same composition throughout the turbine cycle
e) Mass flow of the gas is constant
The fuel produced from the UCG gasifier is used in the IGCC plant on the commercial scale
for the electricity generation. Stream 14 at a low pressure is fed to combustor along with the
B7
B10
14
15
B15
B16
23
24
25
Combustor
Gas Turbine
HRSG
Stea m Turbine
Condense r
6
10
11
B2
.
25

pure oxygen Stream 25. The fuel is allowed to combust in the combustor as per the table
below, and the product gas is obtained mainly contained of CO
2
and steam.
Table 4.1: Combustion reaction reactants and products
Reactants Products
2CO + O
2
2CO
2

2H
2
+ O
2
2H
2
O
CH
4
+ 2O
2
CO
2
+ 2H
2
O

The product gas obtained from the Combustor, Stream 15 is fed to the gas turbine where with
the expansion of the gas, work is obtained. Two main factors affecting the performance of the
gas turbines are component efficiencies and turbine working temperature.

Figure 4.2: Gas Turbine Cycle and T-S diagram for the gas turbine
(Webref 5)
Gas turbine operates on a thermodynamic cycle known as Brayton cycle. In a brayton cycle,
the working fluid is compressed, heated and then expanded, with the excess of power
.
26

produced by the turbine. Higher temperature and pressure ratios results in higher efficiency
and specific power which we will observe mathematically and with the simulation results.
The relevant steady energy flow equation is
Q = (h
2
h
1
) + (C
2
2
-C
2
1
) + W (4.1)
where Q and W are heat and work transfers per unit mass flow. Applying the energy balance
to each component, we have
W
12
= - (h
2
-h
1
) = -C
p
(T
2
-T
1
) (4.2)
Q
23
= (h
3
-h
2
) = C
p
(T
3
-T
2
) (4.3)
W
34
= (h
3
-h
4
) = C
p
(T
3
-T
4
) (4.4)
The specific work ouput W, upon which the size of the plant depends, has been expressed as
W = C
p
(T
3
-T
4
) - C
p
(T
2
-T
1
) (4.5)
which can be stated as
W/ C
p
T
1
= t{1- 1/r
(-1)
} {r
(-1)
1} (4.6)
where t = T
3
/ T
1
r = p
2
/p
1
=p
3
/p
4

is the property of the gas
4.2.2 Steam Turbine Cycle
As we have the superheated gas from the gas turbine, we use the heat energy of the stream 11
to superheat the steam. Thus stream 11 loose all its heat content and comes out of the heat
exchanger as stream 6, flue gas; this energy heat the water to super heated steam, stream 10.
The Stream 10 in turn is then used to run the steam turbine and get some additional power,
the water stream 24 is then again compressed and condensed to sent it back again to the heat
exchanger.
.
27


Figure 4.3: Steam Turbine Cycle and T-S diagram for the steam turbine
(Webref 7)
The thermodynamic cycle for the steam turbine is known as Rankine cycle. This cycle is the
basis for the power generation systems that converts water to high pressure steam. In the
steam cycle, water is first pumped to elevated pressure, which is medium to high. It is then
heated to the boiling temperature corresponding to the pressure and then most frequently
superheated. The pressurized steam is expanded to lower pressure gas in various stages of the
turbine, then exhausted to a condenser, from there it is returned to the feed water pump for
the continuation of the cycle.
4.2.3 Net IGCC-UCG Cycle
Net Power Output, P
NET
=
1
P
GT
+
2
P
ST
(4.7)
Where, P
GT
and P
ST
- isentropic power outputs of gas and steam turbines respectively

1
and
2
- the isentropic efficiencies of gas and steam turbines respectively

.
28

The net thermal efficiency can be written in the form as in equation 4.8

t
= P
NET
/ (m
syn
x CV
syn
) (4.8)
where m
syn
= mass flow rate of the syngas (kg/s)
CV
syn
= Calorific value of the syngas (MJ/kg)

.
29

CHAPTER 5
ASPEN IGCC SIMULATION
In the Aspen Simulation, the inputs for the streams and blocks were given as per the
commercial available data on the web. Aspen simulates the problem with all the provided
input and internal problem solver.
5.1 EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS - IGCC
Table 5.1 provides all the input data to the Aspen. This includes all the inlet streams which
are Stream 14, Stream 25 and Stream 10 and the blocks which include B10, B7, B2, B15 and
B16 which can be seen in the figure 4.1.
After the iterations and using the mass and energy balances for all the blocks in the flow
sheet, Aspen calculates all the streams compositions, their physical properties and the power
output from the turbines. The first level of output obtained from the simulation can be seen in
the Table 5.2.
The power output calculated by the Aspen on simulation with all the data are:
P
GT
= 1.29 KW
P
ST
= 0.69 KW
Assuming,
1
= 0.72 &
2
= 0.85

t
= 39%


.
30

Table 5.1: Input parameters for the Aspen simulation of IGCC
Inlet Syngas, Stream 14



Composition (mole fraction)
METHA-01
WATER
CARBO-01
CARBO-02
HYDRO-01
AIR
NITRO-01
OXYGE-01
0.0051002
0.18
0.21436
0.1962
0.39909
0
3E-07
0.00444
Temperature 805 F
Pressure 70 psi
Mass flow rate 4.37 lb/hr
Oxidant Agent, Stream 25
Composition (mole fraction)
OXYGE-01 1
Temperature 1133 F
Pressure 70 psi
Mass flow rate 2.69 lb/hr
HSRG steam inlet, Stream 10
Composition (mole fraction) WATER 1
Vapour fraction 1
Pressure 1800 psi
Mass flow rate 6 lb/hr
Combustor, B10
Pressure 228 psi
Temperature 3632 F
Gas Turbine, B7 Pressure ratio 0.065
Heat Exchanger, B2
Valid phases Vapour-Liquid
Hot Outlet Stream vapour fraction 1
Hot Outlet Stream pressure 12.4 Mpa
Steam Turbine, B15
Discharge Pressure 15 psi
Efficiency 0.85
Condenser, B16
Temperature 86 F
Pressure 20 psi

The figure 5.1 clearly states the gas turbine power output is directly proportional to the mass
flow rate if all other parameters are kept constant. Here we have increased the mass flow rate
by 10 times, and there was corresponding 10 times increase in the gas turbine power output.
.
31

Table 5.2: Output parameters of the IGCC Aspen simulation
Streams 6 10 11 14 15 23 24 25
Mole flow,
lbmol/hr

METHANE
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0012 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
WATER
0.1343 0.3319 0.1343 0.0410 0.1343 0.3319 0.3319 0.0000
CO
2

0.0946 0.0000 0.0946 0.0488 0.0946 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0447 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
H
2

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0910 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
AIR
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
N
2

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
O
2

0.0149 0.0000 0.0149 0.0010 0.0149 0.0000 0.0000 0.0841
Total Flow, lb/hr
7.06 5.98 7.06 4.37 7.06 5.98 5.98 2.69
Temperature, F
167.48 620.74 2619.05 805.00 3632.00 86.00 213.07 1133.33
Pressure, psi
14.82 1798.47 14.82 70.00 228.00 20.00 15.00 70.54
Enthalpy, Btu/hr
-30985 -33009 -23274 -13333 -20093 -40719 -35026 676
Density, lb/cuft
0.09 2.79 0.01 0.10 0.15 61.72 0.04 0.13
Average, MW
28.96 18.02 28.96 19.20 28.96 18.02 18.02 32.00

Subsequently we can see in figure 5.2 that changing the composition and still increasing the
mass flow rate of the inlet gas doesnt have the same effect. Increasing the fractions of inert
gases brings down the heat content of the gas and hence the gas turbine inlet decreases which
correspondingly doesnt increase the power output proportionally.
.
32


Figure 5.1: Changes in Gas Turbine Power Output with mass flow

Figure 5.2: Changes in Gas Turbine Power Output with mass flow
5.2 CASE STUDY NET POWER OUTPUT = 100MW
In the discussed model, we prepared a case study to simulate a commercial power plant
where the required power output is 100 MW. The power output depends on molar
composition of the inlet syngas, combustion firing temperature and mass flow rate. We then
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
4.37 40.37 400.37 4000.37
G
a
s

T
u
r
b
i
n
e

P
o
w
e
r

O
u
t
p
u
t

(
k
W
)
Flow rate (lb/hr)
Effects of mass flow rate on gas turbine power
output
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
400.37 800.37 1200.37 1600.37
G
a
s

T
u
r
b
i
n
e

P
o
w
e
r

O
u
t
p
u
t
Mass flow rate (lb/hr)
Effects of mass flow rate (composition
changes) on gas turbine power output
.
33

observed the changes in all these properties and how much change impacts the power output.
Hence we changed two properties at the same time to get a constant power output.
5.2.1 Mass Flow Rate and Temperature Impacts

Figure 5.3: Changes in firing temperature with mass flow rate for 100MW power
As we decrease the firing temperature, the heat content of the gas decreases which
subsequently decreases the power output. Hence to counter the effect of combustor firing
temperature, there needs to be increase in the syngas flow rate to keep the power output
constant which can be seen in figure 5.3.
5.2.2 Mass Flow Rate and Composition Impacts
With the increase in the CO
2
and decrease in CO concentration in the inlet syngas, the rate of
exothermic reactions happening inside the combustor will decrease as there would be more
products and less reactant. This would be lead to less heat content in the product gas which
will be compromised with the higher flow rate of the gas to keep the output constant.
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
150000 265000 310000
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
F
)
Mass flow rate (lb/hr)
Effects of changes in firing temperature and mass flow
rate
.
34


Figure 5.4: Changes in mass flow rate with change in composition (CO
2
, CO) for 100MW
power
In the figure 5.5 we can see the similar changes with CH
4
and H
2
.

Figure 5.5: Changes in mass flow rate with change in composition (H2, CH4) for 100MW
power

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
200000 300000 400000
m
o
l
e

f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
Total flow (lb/hr)
Effects of mole fraction (CO,CO2) with mass flow rate
CO2 mole fraction
CO mole fractiom
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.0000
0.0500
0.1000
0.1500
0.2000
0.2500
200000 300000
m
o
l
e

f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
Total flow (lb/hr)
Effects of mole fraction (H2 , CH
4
) and mass flowrate
CH4 conc
H2 conc
.
35

CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS & FUTURE WORK
Underground Coal gasification (UCG) and Integrated Gasifier Combined Cycle (IGCC) are
two evolved separately concepts. Work and progress has been made on both of these in many
experimental and simulation projects.
During this work, the process was observed by modelling the UCG cavity as a back mixed
reactor. The syngas produced is inserted in basic IGCC model and the impacts of the various
parameters were seen and analysed. The parametric analysis of different properties of the
syngas was simulated for a particular outcome of power output.
Sensitivity of the process for different operating variables is studied. It can be stated that to
generate the maximum power output, the inlet gas used in the IGCC should have high heat
content which is measure by the absolute vales of the Calorific value. Higher the Calorific
value indicates syngas rich composition indicating higher proportions of carbon monoxide,
hydrogen and methane. Increasing flow rate leads to proportional increase in the power
output, but there could be a drastic decrease in the expected outcome if we increase the
fractions of inert gases like steam, nitrogen and air (Figure 5.1 and figure 5.2). Similarly
combustor firing temperature should be as high as possible considering the design specifics
for the combustor are met.
In this basic model, we have not included Spalling which is quite practical for any
development power generation project. Spalling is the thermo-mechanical failure of coal
which can be accounted in two different approaches: temperature independent and
temperature dependant. Due to heat transfer inside the coal seam, there is continuous falling
.
36

of rubbles and small coal blocks from the roof surface, thus increasing the cavity size. This
phenomenon is known as spalling (Kohli, 2007). A recurrent behaviour with significant
change in the calorific value of the product gas is observed for the two spalling cases
(Khandelwal, 2011).
IGCC is the type of power technology particularly available factorable for plant retrofitting
so that carbon dioxide can be removed at a convenient stage of the process (Descamps et. al,
2008). It has the potential for the CO
2
sequestration. There can be other efficiency increase
processes like air separation unit, gas cleaning, and different CO
2
capture technology.
Efficiency of blocks depends on the size of the block, the inlet flow rate and the operating
design parameters. This efficiency is correlated to the cost of the equipment which can vary
from one to other.
To derive a conclusion on the process flow sheet, a cost analysis would certainly be the next
step as the commercial plant will operate on the outcome of power produced per dollar
(MW/$).



.
37

APPENDIX A:
REACTION RATES
The reaction rates expression used for the simulation of the back-mixed reactor model are as
under (Thorsness et al., 1978).

1. Char oxidation reaction

1 a b 2 2 2
a b a
R : CH O (1 )O CO H O
4 2 2
+ + +

R
1
= k
y
y
O2
A.1
Here, a and b are the composition parameters for char; a = 0.09 and b = 0.016 (Khadse et al.,
2006)
2. Char gasification reaction
2 a b 2 2
a
R : CH O (1 b)H O CO (1 b)H
2
+ + +

2
=
1.261 10
8

207013
8.314

4.8

14.48 log10.99999

A.2

2
=
1
1

2
(1

)
+
1

A.3



.
38

3. Boudard reaction

3 a b 2 2
a a a
R : CH O (1 b)CO (2 b)CO H O
2 2 2
+ + + +

3
=
1.709 10
7

237020
8.314

2
4.8)
0.4679

14.48 log10.99999

A.4

3
=
1
1

3
(1

)
+
1

2
A.5
4. Methanation Reaction


4 a b 2 4
a
R : CH O (2 2b)H (1 b)CH bCO
2
+ +

2
2
4 2 2
char H s
c4
c H s
10 P y exp(2.803 13673/ T )
R
M (1 0.01Py exp( 10.452 11698/ T ))

+

=
+ +

A.6
4
2
2
CH
2 c4
c4 H
H E4
y
R
R (y )
y K
+
=

A.7
2
4
c4 y H
1
R
1/ R 2 / k y
=
+
A.8
5. Water gas shift reaction

5 2 2 2
R : CO H O CO H + +

2
4
c5 g,H O g,CO s
R 1.5 10 C C exp( 7250/ T )
+
=
A.9
.
39

2 2
2
2
g,H g,CO
c5
c5 g,H O g,CO
g,H O g,CO E5
C C
R
R (C C )
C C K
+
=
A.10
If
2 2
2
g,H g,CO
g,H O g,CO
E5
C C
(C C ) 0
K
>
then,
5
c5 y CO
1
R
1/ R 1/ k y
=
+
A.11
If
2 2
2
g,H g,CO
g,H O g,CO
E5
C C
(C C ) 0
K
<
then,
2
5
c5 y CO
1
R
1/ R 1/ k y
=

A.12

6. Gas phase oxidation reactions

6 2 2 2
R : 2H O 2H O +


7 2 2
R : 2CO O 2CO +


8 4 2 2 2
R : CH 2O CO 2H O + +

g,limitingreactant
R C
+
=|
A.13

g ignition
If T T , Rate 0 s =


ignition g ignition g ignition
If T T T 200, Rate R [(T T ) / 200]
+
< s + =


ignition g
If T 200 T , Rate R
+
+ < =

.
40


taken is 001 . 0 of value average an where, = |






.
41

REFERENCES
Britten, J.A., and Thorsness, C.B. (1989). Model for cavity growth and resource recovery
during underground coal gasification In Situ 13, 1-53.
Chih-Jung Chen, Chen-I Hung and Wei-Hsin Chen (2012). Numerical investigation on
performance of coal gasification under various injection patterns in an entrained flow
gasifier. Applied Energy, 1095-1102

Daggupati, S., Mandapati, R.N., Mahajani, S.M., Ganesh, A., Pal, A.K., Sharma, R.K., and
Aghalayam, P. (2011). Compartment Modeling and Flow Characterization in Nonisothermal
Underground Coal Gasification Cavities. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 51,
4493-4508.
Fogler, H.S. (2005). Elements of Chemical Reaction Engineering, Third edn (New Delhi,
Prentice-Hall of India).
Khadse, A.N., Qayyumi, M., Mahajani, S.M., and Aghalayam, P. (2006). Reactor model for
the underground coal gasification (UCG) channel. International Journal of Chemical Reactor
Engineering 4, 1-27.
Khandelwal, A. (2008). Cavity Modeling for Underground Coal Gasification. In Chemical
Engineering (IIT Bombay).
Descamps, C., Bouallou C., Kanniche M. (2008). Efficiency of Integrated Gasification Cycle
(IGCC) power plant including CO2 removal. Energy 33, 874-881.
Emun, F., Gadalla, M., Majozi, T. and Boer, D. (2010). Integrated gasification combined
cycle process simulation and optimization. Computers and Chemical Engineering 34, 331-
338.
.
42

Majoumerd, M. M., De, S., Assadi, M., Breuhaus P. (2012). An EU initiative for future
generation of IGCC power plants using hydrogen-rich syngas: Simulation results for the
baseline configuration. Applied Energy 99, 280-290
Sik Kim, Y., Jun Lee, J. , Seop Kim, T., Sohn, Jeong L. (2011). Effects of syngas type on
the operation and performance of a gas turbine in integrated gasification combined cycle.
Energy Conversion and Management 52, 2262-2271
Kreynin, E.V. (2012). An analysis of new generation coal gasification projects. International
Journal of Mining Science and Technology 22, 509-515
Shafirovich, E. and Varma, A.(2009). Undetrgound Coal Gasification : A brief review of
current status. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 48, 7865-7875
Blinderman, M.S. and Jones, R.M.(2002). Chinchilla IGCC Project to Date: Underground
Coal Gasification and Environment (2002 Gasification Technologies Conference, USA)
Thorsness, C.B., Grens, E.A., Sherwood, A., and Laboratory, L.L. (1978). A one-dimensional
model for in situ coal gasification (Dept. of Energy, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory)
Samdani, G. (2012) Annual Project Seminar Report
Webref 1: www.worldcoal.org (last accessed on 28
th
Feb 2013)
Webref 2: http://www.mottmac.com (last accessed on 28
th
Feb 2013)
Webref 3: www.llnl.gov (last accessed on 28
th
Feb 2013)
Webref 4: http://ucgconsulting.com (last accessed on 28
th
Feb 2013)
Webref 5: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankine_cycle (last accessed on 28
th
Feb 2013)
Webref 6: http://www.understandingchp.com (last accessed on 28
th
Feb 2013)