NuRER 2012 – III.

International Conference on Nuclear & Renewable Energy Resources

İstanbul, TURKEY, 20-23 May 2012

TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF AN INTEGRATED GASIFICATION

COMBINED CYCLE POWER PLANT OPERATING WITH YENIKÖY
LIGNITE

Ehsan amirabedin1,Huseyin topal2

1,2
Gazi University, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, 4th Floor, Room 423,
Eti District, Yukselis Street, No:5, P.O.Box 06570, Maltepe, Ankara/Turkey

Abstract

Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plants offer a more efficient electricity generation from coal with minimum
environmental impact compared to conventional coal fired thermal power plants. The purpose of this study is to simulate an
IGCC power plant via Thermoflex simulation software and fire it with low grade Yeniköy lignites. The simulated system consists
of GE type gasifier which operates with wet slurry lignite and uses high pressure steam and oxygen as gasification agents.
Operating pressure and temperature are 32.52 bar and of 1371 ºC, respectively. The simulation results display that a net energy
efficiency of 44 % for approximately 490 MW electricity generation is achievable. Relatively low amount of CO2 and SO2
emissions is observed in comparison with thermal power plants. Considering high amount of discharged energy from condenser
(335 MWth), the energy efficiency of the power plant can be increased notably by applying a CHP (Combined Heat Power)
system.

Keywords: IGCC, gasification, lignite, emissions

1. Introduction

Energy demand in the world continues to increase with the increase in population and economic development, and
coal as the most abundant and vital energy source of the world and, particularly Turkey is considered to supply a
major part of this energy demand. As reported by IEA, Turkey generates 27% of total electricity production from
coal and it shows a growing trend due to increasing natural gas prices. Moreover, according to the 2007 CO2
emissions database, 115.4 million tons of CO2 are released to the atmosphere due to coal combustion in Turkey.
During electricity and heat generation from coal (particularly low grade lignite), a CO 2 emission of 1037 gr
CO2/kWh is calculated for Turkey. As a well-known fact, CO2 emissions in the atmosphere contribute to global
warming with greenhouse gas effects. Therefore lignite fired TPP occupies the center of the environmental and
economical discussions and concerns. It is a vital problem to develop improved methods for more efficient and clean
utilization of lignite. Pre-treatment (e.g., grinding and drying) of coal is widely used for improving combustion
efficiency and lowering the combustion related emissions. The ultimate goal of power generation from low grade
coal with zero emission requires the development of appropriate coal gasification system and integration with the
combined cycle systems with higher exergy utilization.

Gasification is the most promising technology for effective and harmless utilization of coal. In an Integrated
Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC), firs coal is converted to synthetic gas (hydrogen and CO) via a gasifier, and
then combustion process takes place in the combustion chamber of a gas turbine. This technology has advantages
and disadvantages when compared to other alternatives. The net efficiency of an IGCC is notably larger compared to
a conventional thermal power plant and less than a natural gas fired combined cycle. It depends on the gasification
method and gas cleaning technology. Gasifier type, oxidant type, coal feeding system and gas cleaning system are
the major factors which directly affect the performance of the overall power plant.

There are several studies in literature dealing with investigation of IGCC systems [1-12]. Jimenez et al. [1]
performed a simulation by using the ASPEN PLUS software. The Texaco gasifier was selected as base case and the
efficiency of the cycle was found to be 45 % (LHV). The results showed that CO2 and SOx emissions can be reduced
to 698 kg/MWh and 0.15 kg/MWh, respectively. Emun et al. [2] simulated an IGCC process including a Texaco
gasifier and the associated components (coal preparation, air separation unit, gas cleaning, sulfur recovery, gas
turbine, steam turbine and the heat recovery steam generator) with Aspen Plus® simulation software. Moreover,
they carried out an sensitivity analysis of the key operating parameters. The results of parameter analysis indicated
that thermal efficiency of 45% can be reached, while a significant decrease in CO2 and SOx emissions is observed.


E-mail of Corresponding Author: ehsan.amirabedin@gmail.com

1
 NuRER 2012 – III. International Conference on Nuclear & Renewable Energy Resources
İstanbul, TURKEY, 20-23 May 2012

Zheng and Furinsky [3] compared different types of gasifiers for three different fuel stocks by using the ASPEN
PLUS software. Heating values of clean syngas, compositions of syngas and power plant parameters were compared,
and they indicated that lignite is the best fuel feedstock when compared to sub-bituminous and bituminous coals.
The variation of thermal efficiency was found less than 0.5 % with respect to coal type and KRW type of gasifier.
Jiang et al. [4] performed an optimization study on the steam side of an IGCC and the effects of this optimization on
the net efficiency were given. According to the results of that study, increasing the gas turbine outlet temperature
increases the net efficiency, and in the case of 10ºC pinch point temperature for the evaporator of the heat recovery
steam generator (HRSG), the efficiency was found to be the highest. They also showed the effects of GT outlet
temperature to the bottoming cycle efficiency, and at 600ºC outlet temperature the efficiency of the bottoming cycle
with a single and dual pressure HRSG were found to be 38 and 40 %, respectively. At this temperature the ratio of
steam turbine output to the gas turbine output was 63 % for a dual pressure HRSG. Fortes et al. [5] compared eight
different types of feedstock in an IGCC power plant with ASPEN software using real plant data sets. In the study,
co-gasification of coal with pet coke and olive pornace was performed. According to the results of their simulation,
coal shows the best efficiency when compared to other alternatives, and the efficiency of the overall power plant was
found to the 52 %. Huang et al. [6] simulated two alternatives of an IGCC with six cases on the ECLIPSE software.
The efficiency penalty for CO2 capture was approximately 8 to 10 % of the total efficiency. The cost of CO 2 capture
was found as 22US$/tonCO2, and economic analysis of CO 2 transportation was also performed. Ordorica-Garcia et
al. [7] performed a case study by using the ASPEN PLUS software and compared CO 2 capture costs of different
simulated cases. CO2 capture cost varied between 28 to 30 US$/ton CO 2, depending on the CO2 capture efficiency.
Duan et al. [8] suggested a novel cycle with semi closed Brayton cycle and steam injected H 2/O2 cycle to capture
CO2 more effectively. Rezenbrink et al. [9] reported a 450 MW IGCC/CCS project and made an economic analysis
for CO2 avoidance and storage costs. The expected efficiency and specific CO2 emissions of the IGCC were 34 %
(LHV) and 107 g/kWhnet. Chen and Rubin [10] analyzed CO 2 capture costs for different types of coals in an IGCC.
ASPEN PLUS was used for the simulations and GE type Quench gasifier was selected. CO 2 capture (CCS) was
obtained by the Selexol process. According to the results of their simulations CCS reduces the power plant
efficiency by 10-16 %, and first investment cost of the power plant increases by 23-27%. The minimum cost of
electricity generated in an IGCC was found to be 80.4 $/MWh with 2008 prices, where ion transport membrane and
a H type gas turbine was used in the simulations. Decamps et al. [11] showed the effects of CO 2 capture on IGCC
performance and the results show that IGCC efficiency decreases with CCS by 8-12 %, when compared to a non-
CCS IGCC power plant. Mondol et al. [12] simulated a novel IGCC-CCS power plant in ECLIPSE and they
compared the results with IGCC power plants with and without CCS. Absorption Enhanced Reforming process was
used for CO2 capture and a hot gas cleaning system was offered. The results show that the proposed CO 2 capture
plant efficiencies are between 18.5–21 % compared to a conventional IGCC CO2 capture plant. The specific
investment cost of proposed power plants were between 1207 and 1493 €/kWe.

The aim of this study is to simulate an IGCC using Thermoflex simulation software and investigate the feasibility of
this energy conversion system for firing with Yeniköy low grade lignite. Elemental analysis and lower heating
values of Yeniköy lignite is presented in Table 1. A GE type gasifier (formerly known as Chevron Texaco and/or
Texaco gasifiers) with slurry fed, oxygen blown and with a cold gas cleaning system were considered for the
simulations. The results are presented in terms of power generation, energy efficiency and CO2 emissions.

Table 1. Elemental analysis and lower heating values of the utilized lignite’s
Parameter Value Unit
C (Carbon) 39.05 [%]
H (Hydrogen) 3.02 [%]
O (Oxygen) 11.21 [%]
S (Sulphur) 1.42 [%]
N (Nitrogen) 1.46 [%]
W (Water) 24.26 [%]
A (Ash) 19.58 [%]
LHV (Lower heating value) 14626 [kJ/kg]
Data are taken from MTA 2002

2. Description of the system

An IGCC power plant is similar to that of a natural gas fired combined cycle plant which includes a gas turbine and
a steam cycle. An IGCC plant also includes the major functions necessary to produce a gaseous fuel such as; coal
preparation, gasification, air separation and gas cleanup [13].

2
 NuRER 2012 – III. International Conference on Nuclear & Renewable Energy Resources
İstanbul, TURKEY, 20-23 May 2012

Fig.1. shows the schematic diagram of the simulated IGCC with a GE gasifier. GE gasifier is an entrained flow type
gasifier, which uses a single stage down-ward reactor, firing with wet slurry lignite. Before the feeding of the lignite
into the gasifier reactor, the fuel is mixed with high pressure and temperature water, which can be provided from the
heat recovery steam generator (HRSG), therefore, higher operating pressures at the gasifier can be achieved. Oxygen
from a multi-stage intercooled compressor model air separation unit is blown into the gasification reactor. The multi-
stage intercooled compressor model separates the compression station into stages of adiabatic compression followed
by cooling of the compressed gasses in a water cooled heat exchanger. Operating temperature and pressure of the
gasifier are 1320°C and 33 bar, respectively. Most of the ash is removed as solid slag at the base of the reactor. For
the cold cleaning process, produced raw syngas must be cooled before than supplying to the gas purification unit. In
this regard, a radiant cooler is situated directly below the gasifier reactor. This cooler also provides evaporation
heating of the high pressure steam. The cooled raw syngas exits the gasifier vessel and enters a wet-scrubber. Fly ash
and any HCL are absorbed in this component. Following it, a COS hydrolysis reactor converts COS to H 2S. H2S is
then removed from the syngas by an acid gas remover (AGR). The major purpose of using these components is to
reduce the plant sulfur emissions and potential for fouling and corrosion in the HRSG. In the COS hydrolysis plant
the syngas passes through a catalyst where COS reacts with water vapor in the syngas to produce H 2S and CO2. The
remaining gas mixture is the fuel for the gas turbine (GT). For standard IGCCs, this mixture consists of mainly CO
and H2 (syngas). The clean syngas is then delivered to the Mitsubishi 701F model gas turbine-generator with 315
MW electrical power (in ISO condition). Exhaust gases from the gas turbine are passed to the HRSG, supplying the
steam to generate additional electricity through a steam turbine.

The cooled combustion gas is used in a heat exchanger to heat the scrubber water. On the other hand, expanded
steam, leaving the steam turbine, is pumped by the condensate extraction pump to the integral deaerator. The high
pressure pump forces the condensate through the HRSG and completes the steam cycle.

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the IGCC

3
 NuRER 2012 – III. International Conference on Nuclear & Renewable Energy Resources
İstanbul, TURKEY, 20-23 May 2012

3. Results

Thermodynamic systems simulation software, Thermoflex, is utilized to simulate an Integrated Gasification

Combined Cycle, firing with Yeniköy low grade lignite. The general technical and environmental performance of the
simulated power plant is presented in Table 2; moreover, according to the supplementary simulation results, the
following results are obtained;

The pressure and temperature of raw syngas entering the radiant cooler are calculated as 32.52 bar and of 1371 ºC,
respectively. The pressure drop at the radiant syngas cooler section is determined as 1.626 bar. The exit temperature
and pressure of the syngas is 732ºC and 30.89 bar, respectively. Total heat transfer to the water wall is calculated to
be 137.634 MW. Moreover, the exit pressure and temperature from the convective syngas cooler is found to be
28.22 bar and 197.8ºC, respectively. Table 3 shows the raw and clean syngas compositions.

Table 2. IGCC summery

Characteristic Value Unit
Gross power 528.18 MW
Net power 491.02 MW
Generated power via gas turbine 613.40 MW
Generated power via steam turbine 216.95 MW
Compressor power 293.68 MW
Total plant auxiliary 37.15 MW
Total fuel consumption 273.60 t/hr
Net energy efficiency 44.17 %
Plant total CO2 emission 383.50 t/hr
Plant total SO2 emission 84.19 kg/hr
Air Separations Unit power 20.30 MW
Condenser Pump 1.61 MW
Power consumption by Gas Cleaning System 5.10 MW
Power consumption by Gasifier 6.03 MW
Pump 1 3.70 MW
Pump 2 0.21 MW
Pump 3 0.18 MW
Pump 4 0.06 MW

Table 3. Raw and clean syngas composition by volume

CO CO2 CH4 H2 H2S H2O COS N2
Raw Syngas 30.22 13.53 0.002 22.75 0.58 31.00 0.03 1.89
Clean Syngas 44.06 19.76 0.003 33.17 0.001 0.23 0.001 2.76

The lower heating value of the raw syngas is calculated to be 6783 kJ/kg. After the cleaning process the volume
percentage of CO and H2 increases and the lower heating value of the clean syngas becomes 9106 kJ/kg. Meanwhile,
at the exit of the oxygen compressor the pressure of oxygen is found to be 33 bar and the temperature of the oxygen
is 120.4ºC. The mass flow rate of oxygen (95 % purity) is 41.60 kg/s. The total shaft power of the syngas combusted
at the gas turbine is 613.4 MW, and the exit temperature of the combustion gas is 595 ºC. It must be noted that, the
temperature and the mass flow rate of the combustion gas affect the design of the HRSG. The combustion gases pass
through the superheater, re-heater, evaporator and economizer packages, respectively. Steam is generated at a
pressure of 116.7 bar. The temperature of the superheated steam is 521.5 ºC. The condenser pressure is taken as
0.065 bar and the saturation temperature at this point is 37.6 ºC. The rejected heat from the condenser is found to be
336 MW. The stack temperature and the mass flow rate of flue gas are 126 ºC and 757.3 kg/s, respectively.

The detailed thermodynamic properties of each stream of the IGCC are presented in Table 4.

4
 NuRER 2012 – III. International Conference on Nuclear & Renewable Energy Resources
İstanbul, TURKEY, 20-23 May 2012

Table 4. Thermodynamic properties of each stream of the power plant

point State T (°C) P (kpa) m (kg/s)
1 Air 25.00 101.32 173.20
2 Water 25.00 101.32 376.90
3 Water 25.03 543.00 376.90
4 Water 35.02 470.10 376.90
5 Air 25.00 101.32 131.60
6 Oxygen 120.41 3300.00 41.60
7 Lignite 25.00 101.32 76.00
8 Syngass 732.22 3135.00 117.30
9 Slag 100.00 3508.00 15.47
10 Water 25.00 101.32 44.34
11 Water 25.20 3358.00 44.34
12 Water 125.00 3135.00 44.34
13 Water 110.26 3157.00 75.04
14 Acid Gas 37.78 3157.00 1.13
15 Syngass 197.77 2822.00 85.48
16 Syngass 197.77 2550.00 85.48
17 Air 25.00 101.32 671.90
18 Air 444.30 1872.00 585.60
19 Air 444.30 1872.00 86.30
20 Combustion Gas 1357.70 1797.00 671.00
21 Combustion Gas 595.41 103.99 757.30
22 Combustion Gas 149.43 101.57 757.30
23 Combustion Gas 126.00 101.32 757.30
24 Water 25.00 101.32 8061.10
25 Water 35.02 101.32 8061.10
26 Water 37.64 42.39 150.80
27 Water 37.66 290.00 150.80
28 Water 131.71 290.00 150.80
29 Water 120.89 290.00 166.40
30 Water 132.38 339.10 170.20
31 Water 135.37 11702.00 170.20
32 Water 321.65 11690.00 15.20
33 Water 321.65 11690.00 112.50
34 Steam 322.65 11690.00 112.50
35 Steam 322.65 11690.00 3.80
36 Steam 338.02 3185.00 150.80
37 Steam 524.07 3060.00 150.80
38 Steam 519.76 11500.00 150.80
39 Steam/water 37.65 6.50 150.80

4. Conclusions

In this study, an integrated gasification combined cycle is modelled and simulated via Thermoflex simulation
software. The gasifier island consists of a ChevronTexaco and/or Texaco gasifier (GE Energy acquired the
technology in 2004). One stage, slurry fed, oxygen blown and cold gas cleaning system is applied. Mitsubishi 701F
type of gas turbine is selected for the simulations and the waste heat is utilized in a HRSG. The energy efficiencies
and power generation of the plant is evaluated. The results include fuel consumption rate and emission values. The
important conclusions drawn from this study can be summarized as follow:

 Total generated power of the power plant is found to be 490 MW.

 Net energy efficiency of the simulated power plant is determined as 44.17%.

 Lignite consumption rate is calculated as 273.6 t/hr.

 Plant total CO2 and SO2 emissions are found to be 383.50 t/hr and 84.19 kg/hr, respectively.

5
 NuRER 2012 – III. International Conference on Nuclear & Renewable Energy Resources
İstanbul, TURKEY, 20-23 May 2012

References

[1] Jimenez L., Gadalla M., Boer D., Majozi T., Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) process simulation
and optimization, Computers and Chemical Engineering, Article in Press 4 (2009).
[2] Emuna F., Gadalla M., Majozi T., Boer D., Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) process simulation
and optimization, Computers and Chemical Engineering, 34, 331-338 (2010).
[3] Zheng L., Furinsky E., Comparison of Shell, Texaco, BGL and KRW gasifiers as a part of IGCC plant computer
simulations, Energy Conversion and Management, 46, 1767-1779 (2005).
[4] Jiang L., Lin R., Jin H., Cai R., Liu Z., Study on thermodynamic characteristic and optimization of steam cycle
system in IGCC, Energy Conversion and Management, 43, 1339-1348 (2002).
[5] Fortes M., Bojarski A.D., Velo E., Nougues J.M., Puigjaner L., Conceptual model and evaluation of generated
power and emissions in an IGCC plant, Energy, 34, 1721-1732 (2009).
[6] Huang Y., Rezvani S., Wright D., Minchener A., Hewitt N., Techno-economic CO2 capture and storage in coal
fired oxygen fed entrained flow IGCC power plants, Fuel Processing Technology, 89, 916-925 (2008).
[7] Guillermo Ordorica-Garcia G., Douglas P., Croiset E., Zheng L., Technoeconomic evaluation of IGCC power
plants for CO2 avoidance, Energy Conversion and Management, 47, 2250-2259 (2006).
[8] Duan L., Lin R., Deng S., Jin H., Cai R., A novel IGCC system with steam injected H2/O2 cycle and CO2
recovery, Energy Conversion and Management, 45 (2004) 797-809.
[9] W. Rezenbrink, J. Evers, D. Keller, K.J. Wolf, W. Apel, RWE’s 450 MW IGCC/CCS project-Status and
Outlook, Energy Procedia 1, 615-622 (2009).
[10] Chen C., Rubin E., CO2 control technology effects on IGCC plant performance and cost, Energy Policy, 37 915-
924 (2009).
[11] Decamps C., Bouallou C., Kanniche M., Efficiency of an IGCC power plant including CO 2 removal, Energy, 33
874-881 (2008).
[12] Mondol J. D., Wright D., Rezvani S., Huang Y., Hewitt N., Techno-economic evaluation of advanced IGCC
lignite coal fuelled power plants with CO2 capture, Fuel, 88, 2495-2506 (2009).
[13] Maurstad O., Herzog H., Bolland O., Beér J., Impact of coal quality and gasifier technology on IGCC
performance, Science And Technology 1-6 (2006).