Program on Technology Innovation: Liquid CO2

Coal Slurry for Feeding Coal to Gasifiers

1021333

11684354
11684354
Program on Technology Innovation: Liquid CO2
Coal Slurry for Feeding Coal to Gasifiers

1021333

Technical Update, June 2010

EPRI Project Manager

J. Phillips

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 ▪ PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 ▪ USA
11684354800.313.3774 ▪ 650.855.2121 ▪ askepri@epri.com ▪ www.epri.com
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF
WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI).
NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY
PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:

(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH
RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM
DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED
RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS
SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING
ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED
OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS
DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN
THIS DOCUMENT.

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

Dooher Institute of Physics and Energy (DIPE)

This is an EPRI Technical Update report. A Technical Update report is intended as an informal report of
continuing research, a meeting, or a topical study. It is not a final EPRI technical report.

NOTE
For further information about EPRI, call the EPRI Customer Assistance Center at 800.313.3774 or
e-mail askepri@epri.com.

Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER…SHAPING THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY
are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.

Copyright © 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

11684354
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This document was prepared by
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
1300 West W. T. Harris Blvd
Charlotte, NC 28262
Principal Investigator
J. Phillips
Dooher Institute of Physics and Energy (DIPE)
177 Weyford Terrace
Garden City, NY 11530
Principal Investigator
J. Dooher
This document describes research sponsored by EPRI.
This publication is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following
manner:
Program on Technology Innovation: Liquid CO2 Coal Slurry for Feeding Coal to Gasifiers.
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2010. 1021333.

11684354 iii
11684354
 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
Liquid CO2 (CO2(l)) has several property differences from water that make it attractive for the
coal slurries used in coal-gasification-based power plants. Liquid CO2 has a heat of vaporization
that is less than one-quarter of that of water, and it has lower viscosity. Since future coal-based
power plants may have to control CO2 emissions by use of a CO2 capture and storage system, it
may make economic sense to recycle some of the captured CO2 back to the coal feeding system
where it could be used as the slurry medium.
Through its Technology Innovation program, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has
been investigating the feasibility of CO2(l) coal slurry for the past five years. This report
summarizes the results of that effort.

Results and Findings

Because of its lower heat of vaporization, CO2(l) needs less heat from the gasification reactions
to vaporize, and that improves the thermal efficiency of the gasification process. In addition, due
to the lower viscosity of CO2(l) the slurry pipes in commercial-scale gasifiers will be operating
in turbulent flow, which ensures break-up of any coal agglomerates and allows a higher solids
loading in the slurry before it becomes unpumpable. A higher solids loading also improves the
thermal efficiency of the gasification process. Finally, CO2(l) has a surface tension that is two
orders of magnitude different from that of water, which fosters better atomization and is
expected to improve the carbon conversion of a given gasifier.
A computer simulation of a complete integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) power
plant operating on sub-bituminous coal from the U.S. Powder River Basin showed that the “cold
gas efficiency” of the gasification process would improve by 7 percentage points when CO2(l)
was used as the slurry medium instead of water. This improvement carried over into an increase
in the overall thermal efficiency of the IGCC (with CO2 capture and storage) of 2.8 percentage
points. A high-level, factored cost estimate for an IGCC based on CO2(l) slurry showed that the
capital cost of the IGCC sections outside the feed preparation system would decrease on the
order of $350/kW due to the use of CO2(l)-based slurry. If the CO2 liquefaction system and
slurry preparation equipment for an IGCC based on two 60 Hz F-class combustion turbines could
be implemented at an incremental cost of no more than $240 million over a standard water-based
slurry preparation system, this would result in a reduction in IGCC capital cost.
Lab-scale gasification tests carried out in a drop tube reactor have verified that the CO2 in the
slurry will react with the coal and allow a decrease in the oxygen/coal feed ratio. The need for
less oxygen, coupled with the improved cold gas efficiency which decreases the amount of coal
needed to produce a given amount of syngas, leads to an expectation that the capital cost of an
IGCC based on CO2(l)-coal slurry could be less than an IGCC based on water-coal slurry, even
when taking into account the cost for the equipment to produce the CO2(l) slurry.

Challenges and Objectives

The first phase of this effort was focused on reviewing the literature on CO2(l)-coal slurry. It was
found that little work had been carried out on this topic since an EPRI project that funded a flow

11684354 v
test loop. That work, unfortunately, was found to have produced insufficient data to allow more
recent slurry flow prediction models to be used to estimate the solids loading that could be
obtained with a given coal in liquid CO2.
The second phase of this effort was focused on obtaining new rheological data on CO2(l)-coal
mixtures. Samples of two sub-bituminous coals were obtained; both water- and CO2(l)-based
slurries were prepared, and their viscosity was measured over a range of solids loadings and flow
shear rates. These data were then used to predict CO2(l)-coal slurry performance in commercial-
scale gasifier applications. It was predicted that maximum solids loadings with CO2(l)-based
slurry would be 10%–15% greater than the solids loading with the same coal in water.
The third phase of this effort, which is reported here, focused on estimating the performance
impact of using CO2(l)-coal slurry in an IGCC that was capturing and storing CO2. Both
computer simulations of the entire IGCC as well as gasification experiments using a drop tube
reactor were carried out.
The final phase of this effort, also reported here, was the development of an R&D plan that
would help advance this technology and put it in a position to be tested at a pilot scale gasifier.

Applications, Value, and Use

Pre-combustion capture of CO2, such as can be done in an IGCC, continues to be seen as
potentially the most cost-effective approach for capturing CO2 in new coal power plants.
However, IGCC performance is negatively impacted by the use of low rank coals even more so
than combustion-based coal plants. If CO2(l) can be successfully implemented in IGCCs, this
could broaden the market for IGCCs to include a wider range of coal.

EPRI Perspective
EPRI has been examining the concept of CO2(l)-coal slurry since the 1980s and is interested in
working with gasification technology developers to advance the use of CO2(l)-coal slurry in
IGCCs. EPRI is also participating in a collaborative that is examining the technical and
economic feasibility of using CO2(l) slurry pipelines in Alberta to move solids products such as
pet coke and yellow cake sulfur from the oil sands region in northern Alberta to markets in
southern Alberta. The transported CO2 could then also be used for enhanced oil recovery in
southern Alberta.

Approach
An Aspen Tech Aspen Plus® process flowsheet simulator was used to predict the performance of an
IGCC with CO2 capture. EPRI’s IGCC capital cost estimation model used the results of the process
simulation together with capital cost data generated from recent IGCC engineering-economic studies
carried out by EPRI’s CoalFleet for Tomorrow® program to predict the cost of an IGCC using
CO2(l)-coal slurry and compared that to the cost of an IGCC using water-coal slurry.

Keywords
CO2 capture CO2 slurry
IGCC Low-rank coal
Thermal efficiency

11684354 vi
 CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1-1
Project History......................................................................................................................1-1
Organization of This Report .................................................................................................1-2
2 WHY USE LIQUID CO2 INSTEAD OF WATER? ...................................................................2-1
Heat of Vaporization Advantage ..........................................................................................2-1
Viscosity Advantage.............................................................................................................2-1
Atomization Advantage ........................................................................................................2-5
CO2 Reactions with Coal in Gasifier.....................................................................................2-6
Putting It All together..........................................................................................................2-10
Design Basis and Methodology....................................................................................2-10
Process Description .....................................................................................................2-12
EPRI Analysis of Plant-Wide Performance ..................................................................2-17
Discussion of Technology Economics..........................................................................2-20
Conclusions and Recommendations............................................................................2-21
3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PATH ....................................................................................3-1
Task 1: Slurry Preparation Methods and 1/4-1/2” Flow Loop Tests.....................................3-1
Lab Loop Properties.......................................................................................................3-3
Task 2: Rheological Testing.................................................................................................3-3
Task 3: Commercial-Scale (2”) Flow Test Loop...................................................................3-4
Task 4: Atomization Tests..................................................................................................3-11
Task 5: Additional Drop Tube Reactor Tests .....................................................................3-12
Development Program Cost...............................................................................................3-12

11684354 vii
11684354
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Diagrams showing the influence of particle size distribution on maximum packing
density, Φm .................................................................................................................................2-2
Figure 2-2 Chart from Dr. John Dooher showing the impact on slurry viscosity as solids
volume concentration approaches the theoretical maximum value. ..........................................2-3
Figure 2-3 Schematic diagram of drop tube reactor ..................................................................2-7
Figure 2-4 Comparison of Drop Tube Reactor Tests to Aspen Simulations for Spring Creek
coal with and without CO2 recycle..............................................................................................2-9
Figure 2-5 Comparison of Drop Tube Reactor Tests to Aspen Simulations for Cordero Rojo
coal with and without CO2 recycle..............................................................................................2-9
Figure 2-6 Process flow diagram of Case A, conventional IGCC plant with CO2 capture .......2-13
Figure 2-7 Process flow diagram of Case B, IGCC plant with CO2 slurry and gasification
technology................................................................................................................................2-14
Figure 2-8 Auxiliary power distribution for the major process units..........................................2-19
Figure 3-1 Schematic Diagram of Proposed Laboratory Test Loop...........................................3-1
Figure 3-2 Computer model predictions of coal slurry solids loading as a function of slurry
temperature show the impact is greater on coal- CO2 slurry than coal-water slurry. Note
that BDS = “bone dry solids” and “slds” = “as received basis or dry solids plus inherent
moisture”. ...................................................................................................................................3-2
Figure 3-3 ATS High Pressure Rheology Set Up with High Pressure Cell ................................3-4
Figure 3-4 Typical CO2 Storage Tank System ...........................................................................3-6
Figure 3-5 Photo of a typical slurry tank and agitator ................................................................3-7
Figure 3-6 Pipe loop schematic with vertical test loop section...................................................3-9
Figure 3-7 Industrial scale test loop test loop ..........................................................................3-10
Figure 3-8 Photo of high pressure atomization rig ...................................................................3-11

11684354 ix
11684354
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Heat of Vaporization Data for CO2 and H2O ..............................................................2-1
Table 2-2 Maximum Slurry Solids Concentration Calculations ..................................................2-4
Table 2-3 Important Gasification Reactions...............................................................................2-6
Table 2-4 Drop Tube Reactor Experimental Condition at 1100˚C (Syngas Composition
Normalized to exclude N2 and leakage O2) ...............................................................................2-8
Table 2-5 Sub-bituminous Wyoming Powder River Basin coal characteristics........................2-11
Table 2-6 Advanced Syngas and CO2 Processing Case B......................................................2-18
Table 2-7 Performance Comparison for selected case studies ...............................................2-19
Table 2-8 Comparison of Case Results ...................................................................................2-21

11684354 xi
11684354
1
INTRODUCTION
Project History
Liquid CO2 (CO2(l)) has several property differences from water that make it attractive for use in
coal slurries; namely it has a heat of vaporization that is less than one quarter of that of water and
it has lower viscosity. In the 1980s, EPRI funded a project, conducted by Arthur D. Little, Inc. 1 ,
involving laboratory and pilot plant scale tests on CO2(l) slurries using North Dakota lignite and
Wyoming sub-bituminous coal. Tests with up to 88wt% solids were reported. This is
significantly higher than solids levels obtained using water as the slurry fluid.
These results were used in a subsequent engineering-economic study on the use of lignite in an
IGCC using what was then the Texaco coal gasification process (now GE Energy’s technology). 2
The results indicated that the cold gas efficiency of the gasification process could be increased
by 13 percentage points by using CO2(l)/lignite slurry with 88wt% solids versus operation with
60wt% solids water/lignite slurry. Despite the dramatic potential improvement in gasification
performance, the use of CO2(l)/coal slurries was not pursued after the mid-1980s. This was due
to the overall lack of interest in coal gasification caused by the fall in natural gas and oil prices in
1986 and the relatively high cost of adding equipment to an IGCC to produce CO2(l).
However, with the increased likelihood that CO2 will have to be captured in new coal plants, and
the fact that low rank coals (LRC) are the major coal resource in the U.S. and elsewhere, it
makes sense to revisit the concept of CO2(l)/coal slurry.
In December 2006, EPRI, through its Technology Innovation (TI) program, funded a study to re-
examine the potential advantages of using CO2 (l)/coal slurry 3 . While the analysis cast doubt on
the ability to actually achieve liquid CO2/coal slurry solids contents as high as 88wt% (dry solids
basis), it did predict that solids loadings with LRC could be increased from 40-50wt% (dry solids
basis) with water as the slurrying agent to over 60wt% (dry solids basis) with liquid CO2. It is
important to note that the actual coal content of the slurries was not measured in the Arthur D.
Little program, but was inferred from density measurements, and no controlled rheology studies
were done.
Based on the promising results of this Phase l effort, a follow on program was undertaken which
expanded the theoretical hydrodynamic analyses of LRC//CO2(l) slurries, undertook laboratory
rheology studies, analyzed effects of carbon dioxide in the gasifier through ASPEN simulations
and drop tube furnace experiments, and investigated the design of a development program to
evaluate LRC/ CO2(l) slurry handling including atomization.

1
EPRI AP-4849, 1986
2
EPRI AP-4509, 1986
3
EPRI Report 1014432, 2006

11684354 1-1
An initial report on the Phase 2 effort was published in 2008 4 . The main conclusion from that
report was that at rheological tests in high-pressure shear cells on two US sub-bituminous coals
showed that at high shear rates typical of what is expected in commercial coal gasification feed
lines, the slurryability of LRC in liquid CO2 was approximately 0.85, which is 15-25% higher
than the slurryability of LRC in water.
Another interim report on the Phase 2 effort was published in 2009. 5 It extended the
hydrodynamic model of coal/CO2(l) slurry using the results of the lab viscosity tests on LRC to
predict the solids loading that would be expected in commercial scale coal gasification systems
for the coals tested in the high pressure rheometer. It also clarified the impact of water intrusion
into liquid CO2 coal slurry which had been observed during the lab tests. The predicts showed
that liquid CO2 coal slurry would have a dry solids content of 61.1wt% for Spring Creek coal and
57.4wt% for Codero Rojo coal while the expected values for coal-water slurry would be 51.5
wt% and 48.5wt% respectively. The report also recommended that a plan for scaling up the
concept and resolving remaining technical questions should be developed. That recommendation
was accepted by EPRI and Dooher Institute was asked to develop such a plan while also
conducting some drop tube reactor tests to investigate the impact on gasification reactions of
using CO2 as the slurry liquid. EPRI also conducted its own investigation of the potential impact
of liquid CO2 coal slurry on overall IGCC performance and economics using an in-house
ASPEN model and IGCC capital cost database.

Organization of This Report

After this introductory section, Section 2 attempts to answer the question “why use liquid CO2
instead of water to make coal slurry”? It summarizes what has been learned during this TI project
on the advantages of liquid CO2 over water including the impacts of the differences in heat of
vaporization, viscosity and surface tension between CO2 and water. The chapter also summarizes
the results of the drop tube reactor tubes conducted as a final part of the project and of the IGCC
performance and capital cost estimates conducted by EPRI.
Section 3 presents the development path proposed by Dooher Institute to help advance this
technology and put it in a position to be tested at a pilot scale gasifier.

4
EPRI Report 1016172, 2008
5
EPRI Report 1018854, 2009

11684354 1-2
2
WHY USE LIQUID CO2 INSTEAD OF WATER?
Using liquid CO2 instead of water as the carrier for coal in slurry has several significant
advantages that all lead to lower oxygen consumption by the gasifier and higher overall thermal
efficiency of an IGCC. Several of those advantages are summarized in this section.

Heat of Vaporization Advantage

Liquid CO2 has a significantly lower heat of vaporization than water at typical gasifier operating
pressures (see Table 2-1). This means that less heat from the gasification reactions is needed to
vaporize the slurry liquid when CO2 is used. This should promote higher temperatures within the
gasifier for the same oxygen/coal feed ratios and lower oxygen/coal ratios will be needed to
maintain the same gasifier operating temperature when CO2 is used as the carrier fluid. Lower
oxygen demand will reduce the auxiliary power load of the gasification system and will increase
the net power output of an IGCC. Having less of the reaction heat going to vaporize the slurry
fluid will increase the cold gas efficiency of the gasifier which means less coal will be needed to
produce the gaseous fuel needed by the gas turbines. That will also increase the overall thermal
efficiency of the IGCC while also decreasing the capital cost of the coal handling, milling and
pressurization, and slag handling systems.

Table 2-1
Heat of Vaporization Data for CO2 and H2O 6
Pressure CO2 hfg H2O hfg hfg ratio, CO2/H2O
MPa kJ/kg kJ/kg -
3.66 225.45 1741.1 0.129
4.16 209.16 1701.6 0.123
4.71 190.69 1660.9 0.115
5.31 169.14 1618.0 0.105
5.98 142.61 1571.6 0.091

Viscosity Advantage
For the same temperature and pressure liquid CO2 has lower viscosity than water. This means
liquid CO2 should take less energy than water to pump through a pipe. It also means that more
solids can be added to a slurry with liquid CO2 as the carrier fluid before the pressure limit of a
pump is reached. Consequently, higher solids loadings should be possible when using liquid CO2
as the slurrying medium and this will decrease the heat requirement needed to vaporize the slurry
even more.

6
Reynolds, W.C., “Thermodynamic Properties in SI”, Stanford University, 1979.

11684354 2-1
The fluid dynamics of slurries is a complex subject that this covered in detail in the two previous
reports on this TI project. In general, the theoretical maximum solids loading on a volume basis
cannot exceed the maximum packing density of collection of solid particles. The maximum
particle packing concentration on a volume basis is determined by the particle size distribution of
the solids. A mixture of solids with a variety of sizes will have a greater maximum packing
concentration than a mixture with uniform size particles. With a variety of sizes, the smaller
particles can fit into the gaps left by the larger particles (see Figure 2-1).

φm=.63

φm=.74

Figure 2-1
Diagrams Showing the Influence of Particle Size Distribution on Maximum Packing Density, Φm

The maximum volumetric solids concentration of a slurry would be a situation where the
maximum packing concentration of the particles was achieved and the slurry fluid filled in all the
remaining gaps. However, experiments have shown that such a concentration is unflowable
because the particles create a bridge through surface-to-surface contact and lock up. In fact, tests
by Dr. John Dooher have shown that as solids volume concentration, Φ, in a slurry approaches
the maximum theoretical loading, Φm, the slurry viscosity approaches infinity.

11684354 2-2
 530 φ=.66

441
Relative
Slurry
viscosity

φ=.60

φm1=.63 φm2=.69
Volume concentration
Figure 2-2
Chart from Dr. John Dooher Showing the Impact on Slurry Viscosity as Solids Volume
Concentration Approaches the Theoretical Maximum Value

In addition to the limits imposed by the maximum particle packing concentration, the maximum
slurry solids concentration is also influenced by the tendency of the particles to agglomerate (the
smaller particles then act like one big particle) and the porosity of the particles. Agglomeration,
in turn, is influenced by static electric charge forces and shear forces within the slurry, as
discussed in the 2009 report on this project. CO2 is a poor electrical conductor and therefore any
electric charges on a coal particle will tend remain on the particle which prevents build-up of
large static electric forces. Because CO2 has a lower viscosity than water, liquid CO2 will have a
higher Reynolds number than water flowing at the same velocity in a pipe. Consequently, liquid
CO2 slurries will reach turbulent flow at a lower flow velocity and the turbulence will help
break-up any agglomerates that do form in the slurry.
Dooher has defined a parameter, slurryability, S, to indicate how close a mixture of solids and
fluid can come to the theoretical maximum solids concentration:
S= Φpc/Φm
Φpc is the predicted maximum solids concentration that can be pumped. S is always less than 1.0.
S is intended to represent the influence of things other than particle size distribution on
maximum solids loading, and Dooher’s experiments have shown that is it independent of particle
size distribution for a given solid-liquid combination.
Data from the high pressure rheometer tests showed that the viscosity of the liquid CO2 coal
slurries decreased as shear increased, which agrees with the theory that turbulence and/or high
shear should break-up agglomerates. It also showed that the slurryability of both tested coals

11684354 2-3
with liquid CO2 was 0.85 while the slurryability of the Spring Creek coal on water was 0.72 and
the slurryability on Cordero coal was 0.67. Consequently, for the same particle size distribution
one would expect approximately 20% higher volumetric solids loadings from the maximum
pumpable slurry made with liquid CO2 than with water.
The maximum solids loading for a slurry on a mass basis, Xm, can be calculated from the
maximum volume concentration by multiplying the density ratio of the particles and the slurry:
Xm = Φm ρp/ρs
The density of the slurry can be calculated from the particle and fluid densities:
ρs = Φρp + (1-Φ)ρf
so:
Xm = Φm ρp/( Φm ρp + (1- Φm) ρf)
The tested coal had a particle density of 1400 kg/m3 while liquid CO2 has a density of circa 900
kg/m3 and water has a density of 1000 kg/m3. Using this data and the calculated maximum
theoretical volumetric packing fraction corresponding to a particle size distribution typically
used at a commercial coal gasification plant, one can determine the maximum theoretical coal
slurry mass fractions as shown in below. It should be noted that the density difference also works
in favor of CO2 since even if the fluids had the same slurryability values, the lower density of
CO2 would create a higher solids mass fraction in the CO2 slurry than the water slurry since the
liquid fraction was lighter.

Table 2-2
Maximum Slurry Solids Concentration Calculations

Spring Creek Cordero-Rojo

As Received (AR) Moisture, wt% 25.4% 29.59%
Theoretical Max Packing, Φm 0.893 0.893
H2O Slurryability, S 0.72 0.67
CO2 Slurryability, S 0.85 0.85
Coal-Water Slurry
Practical max solids vol%, Φpc 64.3% 59.8%
Max slurry density, kg/m3 1257 1239
Max Slurry solids wt% AR basis 71.6% 67.6%
Max Slurry solids wt% dry basis 53.4% 47.6%
Coal- CO2 Slurry
Practical max solids vol%, Φpc 75.9% 75.9%
Max slurry density, kg/m3 1280 1280
Max Slurry solids wt% AR basis 83.1% 83.1%
Max Slurry solids wt% dry basis 62.0% 58.5%

11684354 2-4
Atomization Advantage
The Phase 1 report in 2006 identified for the first time the potential advantage liquid CO2 may
have in improving the atomization of coal slurry because of the significant difference in surface
tension between liquid CO2 and water. Professor Dooher identified that for a viscous fluid or
high concentration coal slurry a reasonable fit for predicting the droplet diameter of an atomizing
jet is obtained with the following model:

SMD (Sauter Mean Diameter) = Ka2(√(η/√ρAσa))We-1.09/zΘ

Where:
• We (Weber number) = ρAVA2a/σ
• ρA = atomizing gas density
• VA= relative jet velocity
• a = jet diameter
• η = effective slurry viscosity
• σ = surface tension of carrier liquid
• z = distance along spray axis
• Θ = spray angle
• K = system dependant adjustable constant

Using a surface tension for CO2(l) of 0.6dyne/cm and 72dyne/cm for water and z/a>1, and a
viscosity for coal slurry at maximum pumpable concentration of η≈50cp for CO2 and 500cp for
water using the equation above for Sauter Mean Diameter for the two slurries at the same
distance, z, and spray angle one finds:

SMD(coal/CO2)≈10-2SMD(coal/water slurry)

It appears from the formula that the coal/CO2 slurry will still atomize to the bare coal particles
almost immediately upon injection into a gasifier while high concentration coal/water slurry will
atomize further into the jet stream and may result in agglomerating particles. The practical
impact of this that oxygen will start reacting sooner with coal particles when liquid CO2 is used
at the slurry fluid, and this should provide better carbon conversion at the same gasifier residence
time and operating temperature than one would achieve with water as the slurry fluid.
While better carbon conversion would clearly be a positive development from better atomization,
another potential impact is that the heat flux on the gasifier wall near the feed injector(s) may
increase if liquid CO2 is used as the slurry fluid since the gasification reactions will start closer to
the injector. This might require a re-design of the gasifier wall (e.g., actively cooled wall instead
of refractory) and feed injector (e.g., better cooling).

11684354 2-5
CO2 Reactions with Coal in Gasifier

When coal enters a gasifier it first goes through a devolatilization process as it heats up. Once
devolatilization is completed the coal particle consists of char consisting principally solid carbon
and ash. The carbon in the char is then partially oxidized by reacting with O2, CO2 or H2O or
some combination of those three compounds via series of chemical reactions. The most
important gasification reactions are listed in Table 2-3 below.

Table 2-3
Important Gasification Reactions
No. Reaction Comments
1 C + O2 = CO2 (exothermic – rapid)
2 C + 1/2O2 = CO (exothermic – rapid)
3 C + H2O = CO + H2 (endothermic – slower than oxidation)
4 C + CO2 = 2CO (endothermic – slower than oxidation)
5 CO + H2O = CO2 + H2 Shift Reaction (slightly exothermic)
6 CO + 3H2 = CH4 + H2O Methanation (exothermic)
7 C + 2H2 = CH4 Direct Methanation (exothermic)

Reaction 4 in Table 2-3 is known as the reverse Boudouard reaction and will clearly play an
important role if CO2 is used as the slurry fluid. Note that this reaction is endothermic, which
means it will tend to decrease the operating temperature of the gasifier. However, reaction 3 is
also endothermic and it will occur less frequently because of the replacement of water with CO2
in the slurry. In addition the decreased heat duty needed to vaporize the slurry will also tend to
drive the gasifier to hotter temperature unless the O2/coal ratio (and reactions 1 and 2) is
decreased.
Since the kinetics of reaction 4 are slower than reactions 1 and 2, it is not immediately clear how
much of the CO2 in the slurry will react with char in a gasifier. In order to gain some insight into
the degree to which the reverse Boudouard reaction will participate in the gasification process if
CO2 is recycle via the coal slurry, EPRI commissioned a short series of lab scale tests in a drop
tube reactor (DTR) at Columbia University’s Department of Earth and Environmental
Engineering. The tests were conducted on the same coal samples which were used in the high
pressure rheology tests.
The DTR was made of quartz tubing (GE type 214, National Scientific Company) and was 2 m
long, 25.4 mm OD (1 inch) and 19 mm ID (0.75 inch). Connections were made using 25.4mm
OD Stainless Ultra Torr® Fittings (Swagelok SS-16-UT-6). The DTR was vertically secured in
the center of a furnace using a 25.4 mm OD bulkhead union (Swagelok ss-1610-61). The furnace
used was a split-hinged vertical furnace with five temperature zones (SV Furnace MA #100087,
Mellen Inc.). The temperature was simultaneously compared with S-type thermocouples
implemented in each zone of the furnace to maintain the target temperature. In order to minimize
heat transfer from the reactor and secure the quartz tubing an insulation collar (Duraboard high
temperature insulation) was inserted into the top and bottom of the furnace. The overall

11684354 2-6
experimental scheme is illustrated in Figure 2-3. The temperature deviation in the DTR is less
than ±8˚C and the temperature deviation between the DTR and furnace wall is less than ±3˚C.
The coal sample was introduced continuously to the DTR using screw feeder (WLS-0.3).

Figure 2-3
Schematic diagram of drop tube reactor

All gases used for the DTR experiments were ultra high purity from TechAir (New York). All
gas flow rates were set using Aalborg Thermal Mass Flow Meters (GFCS-01038) certified by
Alborg Inc and the flow rates were also checked with Bubble-O-Meter and Alltech Digital Flow
CheckTM to ensure accurate flow control. The steam was generated using an electric furnace at a
temperature of 270˚C and the steam flow rate was controlled using syringe pump (Cole-Parmer®
single syringe infusion pump, EW-74900-5). The steam has been injected for all coal gasification
experiments.
Laboratory drop tube testing was done to begin to validate ASPEN simulations of an entrained
flow gasifier. Table 2-4 lists the experiments that were carried out and the resulting syngas
composition. Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5 show the comparison results between the drop tube
testing and the ASPEN runs using O2/Coal with and without CO2 addition at a temperature of
1100ºC. The residence time within the DTR for the tests that were performed were

11684354 2-7
approximately six seconds, was is on the same order of magnitude of residence time in
commercial-scale entrained flow gasifiers. As can be seen, the data match well with the ASPEN
simulations for H2/CO ratio production. As predicted by the ASPEN simulations and also by
simple inspection of the reactions in Table 2-3, the H2/CO ratio of the product syngas decreased
when CO2 recycle was simulated by adding CO2 to the reactants. The close match adds
confidence that using CO2(l)/coal slurries for power generation will provide the efficiency
benefits predicted by the ASPEN simulations.

Table 2-4
Drop Tube Reactor Experimental Condition at 1100˚C (Syngas Composition Normalized to Exclude
N2 and leakage O2)
Coal Steam O2 feed CO2 H2 CO CO2 CH4 Σgas
feed feed rate rate feed
rate rate
Spring 0.5g 0.55g 0.6g 0g 47.78 34.62 13.96 2.71 99.1
Creek Coal
Condition 1
Spring 0.5g 0.55g 0.9g 0g 40.39 27.04 31.68 0.88 100
Creek Coal
Condition 2
Spring 0.5g 0.55g 0.6g 0.3g 39.99 30.5 28.36 1.17 100
Creek Coal
Condition 3
Spring 0.5g 0.55g 0.9g 0.3g 23.22 37.78 37.79 1.20 100
Creek Coal
Condition 4
Cordero- 0.5g 0.61g 0.6g 0g 47.81 38.30 11.78 2.071 100
Rojo Coal
Condition 1
Cordero- 0.5g 0.61g 0.9g 0g 37.88 36.68 23.44 1.99 100
Rojo Coal
Condition 2
Cordero- 0.5g 0.61g 0.6g 0.3g 15.43 45.08 38.41 1.07 100
Rojo Coal
Condition 3
Cordero- 0.5g 0.61g 0.9g 0.3g 8.71 41.79 48.7 0.80 100
Rojo Coal
Condition 4

11684354 2-8
 O2/Coal=0.6
O2/Coal=0.9 O2/Coal=0.9
CO2 Recycle

O2/Coal=0.6
CO2 Recycle

Figure 2-4
Comparison of Drop Tube Reactor Tests to Aspen Simulations for Spring Creek coal with and
without CO2 recycle

Wyoming Coal

O2/Coal=0.6

O2/Coal=0.9
O2/Coal=0.9
CO2 Recycle

O2/Coal=0.6
CO2 Recycle

Figure 2-5
Comparison of Drop Tube Reactor Tests to Aspen Simulations for Cordero Rojo Coal with and
without CO2 recycle.

11684354 2-9
It should be noted that the DTR results without CO2 recycle generally had a higher H2/CO ratio
than the ASPEN predictions while the DTR results with CO2 recycle either matched the ASPEN
H2/CO predictions or were slightly less than the predictions. This could be an indication that the
presence of the additional CO2 in the recycle cases was some how impacting the kinetics of the
gasification process. This is a result that deserves additional investigation in the future.
Nevertheless, if the CO2 had been slow to react with the char, there would be less CO than
predicted by ASPEN and the experimental values of H2/CO ratio would be greater than the
ASPEN predictions. That was not the case, so one can deduce that the reaction of CO2 with char
is fast enough to occur within the six second residence time of the DTR.

Putting It All together

A modeling of gasifier performance on Cordero coal showed higher carbon conversions at lower
oxygen/coal ratios for CO2 slurries than for water slurries. Following this analysis, Aspen Plus
modeling was performed to evaluate the impact of CO2 slurry on an entire IGCC plant using sub-
bituminous Wyoming Powder River Basin (PRB).
An Aspen Plus model of an entire IGCC plant with CO2 capture was utilized as the reference
plant for the study. The model was developed by EPRI and is based on coal-water slurry fed
gasifier under the assumption of fixed gasifier heat loss and temperature while calculating syngas
composition as a function of the oxygen/coal feed ratio. The model was run in its original state to
get a base case on coal-water slurry (CWS).
The model was then modified to incorporate a CO2 recycle loop to allow the feeding of liquid
CO2 coal slurry and to evaluate the performance of the modified IGCC over the base case. The
original model was modified such that a portion of the captured CO2 would be extracted from the
multistage CO2 compressor, refrigerated and recycled to mix with the coal feed. The
compression of the CO2 was based on its liquefaction temperature and gasifier pressure. At
700psi pure CO2 becomes liquid below a temperature about 55°F and the model provides
refrigeration down to 40°F before mixing with the coal.
Based on the results of the theoretical and experimental determination of the optimum slurries
concentration from handling and rheological analyses the ASPEN analyses were done on
optimized slurries of water and CO2 to determine advantages over CWS with low rank coals,
both from the overall coal-to-electric power thermal efficiency and the net power output.

Design Basis and Methodology

Two cases are evaluated in this modeling study. The base case is a model designed at EPRI using
the steady-state Aspenplus process modeling software. This case is based on the GE gasification
technology and includes full CO2 capture based on physical solvent-based Selexol process.
The CO2 slurry concept case modified the EPRI Aspen Plus model. The data used to model the
CO2 slurry concentration was received from Dr. Dooher and the gasification model was
estimated by EPRI based on thermodynamic principles.

11684354 2-10
To promote consistent nomenclature, the cases are referred to as:
• Case A: Base case with Coal Water Slurry (CWS)
• Case B: Novel case with CO2 slurry
Each IGCC configuration was designed based on the process design parameters, fuel properties,
and assumptions listed in this section. The net power production for each configuration depends
on the coal type, coal gasification technology, and syngas and CO2 processing.
The following assumptions were made about the technical design:
• Site location: Kenosha, Wisconsin
• Site features: Clear and level with access to water and rail transportation
• Elevation: 600 ft
• Ambient conditions: 59°F, 14.4 psia, 60% relative humidity
• Power block: 2x1 GE 7FB gas turbines/subcritical steam turbine
• CO2 capture strategy: Full capture (80–90%)

A common U.S feedstock, sub-bituminous Wyoming Powder River Basin coal, was used in this
case study. Fuel properties are shown in the table below.

Table 2-5
Sub-bituminous Wyoming Powder River Basin Coal Characteristics
Proximate Analysis

(Wt %) (As Received)

Inherent Moisture 30.24
Ash 5.32
Volatile Matter 31.39
Fixed Carbon (by difference) 33.05
Ultimate Analysis (Wt %) (dry, ash free)
Carbon 48.18
Hydrogen 3.31
Nitrogen 0.7
Chlorine 0.01
Sulfur 0.37
Oxygen 11.87
Ash Fusion Temperature Reducing °C (°F) 1,188 (2,171)
Heating Value (Air Dried Basis)
Higher MJ/kg (Btu/lb) 19.40 (8,340)
Lower MJ/kg (Btu/lb) 17.94 (7,712)

11684354 2-11
The carbon dioxide characteristics at plant battery limits are the following:
• Status: Supercritical
• Pressure: 152 barg (2216 psig)
• Temperature: 30°C (86°F)
• Purity: >95.0 % wt
• Total S content: ≤100 ppmv
• CO content: 1000 ppmv (max)
• Moisture: -40°F dewpoint
• Inerts: To be minimized

The carbon recovery level is approximately 90% with respect to the carbon entering the plant,
based on the maximum practical removal percentage resulting from optimized CO2 capture plant
components. This relates to the use of two CO shift stages and approximately 85-90% capture for
each case. Residual carbon in the gasifier by-products is not considered as carbon emission.

Process Description
For simplification of discussion and results presentation, the IGCC plant has been broken into
five major process units, shown below. The process flow diagrams, Figure 2-6 and Figure 2-7,
are color coded to represent the major process units.
• ASU (blue coding)
• Gasification island (yellow)
• Syngas and CO2 processing (green)
• Power block (red)
• Balance of plant (not shown in diagram; orange in performance comparisons throughout
report)

11684354 2-12
Figure 2-6
Process Flow Diagram of Case A, Conventional IGCC Plant with CO2 Capture

Aside from differences in the coal slurry preparation and gasification, the evaluated cases
assumed a common set of plant equipment operating at similar conditions. The CO2 slurry case,
Figure 2-7, adds a chiller process unit for liquefaction which is fed compressed CO2 recovered
from the multistage compressor. Entrained gases are separated and fed to the syngas conditioning
step and the purified CO2 is fed to the slurry preparation unit. In addition, steam is added to the
water-gas-shift reactor to promote the shift reaction.

11684354 2-13
Figure 2-7
Process flow diagram of Case B, IGCC plant with CO2 slurry and gasification technology

Air Separation Unit

The cryogenic ASU produces pressurized oxygen at 95% purity (by volume) for the partial
oxidation reaction in the gasifier. The bulk of nitrogen separated from the ASU feed air stream is
used as diluents for the gas turbine combustor (to reduce NOx formation) or hydrogen membrane
sweep gas in the advanced syngas processing design. Additional nitrogen uses are unique to each
case discussed in this report including purge gas and as a carrier gas for fluidization in the warm
gas cleanup section.
The unit is arranged in a dual train configuration (2 x 50% trains), with the capacity defined by the
oxygen requirement of the gasification island and the sulfur recovery plant in the reference case.
The ASU trains use partial air integration with the gas turbines in the combined cycle power
block (that is, during normal operation, a portion of the compressed air from the gas turbine is
fed to the ASU in order to reduce the duty of the ASU main air compressors). The degree of
integration between the gas turbines and the ASU varies for each case, depending on gasification
island oxygen demand, power turbine mass flow requirements, and available nitrogen diluents gas.

Gasification Island
The coal slurry preparation and feed to the gasifier is unique for each case studied in this report.
Case B is typical of commercially operating GE Energy R/Q technology with a water coal slurry
preparation and feed system. Case A uses liquefied CO2 in place of water for slurry. To maintain
the liquefied state, the coal slurry is maintained at 40°F at the gasifier feed pressure. This low
temperature operation requires modification of slurry preparation equipment.

11684354 2-14
The gasification island is a GE Energy R/Q technology using a single-stage, downward-firing,
entrained-flow, slurry feed, oxygen blown, slagging gasifier with radiant and quench cooling.
Coal slurry and oxygen are introduced at the top of the gasifier’s refractory-lined reaction
chamber and react at very high temperature (~2,550°F) and high pressure. Syngas and molten
slag flow downward through the radiant syngas cooler, which produces high-pressure steam
while recovering part of the heat available from the combustion reactions. The gas and slag are
further cooled in a water-filled quench chamber. The raw syngas then flows to the syngas
scrubber for the removal of entrained solids through contact with process condensate. The syngas
from the overhead of the syngas scrubber is routed to the syngas treatment and conditioning line.
The coarse fraction of the solidified slag is removed from the quench section through a slag
crusher and water-filled lockhopper system. The syngas scrubber bottom stream contains all of
the solids that were not removed in the gasifier quench chamber.
In the CO2 coal slurry case, the gasification temperature, pressure, carbon conversion and heat
loss from the reactor are assumed equal to the water slurry case. In order to meet this condition,
the amount of oxygen provided to the gasifier to facilitate gasification is reduced by 13%. The
gasification efficiency (syngas heating value divided by thermal input of coal) increases by 7%
as a result.

Syngas and CO2 Processing

Downstream of the gasification island, this study evaluates one common set of equipment for
both capture cases. These components only vary slightly to accommodate additional CO2
processing equipment to provide liquid CO2 for the slurry.
In Case A (base case with CWS) the primary elements of the syngas treatment and conditioning
line are the two stage water-gas shift reactors, mercury removal package, AGR unit with CO2
capture, sulfur recovery (Claus) unit, and CO2 compression and dehydration equipment. Heat
exchangers and knockout drums are used to recover heat and condensate while cooling the
syngas.
Case B (CO2 coal slurry case) adds CO2 extraction from the multistage compressor and
refrigeration for liquefaction.

Water-Gas Shift
The water-gas shift reactors enable a high CO2 capture rate by converting 93–95% of CO to CO2
(while converting H2O to H2). The configuration is based on two consecutive beds of sulfur-
tolerant catalyst (sour shift reaction), with intermediate cooling for syngas preheating and steam
generation. Unit performance data were provided by Haldor Topsoe, which estimated the steam
requirement at the catalyst bed inlet at a minimum steam-to-CO molar ratio of 1.9. In Case A, no
additional steam is added to the syngas upstream of the shift due to the water present in the
syngas stream. Case B utilizes a CO2 slurry and requires additional steam input upstream the
WGS to meet shift catalyst specification.

11684354 2-15
Mercury Removal
The mercury removal package uses sulfur-impregnated activated carbon beds, which have the
capacity to remove almost all (95%) of the mercury in the syngas stream.

AGR, Sulfur Recovery, and Tail Gas Recycle

In both cases, a UOP Selexol unit is retrofitted for H2S and CO2 absorption. Tail gas from the
sulfur recovery unit (SRU) is recycled to the inlet of the AGR. The Selexol unit produces two
pressurized CO2 streams that, when combined, meet the design CO2 purity specification (≤100
ppmv total sulfur).

CO2 Processing
The two CO2 streams produced by the AGR in Case A are combined in a multistage compressor
and sent to a solid desiccant system that dehydrates the CO2 stream to a dewpoint of -40°F. After
dehydration, the CO2 stream is compressed to a supercritical condition at 2,216 psig and
delivered to the plant battery limits at a purity of 99.8% by weight.
In Case B, the two CO2 streams produced by the AGR are combined in a multistage compressor
and compressed to 710 psig where some of the CO2 is pulled off of the compressor. The
remaining CO2 stream is compressed to a supercritical condition at 2,216 psig and delivered to
the plant battery limits at a purity of 99.8% by weight.
The extracted CO2 is sent to a chiller for liquefaction and pumping to the coal slurrying
equipment. At this pressure CO2 becomes liquid at temperatures below ~55°F and the
refrigeration unit chills the CO2 to 40°F. Entrained gases are flashed off of the liquid CO2 and
recycled to the clean syngas. The remaining, high purity, CO2 is fed to the slurry preparation
equipment.

Power Block
The power block consists of two syngas-fired or decarbonized syngas-fired GE 7F syngas gas
turbines with HRSGs that produce steam, which is expanded through a single steam turbine train
for further power generation. The combined cycle is thermally integrated with the other process
units in order to increase the net electrical efficiency of the plant.
It should be noted that the air extraction rate used in this study for hydrogen-rich syngas is
outside of the current GE Energy combustion test experience. Further analysis and dedicated test
campaigns will likely be needed before such a gas turbine is offered commercially.

Balance-of-Plant
Balance-of-plant systems are included in the auxiliary load calculations for each case studied.
The cooling water system consists of raw water in a closed loop, with a mechanical draft,
multicell, evaporative cooling tower. Makeup water for the process water, potable water, and
demineralized water systems is drawn from a nearby lake. The demineralized water system uses
reverse osmosis and electro-deionization to produce water for boiler feedwater makeup and other
uses. A ZLD wastewater treatment system helps minimize water consumption and avoids off-site
discharge of process liquids.

11684354 2-16
Auxiliary power supply is provided by an accessory electrical plant that consists of an auxiliary
power transformer, switchgear and control equipment, backup generator equipment, station
service equipment, conduit and cable trays, wire, and cable.

EPRI Analysis of Plant-Wide Performance

IGCC plant configurations based on the GE Energy R/Q gasifier and Powder River Basin coal
constitute the reference and advanced study case. Each configuration employs two gasifier trains,
two advanced F-Class gas turbines, two HRSGs, and one steam turbine. The reference case was
designed with commercially available syngas processing and gasification equipment whereas the
advanced study case uses pre-commercial technology modeled to evaluate the potential future
benefit of novel CO2 coal slurry on low rank coals in quench based gasification technology.

11684354 2-17
Table 2-6
Advanced Syngas and CO2 Processing Case B

11684354 2-18
Plant Performance Comparison
Plant performance data for the two case studies are shown in the table below.

Table 2-7
Performance Comparison for Selected Case Studies
Case A Case B

Gas Turbine Power (MWe) 464,000 464,000

Steam Turbine (MWe) 369,500 317,000

Total Gross Power (MWe) 833,500 781,000

Total Auxiliaries (MWe) 258,730 225,360

Net Plant Power (MWe) 574,770 555,640

Net Plant Efficiency (HHV) 29.8% 32.6%
Net Heat Rate (Btu/kWh HHV) 11,457 10,469

Total Thermal Input (MWth HHV) 1,930 1,704

CO2 Capture Rate 90.50% 85.92%

Figure 2-8 is a graph of auxiliary power requirements of each of the five major plant sections.
Case B reduces the ASU auxiliary power by 18% with nominal reductions for the other major
process equipment.

300
Power Block
Total Auxiliary Power (MW)

250
Gasifier Island
200

Balance of Plant
150

100 Syngas Cleanup and

CO2 Compression
50 Air Separation Unit

0
Case A Case B

Figure 2-8
Auxiliary Power Distribution for the Major Process Units

11684354 2-19
The key results, as related to Case B, for this comparison study are:
• Power Block, Balance of Plant, and Syngas and CO2 Compression auxiliaries are virtually
identical in the case studies.
• The Cold Gasifier Efficiency (CGE) in Case B is improved by 7% as a result of the CO2
slurry with higher solids concentration and lower heat of vaporization as compared to water.
The improved CGE results in a lower oxygen requirement in the gasifier.
• The lower gasifier oxygen requirement has a substantial impact on the ASU auxiliaries.
There is an 18% reduction in total ASU auxiliary load with a 28% reduction in main air
compressor (MAC) power versus Case A.
• Syngas and CO2 processing auxiliaries are virtually identical in the two cases studied.
Although Case B recycles a large amount of CO2 to the gasifier and provides refrigeration for
liquefaction, the additional CO2 recycled is offset by reduced coal feed rate due to improved
cold gasifier efficiency. The result is comparable CO2 flow rates in the selexol AGR.
• Case B improves the net plant efficiency by 2.8%, to 32.6%. The improved plant efficiency
signifies quench gasification technology with a CO2 slurry has the potential to be competitive
with dry coal feed using low rank coals.

Discussion of Technology Economics

In order to determine the potential economic benefit of the CO2-coal slurry concept, high-level,
factored cost estimation was performed. The starting point for the analysis is the GE IGCC with
CO2 capture case from the EPRI technical report 1015690, which used an identical plant design,
with the exception of Pittsburgh #8 bituminous coal as the fuel instead of PRB. Since the PRB
estimate was factored from a bituminous coal case and is not presently offered commercially by
GE, we will discuss the results only on a relative basis to illustrate the potential advantages of the
CO2-coal slurry over water coal slurry.

11684354 2-20
Table 2-8
Comparison of Case Results

Water-Coal Slurry CO2-Coal Slurry

Power Output, MWe Base -20 MWe

Net Plant Efficiency, % (HHV Basis) Base +2.8%
Total Plant Cost, $ Base -$280M
Specific Plant Cost, $/kW Base -$345/kW

As shown in Table 1, the CO2-coal slurry case has lower power output due to reduced coal
requirements in the plant. The net plant efficiency is higher due to the reduced coal and the
significantly reduced oxygen requirement as a benefit of the higher slurry concentration using
CO2. A consequence of the improved plant performance is lower plant cost.
For the purposes of this analysis, the CO2-coal slurry case was estimated on the same basis as the
water-coal slurry case and assumed identical process equipment in the plant. When comparing
the results on this basis, the CO2-coal slurry case total plant cost (TPC) is lower by $280M
($345/kW). In practice, a CO2 liquefaction system will be added to the plant and a CO2-coal
slurrying system will replace the current water-coal slurry system. A quick estimate of the cost of
a refrigeration system for this service is ~$10M for the equipment, which conservatively equates
to ~$40M on a TPC basis. This means that the incremental cost of the CO2 slurrying equipment
need be less than $240M to have better overall TPC on a whole dollar basis. Since there are
fewer megawatts generated in the plant, however, the equipment would need to cost $200M or
less to have a specific plant cost advantage.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the evaluation of the two IGCC cases, Case B shows a substantial thermodynamic
improvement over a current top-of-the-line commercial IGCC plant with CCS operating on low
rank coals. In addition the potential cost savings in other sections of the plant appears to be large
enough to cover any cost increases that could be expected in the feed preparation system from
implementing liquid CO2-based slurry. Thus, further development in the development of CO2
slurrying and preparation technologies modeled in this study is warranted.

11684354 2-21
11684354
3
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PATH
In order to move the technology forward towards implementation, the following five-step
program is recommended. Results of this effort can be incorporated into future systems for
prototype testing at an IGCC plant.

Task 1: Slurry Preparation Methods and 1/4-1/2” Flow Loop Tests

The slurry preparation method is a critical element requiring improvement since the earlier work
in the 1980s proposed feeding coal into CO2(l) under pressure with a multistage lock hopper
system (similar to that employed in a Shell type gasifier) and then skimming off the CO2 before
injection into the gasifier. This approach removes much of the potential advantages of LRC/CO2
(l) feed. Batch systems where coal is mixed with CO2 at atmospheric pressures and then
pressurized to form liquid slurry will be a far superior alternative (this approach was used in the
DIPE laboratory studies). Such a batch system test rig, which should be capable of evaluating a
range of temperature and pressure effects as well as CO2 phase changes, can be constructed and
tested to optimize batch slurry production. This program should be carried out on a bench scale
using a specially designed laboratory test loop consisting of ½” and ¼” pipe sections (see Figure
3-1) with sufficient instrumentation to accurately measure the flow properties and solids content
of the slurries. Note that the “Slurry Atomizer” and “ATK/GASL pressure test chamber” shown
in the schematic are not part of Task 1 but would be added as part of Task 4.

Figure 3-1
Schematic Diagram of Proposed Laboratory Test Loop

Pumping will be accomplished with a multi stage high pressure Moyno-style progressive cavity
pump in the range of 1-10gpm. Both laminar and turbulent flow can be achieved with this system
for slurries with viscosities<20 mPa-s. All analyses will be done and compared with the results

11684354 3-1
of the rheology studies discussed below (Task 2). Of particular importance will be the
determination of the effect of temperature and pressure variations on the slurry flow properties
(rheology) as small changes in either of these parameters could cause transitions from liquid to
supercritical phases or liquid to three phase systems (liquid-solid-gas). The effect of adding coal
to the carbon dioxide on the possible phase changes during preparation and pumping should be
understood as this will effect how the system is handled in a power plant. For example if the
system could be operated entirely in the supercritical phase it would be possible to pump slurries
with over 80wt% solids (as received basis, not dry basis) because of the lower fluid density (see
Figure 3-2

Figure 3-2
Computer model predictions of coal slurry solids loading as a function of slurry temperature show
the impact is greater on coal-CO2 slurry than coal-water slurry. Note that BDS = “bone dry solids”
and “slds” = “as received basis or dry solids plus inherent moisture”.

This laboratory loop system, in conjunction with rheological studies using a high pressure cell
rheometer can be used to demonstrate the technical feasibility of slurry preparation systems. A
continuous slurry preparation system, without the need for multiple lock hoppers could
revolutionize slurry fed gasifiers. If it is feasible to prepare the LRC/CO2(l) with a continuous
process instead of a batch process then the costs of the industrial scale test loop program
discussed later on will be reduced by several $100,000 since large pressurized vessels will not be
needed. Also a continuous process will be more attractive to potential power plant users. The
resulting deliverables of this work should be a slurry preparation methodology and specifications
on slurry handling.

11684354 3-2
Lab Loop Properties
Key properties of the proposed lab flow test loop include:
• Easily removable pipe sections
• Integral instrumentation
• ¼- ½ inch schedule. 80 piping
• Stainless steel construction
• 2000 psi pressure capability
• Vertical Horizontal, and incline sections are anticipated
• Unique in line agitation methods will be investigated
• Installed differential pressure transducers and flow meters

Task 2: Rheological Testing

Rheological testing is critical to development of this advanced slurry technology, in particular, to
maximize the solids loading of the slurry. The critical property of a coal for slurry fed gasifiers is
the “slurryability” which is defined as the maximum coal content, by volume, in slurry that can
be obtained experimentally divided by the theoretical maximum volume concentration of non-
interacting spheres with the same particle size distribution as the coal. Greater slurryability
corresponds directly to higher solids loading in the slurry and ultimately to higher thermal
efficiency of the IGCC.
Recently DIPE and Columbia University conducted experiments on the rheology of LRC in CO2
(l). Slurry samples made with water and coal loadings of 45 and 50wt% (dry basis) were prepared
and measured in a rheometer. Slurry samples made with CO2 (l) and coal loadings of 45, 50 and
55wt% (dry basis) were also prepared and measured using the same rheometer as the coal-water
slurry tests but with a sealed high pressure cell (HPC).
The method of preparing the LRC/CO2 (l) slurries consisted of mixing coal and powdered dry ice
and then heating the mixture in the HPC under pressure to the desired temperature to form liquid.
Correcting for the impact of the presence of some water, LRC slurryabilities in CO2(l) reached
0.85 while slurryabilities in water ranged from 0.67 to slightly over 0.70 at high shear.
Consequently, one could well expect to achieve solids loadings greater than 60wt% (bone dry)
with LRCs in CO2 (l) slurries.
In the recommended expanded program, rheology studies should be performed under controlled
conditions using a CO2 atmosphere and a self-contained high pressure rheometer to avoid water
absorption in the slurry, which occurred in the previous studies. This can be done using two
slurry preparation techniques. A batch process wherein the dry ice and coal are mixed under a
CO2 gas blanket to avoid water absorption will used in a similar fashion to the earlier rheological
studies. A second approach will use a closed feed system to the high pressure cell shown in
Figure 3-3. Accurate measurements of slurryabilities and maximum solids loading can be
obtained for a variety of LRCs. Effects of temperature variations and possible phase
transformations can be evaluated. Some of the elements of the rheological test matrix include:

11684354 3-3
• Evaluating effects of solids loading on slurry rheology
• Determination of maximum coal loading as a function of coal properties
• Determining the effect of coal loadings on phase transformation
• Rheology of coal slurries with supercritical CO2
• Evaluation of slurryabilities as a function of coal properties
• Determining effects of temperature and pressure on slurryability
• Evaluation of slurryability in the supercritical phase
• Effect of different slurry preparation techniques

The resulting deliverable of this work will be a methodology and prescription for making high
concentration LRC/ CO2 (l) slurries.

Figure 3-3
ATS High Pressure Rheology Set Up with High Pressure Cell

Task 3: Commercial-Scale (2”) Flow Test Loop

The results of the bench scale preparation and flow studies along with the rheological data and
modeling will be used to evaluate pipe sizes, pump specification, valving, pressure and flow rate
measurement systems, and tankage necessary for an industrial scale test rig. It will be important
to be able to study handling properties in the flow regimes expected in full scale IGCC operation.

11684354 3-4
A test loop will be constructed based on the capability of simulating power plant operation and
will include evaluating performance of major equipment including pumps, flow meters,
instrumentation, valves, tanks, compressors, tanks, agitators, etc. This system will be
significantly different than that used for the early ADL studies, not only in the use of state of the
art equipment, but also in that measurements of the actual coal solids content will be performed
using a series of load cells, weight loss feeders, and flow meters (lack of this capability was
probably the cause of the spurious 88% coal solids reading in the ADL work). The resulting
deliverables of this work will include through analyses of slurry handling properties which will
include pump selection and performance.
The major components of the test loop will be:
• CO2 storage tank
• Slurry tank and agitator
• Slurry pump
• Flow meters
• Density meter
• Various removable pipe test sections

The CO2 storage tank will be a commercially available system installed by an industrial gas
supplier. Its characteristics include:
• Dewar capacity less than 500 lbs
• Installation pad necessary for tanker refill
• Liquid/Gas availability
• Self pumping (low pressure)
• Booster pump for elevated pressures

11684354 3-5
 A typical CO2 storage tank envisioned for the test loop is shown in
Figure 3-4.

Figure 3-4
Typical CO2 Storage Tank System (photo source: ATK)

The slurry tank and agitator will have the following characteristics:
• Stainless steel construction
• 2000 psi pressure rated
• Top center feed flange
• Load cell mounted to verify mixture ratios
• Totalizes to verify loading
• Fittings for slurry inlet and outlet
• Thermocouple and pressure measurements
• Gas fittings for CO2
• Gas vent fittings
• Mixer paddles for conventional agitation
• Alternate methods of agitating will be tested

11684354 3-6
A photo of typical slurry tank and agitator is shown in Figure 3-5:

Figure 3-5
Photo of a Typical Slurry Tank and Agitator (photo source: ATK)

The slurry pump will have the following characteristics:

• Moyno-style progressive cavity pump
• Stainless steel rotor/ Buna N stator
• Installed within a 2000 psi pressure rated enclosure to allow pressurization to 1000 psi
• Shaft seal and hopper < 25 psi differential pressure
• Hydraulic motor selection for actuation
• Variable speed to vary flow
• Slurry fed from mixer

11684354 3-7
The primary slurry flow measurement device will have the following characteristics:
• Micromotion F series flow meter
• Cleanable self-draining design
• Low operating frequency for measurement in continuous two-phase flow and gas
applications
• Stainless steel or nickel alloy construction
• High pressure option
• No moving parts to wear or replace minimizes maintenance for long-term reliability
• Operating temperature range of -150 to 400ºF (-100 to 204ºC)
• 1450 psi (100 bar) Stainless Steel 316L
A secondary slurry flow measurement device (to verify the primary device results) will have the
following characteristics:
• Dynasonics style flow meter
• Power Requirements: (Std.) 10-28 VDC @ 2.5 VA max.; 115/230 AC 50/60 Hz ±15% @ 5
VA max
• Ambient Conditions: -40 °F to +185 °F (-40 °C to +85 °C), 0-95% relative humidity, non-
condensing
• Sensitivity Flow: 0.001 FPS (0.0003 MPS)
• Velocity range: -40 to +40 FPS (-12 to +12)
• Repeatability: ±0.01% of reading MPS
• Response Time Flow: 0.3-30 seconds, user configured, to 100% of value, step change in flow

The slurry density measurement device will have the following characteristics:
• Micromotion liquid density meter is designed for tank and pipeline applications
• Long stem density meter is available in lengths up to 13ft (4m) and is suitable for open and
closed tanks
• Wetted parts 316L stainless steel, nickel alloy, Monel, Titanium & Zirconium
• Pressure rating to 3000 psi (207 bar)
• Temperate range (-60°F to +392°F (-50°C to +200°C))
• Density accuracy ±0.001g/cc (±1.0kg/m3) (±0.06 lb/ft3)

The CO2 flow measurement device will have the following characteristics:
• Meter Run - Turbine flow meter
• System is provided with a water calibration and NIST Traceability
• Includes upstream and downstream meter runs and pressure and temperature taps
• Standard sizes are 1-1/2" and 2". Stainless steel construction; standard

11684354 3-8
• End fittings per user specification. 1 1/2" 8 to 130 GPM 2" 15 to 225 GPM
• Pressure Rating 300 PSI
• Overrange Compatibility Gas spinning for 6 months at 300% of liquid design velocity
without damage
• Temperature Probe Two/four wire RTD, 1000/2500 ohm at 0º C, 0.003902 ohm/ohm degree C
• Pressure Transmitter 1- 5 VDC or 4 - 20 mA proportional to 0 to 300 PSIG
• Power Requirements 115/220 VAC 60/50 Hz, 1 amp fuse
• SY-14B system provided by Hoffer flow control systems

System Overview
A premier aerospace and defense company

Figure 3-6
Pipe Loop Schematic with Vertical Test Loop Section

11684354 3-9
 Pipe Test Loop
A premier aerospace and defense company

Test loop
•Easily removable pipe sections.
•Integral instrumentation
•2-3 inch schedule. 80 piping.
•Stainless steel construction.
•2000 psi pressure capability.
•Vertical Horizontal, and incline sections are anticipated.
•Unique in line agitation methods will be investigated.
•Installed differential pressure transducers and Flow meters

Typical pipe loop installation

Figure 3-7
Industrial Scale Test Loop Test Loop

The test loop pumps will use a hydraulic power system which has the following advantages:
• Avoids placing electromechanical devices in areas of possible contamination that can lead to
failures.
• Hydraulic sealing is generally more robust.
• Hydraulic motors generally have more torque at low RPM. Gearing may not be needed.
• Pass through pressurized vessel can be done with standard bulkhead fittings rather than
complicated electrical feed through.
• Servicing is less frequent.
• Precise adjustments to rpm can be made remotely with little or no lag.
• Reverse spin on the selected pump is eliminated by a hydraulic lock. With electrics a brake
must be supplied.

11684354 3-10
Task 4: Atomization Tests
In addition to confirming the previously known beneficial attributes of CO2 (l), the 2006 TI
report highlights the two orders of magnitude difference in surface tension between CO2 (l) and
water. As a result, it is likely that LRC/CO2 (l) slurry would atomize to much smaller droplet
sizes than water/coal slurry. In fact, it is predicted that the slurry will atomize to the bare coal
particles almost immediately upon injection into a gasifier. If true, this will allow slurry-fed
gasifiers to achieve much higher carbon conversion rates at a given gasifier temperature, or will
allow for operation at a lower temperature (yielding longer refractory life) while maintaining
acceptable carbon conversion rates. However the variation of temperature and pressure in the
injector can affect the slurry properties (for example the CO2 could transit through a supercritical
phase which might affect atomization properties). A high pressure atomization rig, such as the
one owned by ATK at its test facilities on Long Island, NY (see Figure 3-8) could be modified to
conduct appropriate atomization studies using the bench scale system developed in Task 1.

Figure 3-8
Photo of High Pressure Atomization Rig (photo source: ATK)

11684354 3-11
Task 5: Additional Drop Tube Reactor Tests
ASPEN simulations performed by Columbia University as part of the earlier DIPE program
demonstrated an enhancement of coal gasification in terms of higher cold gas efficiencies, higher
carbon conversions, and lower oxygen/coal ratios when CO2(l) was employed as a feed in place
of water. When a full IGCC simulation was run by EPRI the overall thermal efficiency of the
plant was shown to increase by almost three percentage points. In order to verify the CO2
enhanced coal gasification, Columbia University’s drop tube reactor will be modified to include
high pressure capability. Gasification studies will be done varying O2/coal ratios and varying
CO2 mixtures. Gas evolution data on CO, CO2, H2, and CH4 will be obtained with a Gas
Chromatograph (GC). In addition, carbon burnout will be obtained.

Development Program Cost

Detailed costs for the five tasks including engineering hours, equipment and construction, and
outside contracting have been developed by Dooher Institute. The overall cost for the entire
program, including EPRI’s internal and project management costs, is on the order of $4.5 to $5
million. Dooher has noted that it may be desirable to fund the program in partial stages. The
technical feasibility of the innovative aspects of the technology can be determined by tasks 1 and
2. The implementation of the technology can be greatly accelerated by the completion of task 3.
Results of tasks 4 and 5 are essential to taking full advantage of the technology and justifying its
later use on an operating coal gasifier. EPRI is now examining funding options for moving
forward with the proposed development plan.

11684354 3-12
11684354
Export Control Restrictions The Electric Power Research Institute Inc.,
Access to and use of EPRI Intellectual Property is granted (EPRI, www.epri.com) conducts research and
with the specific understanding and requirement that development relating to the generation, delivery
responsibility for ensuring full compliance with all applicable and use of electricity for the benefit of the public.
U.S. and foreign export laws and regulations is being An independent, nonprofit organization, EPRI
undertaken by you and your company. This includes an
brings together its scientists and engineers as well
obligation to ensure that any individual receiving access
hereunder who is not a U.S. citizen or permanent U.S. as experts from academia and industry to help
resident is permitted access under applicable U.S. and address challenges in electricity, including
foreign export laws and regulations. In the event you are reliability, efficiency, health, safety and the
uncertain whether you or your company may lawfully obtain environment. EPRI also provides technology, policy
access to this EPRI Intellectual Property, you acknowledge and economic analyses to drive long-range
that it is your obligation to consult with your company’s legal
research and development planning, and supports
counsel to determine whether this access is lawful.
Although EPRI may make available on a case-by-case research in emerging technologies. EPRI’s
basis an informal assessment of the applicable U.S. export members represent more than 90 percent of the
classification for specific EPRI Intellectual Property, you and electricity generated and delivered in the United
your company acknowledge that this assessment is solely States, and international participation extends to 40
for informational purposes and not for reliance purposes. countries. EPRI’s principal offices and laboratories
You and your company acknowledge that it is still the
are located in Palo Alto, Calif.; Charlotte, N.C.;
obligation of you and your company to make your own
assessment of the applicable U.S. export classification and Knoxville, Tenn.; and Lenox, Mass.
ensure compliance accordingly. You and your company
understand and acknowledge your obligations to make a Together…Shaping the Future of Electricity
prompt report to EPRI and the appropriate authorities
regarding any access to or use of EPRI Intellectual Property
hereunder that may be in violation of applicable U.S. or
foreign export laws or regulations.

© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights reserved.
Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER…SHAPING THE
FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY are registered service marks of the Electric
Power Research Institute, Inc.
1021333

Electric Power Research Institute

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 • USA
11684354800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • askepri@epri.com • www.epri.com