International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 40 (2015) 167–187

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijggc

Pre-combustion CO2 capture

Daniel Jansen c,d,∗ , Matteo Gazzani a , Giampaolo Manzolini b , Eric van Dijk c ,
Michiel Carbo c
a
ETH Zürich, Sonneggstrasse 3, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland
b
Politecnico di Milano, Campus Bovisa, Via Lambruschini, 4, 20156, Milano, Italy
c
ECN, Westerduinweg 3, 1755 LE Petten, The Netherlands
d
Universiteit Utrecht, Copernicus Institute, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper, which is part of a special issue of the International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, gives an
Received 5 February 2015 overview of the latest achievements in the pre-combustion decarbonisation route for the production of
Received in revised form 18 May 2015 electricity with CO2 capture. Pre-combustion technologies applied to two different fuels are considered,
Accepted 19 May 2015
natural gas and coal, since they cover most of electricity production from fossil fuels worldwide. The
Available online 27 July 2015
work first discusses in detail the different sections in which a power plant with pre-combustion CO2
capture can be divided. For each section, the available technologies with corresponding advantages and
Keywords:
disadvantages are presented. Next, the plant lay-outs for natural gas and coal proposed in literature,
Pre-combustion
CO2 capture
including heat & mass balances and the economic assessment, are discussed. In general, research activity
NGCC in pre-combustion decarbonisation for power production focused more on coal than on natural gas-based
IGCC plant since in the latter case the plant complexity and costs are not competitive with post-combustion
Industry CO2 capture, which is a technology on the verge of commercialization. Finally the paper briefly discusses
pre-combustion CO2 capture in industry especially those projects where CO2 is captured and stored or
used for EOR.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Scope of this review which is a technology on the verge of commercialization. Finally

This paper, which is part of a special issue of the International
Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, gives an overview of the latest
achievements in the pre-combustion decarbonisation route for the
production of electricity with CO2 capture. Pre-combustion tech-
nologies applied to two different fuels are considered, natural gas
and coal, since they cover most of electricity production from fos-
sil fuels worldwide. The work first discusses in detail the different
sections in which a power plant with pre-combustion CO2 capture
can be divided. For each section, the available technologies with
corresponding advantages and disadvantages are presented. Next,
the plant lay-outs for natural gas and coal proposed in literature,
including heat & mass balances and the economic assessment, are
discussed. In general, research activity in pre-combustion decar-
bonisation for power production focused more on coal than on
natural gas-based plant since in the latter case the plant complexity
and costs are not competitive with post-combustion CO2 capture,
∗ Corresponding author at: ECN, Westerduinweg 3, 1755 LE Petten, The
Netherlands.
E-mail address: jansen@ecn.nl (D. Jansen).
the paper briefly discusses pre-combustion CO2 capture in indus-
try but only those projects where CO2 is captured and stored or
used for EOR.
2. Summary
This paper focuses on the pre-combustion route to capture CO2
from Natural Gas Combined Cycles (NGCC) and Integrated Gasifi-
cation Combined Cycles (IGCC) for power generation, and on the
pre-combustion route to capture CO2 from industrial processes as
for instance refineries, chemical plants and steel mills. The aim of
the paper is to assess and discuss the most relevant developments
in pre-combustion CO2 capture route since the publication of the
IPCC special report on CCS in 2005 (IPCC, 2005). In this special report
pre-combustion capture is defined as follows:
Pre-combustion capture involves reacting a fuel with oxygen or air
and/or steam to give mainly a ‘synthesis gas (syngas) ’ or ‘fuel gas’ com-
posed mainly of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The carbon monoxide
is reacted with steam in a catalytic reactor, called a shift converter, to
give CO2 and more hydrogen. CO2 is then separated, usually by a phys-
ical or chemical absorption process, resulting in a hydrogen-rich fuel

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.05.028
1750-5836/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
168 D. Jansen et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 40 (2015) 167–187

est developments of pre-combustion CO2 capture in industry with

Nomenclature focus on the projects where captured CO2 is stored or used for
EOR.
AGR acid gas removal
ASU air separation unit
3. Pre-combustion CO2 capture
ATR auto thermal reformer
CaL calcium looping
The two main routes to produce syngas are: (1) to add steam
CAPEX capital expenditure
(Reaction (1)) to the primary fuel, in which case the process is
CCS carbon capture and storage
called ‘steam reforming’, or: (2) to add oxygen (Reaction (2)) to
CLC chemical looping combustion
the primary fuel. In the latter case, the process is often called
CPO catalytic partial oxidation
‘partial oxidation’ when applied to gaseous and liquid fuels and
DEPG dimethyl ether of polyethylene glycol
‘gasification’ when applied to a solid fuel, but the principles are the
DLN dry low NOx
same.
DRI direct Reduction Iron
EOR enhanced oil recovery Steamreforming : Cx Hy + xH2 O ↔ xCO + (x + y/2)H2 HCH4
GHG greenhouse gas
GHR gas heated reformer = 206 kJ mol−1 (1)
GT gas turbine
HDS hydro de-suphurisation
HER heat exchange reformer Partialoxidation : Cx Hy + x/2O2 ↔ xCO + (y/2)H2 HCH4
HHV higher heating value = −36 kJ mol−1 (2)
HTS high temperature shift
IEA international energy agency
IGCC integrated gasification combined cycle This partial oxidation is normally done with oxygen, which is
IPCC Intergovernmental panel on climate change separated from air. In case both steam and O2 are used, the process
kWh kilowatt hour is termed auto-thermal reforming since the endothermic reforming
LHV lower heating value reactions are balanced by the exothermal partial oxidation reac-
LTS low temperature shift tions. The syngas production is followed by the water-gas shift
MDEA methyl-di-ethanolamine (WGS) reaction to convert CO to CO2 and H2 by the addition of
MPa mega pascal steam (Reaction (3)):
MTS middle temperature shift
Water-gasshift : CO + H2 O ↔ CO2 + H2 H = −41 kJ mol−1 (3)
MWel megawatt electric
NG natural gas Using conventional washing steps, the CO2 is separated around
NGCC natural gas combined cycle ambient temperature. The hydrogen rich gas is used as a low car-
NMP N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone bon fuel in a combined cycle plant, i.e. Brayton + Rankine cycle, for
OPEX operational expenditure power generation.
POX partial oxidation The high pressure of the water-gas shift product gas stream facil-
PPB part per billion itates the removal of CO2 . The concentration of CO2 at the inlet of
PPM part per million the CO2 /H2 separation stage can be in the range of 15–60% (dry
PSA pressure swing adsorption basis) at a total pressure typically between 2 and 7 MPa, meaning
R&D research and development that the CO2 separation and compression process is less energy
SEWGS sorption enhanced water gas shift demanding than post-combustion processes where the total pres-
SMR steam methane reformer sure and CO2 concentration are lower (Gazzani et al., 2013a,b).
SNG substitute natural gas The separated CO2 is then available for storage. This lower energy
TIT turbine inlet temperature demand is however balanced by energy requirements for air sepa-
USC ultra super critical ration, reforming/gasification, and losses in energy recovery during
VGV variable guide vanes syngas temperature swing.
WGS water gas shift The pre-combustion process is, in principle, the same for coal,
oil or natural gas. However, when coal or oil are used, more stages
of gas purification are needed to remove particles of ash, sulfur
which can be used in many applications, such as boilers, furnaces, gas compounds and other (minor) impurities. The principle of pre-
turbines, engines and fuel cells. combustion capture for power generation is shown in Fig. 1. In both
For the power generation case, the process steps that will be dis- coal and natural gas applications, the overall plant can be divided
cussed in this paper include: i) syngas generation from both natural in five different sections:
gas and coal, ii) water-gas shift producing CO2 and H2 , iii) the “con-
ventional” and promising new separation of CO2 iv) the hydrogen • Syngas island
fuelled combined cycle (power island) and finally v) the CO2 com- • CO2 separation
pression. The latest is included and discussed only briefly in this • CO2 compression
paper for reasons of completeness. • Power island
Pre-combustion CO2 capture in power generation is based on • Oxygen island (optional for NG cases)
processes that are used on industrial scale to produce hydrogen
and chemical commodities. Here, CO2 is a by-product that is being Currently, ongoing research and development activities in pre-
removed. In this respect, pre-combustion CO2 capture in chemi- combustion capture concern all process steps i.e. the syngas
cal industry is mature and in use for over 90 years. In fact, CO2 production, the oxygen production, the WGS section, the H2 /CO2
separation in refineries and chemical industry is a stepping stone separation, the CO2 compression & cleaning section and finally the
for CCS in general. Therefore, the paper will also discuss the lat- power island with the hydrogen fueled gas turbine. It should be
 D. Jansen et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 40 (2015) 167–187
Fig. 1. Schematic of pre-combustion capture for power generation.
mentioned here that part of the reported efficiency improvements
in pre-combustion however, arise from the intrinsic developments
in the NGCC or IGCC e.g. higher gas turbine efficiency.
The technologies for reforming & partial oxidation and gasifi-
cation producing syngas are all being used at an industrial scale
in the chemical industry (Steinberg and Cheng, 1989). This also
holds for the WGS section, which usually consists of two reaction
steps with intermediate cooling, and the H2 /CO2 separation sec-
tion using either a chemical or a physical solvent operating at low
temperature.
In case of natural gas as primary fuel, the main focus of research
in pre-combustion is on reducing the energy losses and investment
cost associated with the hydrogen fuel gas production by integra-
tion i.e. combining the reforming and/or the WGS reactions with
the CO2 removal in one process step shifting the reaction equilib-
rium further toward the hydrogen rich product gas. This of course
also holds for IGCC power plants where R&D also focuses on reduc-
ing energy losses in the WGS section either by reducing the steam
consumption in the WGS section or by integrating CO2 removal
and WGS in one step. These advanced pre-combustion capture sys-
tems make use of emerging H2 /CO2 separation technologies such
as membranes (Beavis, 2011) and solid sorbents (DOE/NETL, 2013)
and are being discussed in detail in a separate paper on “emerging
concepts” (CLC, CaL, solid sorbents, membranes) which is also part
of this special issue of the International Journal of Greenhouse Gas
Control (Abanades et al., 2015).
Pre-combustion CO2 capture in NGCC has been subject of several
techno-economic assessments studies determining energy penal-
ties and capture cost in both a more conventional set-up (first
generation technologies) as well as in set-ups with emerging tech-
nologies combining several process steps. However, to date there
is no natural gas fueled pre-combustion power plant or pilot demo
in operation. Calculated efficiency penalties vary significantly from
one study to another depending on the assumptions made and the
degree of integration of the five different plant sections. For exam-
ple, a recent study of the IEA GHG program (IEA-GHGT, 2012) on
CO2 capture in gas fired combined cycle power plants, calculated
a very high efficiency loss of 16%-points for NGCC cycle with pre-
combustion CO2 capture. The major efficiency losses are caused by
the syngas production (6%-points), the WGS section (3%-points),
the H2 /CO2 separation section (5%-points) and finally the CO2 com-
pression and drying section (2%-points). Section 9 of this review
paper will discuss the differences in efficiencies and capture cost
among the different NGCC pre-combustion studies in more detail
169
but also ways that have been proposed to reduce the overall effi-
ciency penalty.
Analyses of the efficiency losses associated with pre-
combustion (first generation technologies) capture in IGCC
shows that the biggest loss is incurred in the WGS section (Beavis
et al., 2013). In fact, the WGS section is responsible for 44% (i.e.
3.5%-points) of the total efficiency loss (8.2%-points) that CO2
capture confers in an IGCC power plant. This is mainly due to the
use of steam for the WGS reaction and the heat produced. The shift
penalty in an IGCC is higher compared to shift penalty in an NGCC
because of the higher carbon content in coal derived syngas and
thus the higher steam use for the WGS and higher loss in heating
value of syngas. The steam for the WGS is extracted from the steam
turbines decreasing the power production. Other losses, in total
1.7%-points, are caused by the CO2 removal and the reduced gas
turbine output. Finally, the CO2 compression and drying section
are responsible for 3.0%-points efficiency loss. The efficiency losses
incurred by the gasification of the coal in an IGCC are not affected
by the CO2 capture efficiency penalty as they are the same for the
non-capture and capture case. To date CO2 capture in IGCC power
plant has only been tested and demonstrated at pilot scale (Damen
et al., 2011) (Casero et al., 2014).
Two main WGS configurations in an IGCC plant can be applied: i)
sweet WGS, i.e. catalyst is not sulfur tolerant and CO is shifted after
the AGR, and ii) sour WGS, i.e. catalyst is sulfur tolerant and CO is
shifted before the AGR. The latter is the preferred choice because
it allows avoiding an additional temperature swing process while
simplifying the plant layout (no COS and CO2 –H2 S removal in the
same plant section). Moreover, in the AGR upstream the sweet WGS
section the water vapour present in the syngas after the gasification
is condensed and cannot be utilized in the WGS section. This results
in an increase of the steam extraction from the steam bottoming
cycle, with a larger penalization on the electric efficiency.
In the more conventional pre-combustion set-up for IGCC, R&D
in the past years focused on minimizing the amount of steam in
the WGS section needed to realize 90–95% capture ratio and as
consequence a reduced efficiency penalty. Alternative configura-
tions of the WGS section such as a split flow configuration (Carbo
et al., 2009b) but also on the development of new WGS catalysts
(Beavis et al., 2013) which can operate with less steam compared
to the conventional catalysts, are R&D topics. The optimisation of
the WGS section of the pre-combustion capture process route is
discussed in Section 5 of this paper.
Pre-combustion capture has advantages such as producing a
carbon-free fuel (i.e. hydrogen under pressure) and the possibility
170 D. Jansen et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 40 (2015) 167–187
Table 1
Typical characteristics of commercially available natural gas reforming technologies Berkel et al. (2000).
SMR GHR
Operating temperature (◦ C) 750-900 Primary 450; Secondary 1000
Operating pressure (bar) 20–30 20–30
Outlet H2 /CO ratio (−) 3.0–6.0 3.4
CH4 conversion (%) 65–95 95–100
Oxygen demand None Medium
Steam demand High Medium
to produce CO2 at elevated pressure, thereby reducing the power
consumption for liquefaction or compression necessary for the
transportation and the storage of the CO2 (Bracht, 1997), (IPCC,
2005). Furthermore, pre-combustion capture may contribute to an
accelerated introduction of H2 as an energy carrier in a low carbon
energy system. For transport applications using low temperature
fuels cells, this requires a further purification of the H2 , for which
mature technologies are available.
An additional added value of the pre-combustion capture route
is the flexibility in the power plant output i.e., the possibility to
switch between hydrogen production and power generation (co-
production of hydrogen and power (Audus, 1998) depending on the
electricity demand. Power intermittency is becoming more impor-
tant today considering the increasing amount of fluctuating wind
and solar power coming into the grid; this enforces more and more
flexibility demands on the fossil fueled power plants including the
power plants equipped with CO2 capture. However, the required
additional investment cost for the syngas generation makes pre-
combustion capture from an economic point of view less attractive
in natural gas fuelled power generation compared to the post-
combustion capture route on basis of chemical solvents (Beavis,
2011), (IEA-GHGT, 2012).
4. Technologies for syngas production
Transforming a carbon containing fuel into syngas is the first
and essential process step for pre-combustion CO2 capture. In
this respect pre-combustion CO2 capture has several similarities
with the industrial processes to produce hydrogen and chemicals.
The basic steps have been used for over 90 years and are mature
(Hydrocarbon Processing, 2012), with little potential for improve-
ment. However, when pre-combustion capture is applied to power
production, the design requirements change and focus more on
achieving minimum efficiency penalties and cost impact, rather
than hydrogen/syngas purity and yield. Indeed, today hydrogen is
generally produced at high purity for chemical, refining and other
industrial uses, while in pre-combustion CO2 capture, hydrogen
purity is less important. CO2 quality and capture cost requirements
are now leading the process design and the integration between
the pre-combustion process and the power generation plant.
5. Natural gas based processes
There are several technologies available for natural gas reform-
ing that can be used in pre-combustion CO2 capture system/unit
(Berkel et al., 2000), (Hydrocarbon Processing, 2012). The typical
characteristics and operating conditions are summarized in Table 1:
• Conventional steam methane reforming (SMR). The main reac-
tion is steam reforming that is taking place in reformer tubes filled
with catalyst. The heat for the endothermic reaction is supplied by
burning additional natural gas together with process off-gasses.
• Heat exchange reformer (HER)/gas heated reformer (GHR). Steam
reforming is the main reaction. The heat for the endothermic
reforming is coming from a hot gas stream passing inside tubes
through the reformer. Pressurized combustion reforming, is a
POX CPO ATR
1200–1600 850–1100 850–1100
30–85 15–40 20–70
1.6–2.0 1.6–2.0 1.6–2.5
95–100 95–100 95–100
High High High
Optional Optional Low
special case of a heat exchanger reformer. The hot gas is produced
by burning a fraction of the H2 rich fuel gas at high pressure.
• Non-catalytic partial oxidation (POX). Natural gas is mixed with
sub-stoichiometric amounts of oxygen or air in a burner and par-
tially oxidized at high temperature and high pressure. The heat
is generated by the exothermic partial oxidation reaction.
• Catalytic partial oxidation (CPO). A mixture of natural gas and
oxygen is ignited on the surface of a noble metal catalyst (e.g.
rhodium or palladium). The extremely high reaction rates allow
very short residence times.
• Auto thermal reforming (ATR). Two reactions are involved: i)
partial oxidation and ii) steam reforming. Natural gas is mixed
with oxygen and steam in a mixer/burner. Partial oxidation takes
place in the combustion chamber followed by methane steam
reforming and WGS to equilibrium.
5.1. Coal based processes
Gasification is the primary conversion technology to produce
syngas from any solid fuel. Next to coal also oil residues, biomass,
or industrial residues can be used as feedstock. In order to keep the
environmental impact of the use of coal for power generation as
low as possible, integrated coal gasification combined cycles have
been developed over the past 25 years as a clean coal technology
for power generation. An IGCC system (see Fig. 2) consists of a gasi-
fier, an air separation unit although not necessarily, an extensive
gas clean up system and a combined cycle for power production.
Additional integration options that have been applied in practice
are not depicted in Fig. 2: in certain plant designs the compression
of air for the Air Separation Unit (ASU) was fully or partially inte-
grated by bleeding compressed air from the compressor of the gas
turbine (Smith and Klosek, 2001). Furthermore, surplus nitrogen is
often used to pressurize and convey pulverized coal in case of dry-
fed gasification, while nitrogen is also used to diluted the syngas
prior to the gas turbine. Syngas cooling occurs by a wet quench or
by raising steam in a syngas cooler, the latter steam can be fed to
the steam turbine as well.
Table 2 provides an overview of commercially available gasifi-
cation technologies for coal. Entrained flow gasification is the most
suitable technology for the conversion of solid fuels, in pursuit of
pre-combustion CO2 capture and electricity generation in an IGCC.
The elevated gasification temperatures, typically in the range of
1500 ◦ C, result in the production of synthesis gas that does not
contain higher hydrocarbons or tar components. The operational
temperature chosen is based on the coal reactivity and compo-
sition, the ash content and the reactor design (i.e. slurry or dry
coal charging and cooling arrangement). All entrained flow gasifiers
are operated above the ash melting temperature, i.e. in a so-called
slagging operation mode.
In most of the commercial entrained flow gasifiers the high slag-
ging temperature is ensured by using oxygen or oxygen-enriched
air as oxidation agent. A few technologies, limited to purpose of
electricity production, adopt air as oxidant (air-blown gasification)
sometimes in a two-stage reactor configuration. The use of air sig-
nificantly reduces the cold-gas efficiency, i.e. the chemical energy
in the produced syngas divided by the chemical energy in the coal
 D. Jansen et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 40 (2015) 167–187 171

Fig. 2. Simplified IGCC block diagram.

Table 2
Typical characteristics of commercially available gasification technologies Simbeck et al. (1993), Higman and van der Burgt (2008), Breault (2010).

Moving bed Fluidized bed Entrained flow

Ash conditions Dry ash Slagging Dry ash Agglomerating Slagging

Typical feedstock size [mm] 6–50 6–50 6–10 6–10 <100 mm
Acceptance fines Limited Better than dry ash Good Better Unlimited
Preferred coal rank Any High Low Any Any (dry-fed);
high (slurry-fed)
Oxygen demand Low Low Moderate Moderate High
Steam demand High Low Moderate Moderate Low
Outlet gas 425–650 425–650 900–1050 900–1050 1250–1600
temperature
range [◦ C]
Particles in gas Low Low High High Moderate
Issues Higher Higher Higher hydrocarbons & Higher hydrocarbons & tars High outlet gas
hydrocarbons & hydrocarbons in tars in gas; low carbon in gas; low carbon temperature
tars in gas gas conversion; carbon in ash conversion; carbon in
ash/slag

feed, from approximately 80% to 60% for a dry-fed entrained flow
gasifier (Higman and van der Burgt, 2008). As such, a performance
trade-off exists between the electricity consumption of an ASU
in case of oxygen-blown gasification and the lower cold-gas effi-
ciency in case of air-blown gasification. Entrained flow gasifiers are
operated at high pressure to reduce equipment sizes, and facilitate
downstream chemical synthesis processes or electricity generation
in combined cycles that both require these elevated pressure levels.
The use of oxygen as oxidation agent results in a relatively
pure syngas that predominantly consists of hydrogen and carbon
monoxide. The synthesis gas composition and pressure is highly
suitable for pre-combustion CO2 capture, due to the high attainable
partial pressure of CO2 through the WGS reaction. High CO2 partial
pressures allow the use of (physical) solvents for CO2 separation,
which mitigates the steam demand that is normally associated with
chemical solvents in post-combustion CO2 capture (IPCC, 2005).
Gasification itself is a rather straightforward process, although
the most challenging aspects of any gasification technology are the
feed system for solid fuels, the cooling and treatment of syngas, and
the discharge of any ash/slag by-products. In case of entrained flow
gasifiers the pressurized operation results in added complexity par-
ticularly of the feed system. Two types of entrained flow gasifiers
can be distinguished: dry-fed and slurry-fed.
Dry-fed gasifiers tend to be somewhat more fuel flexible
than slurry-fed gasifiers, since gasification of solid fuels with
an increased moisture and/or ash content leads to relatively
minor changes in the synthesis gas composition, as a result of
the upstream drying. Conversely, the preparation and feeding of
slurries is more straightforward than dry feeding, and increased
pressures can be more easily attained. Low-rank coals and lignite
tend to be less appropriate feedstocks for slurry-fed gasifiers, since
these require a disproportionally large amount of energy to heat
172 D. Jansen et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 40 (2015) 167–187
and evaporate the increased amount of moisture, which results in
a significantly higher oxygen consumption and a reduction of the
cold-gas efficiency (Higman and van der Burgt, 2008).
In dry-fed systems lock hoppers are typically used to pressur-
ize pulverized solid fuels. Two or more lock hoppers in parallel are
usually deployed to feed one entrained flow gasifier, where the lock
hoppers are being loaded, pressurized and discharged in alternate
operation. The pulverization and drying of the solid fuels typically
occurs in roller mills that are also used in pulverized coal power
stations. A relatively small particle size distribution is needed to
establish dense-phase flow between the lock hopper outlet and the
burner(s) of the gasifier. In slurry-fed systems, coal is typically pul-
verized in rod mills without any upfront drying. In either of the
feed systems a relatively small particle size distribution is required
to obtain a high carbon conversion, which consequently improves
the cold-gas efficiently and lowers the carbon content in the fly ash
and/or slag.
In the gas cleaning system of an IGCC particles are typically
removed by ceramic filters or wet scrubbers, and subsequently sul-
furous components are converted and removed in the AGR section.
Most of the chemical and physical absorption technologies used
for hydrogen sulfide separation, can also be designed to allow ded-
icated separation of H2 S and CO2 in high-purity streams (Kerry,
2007). The cleaning and conditioning of the syngas ensures that
the fuel gas is of such quality that no corrosion is caused in the gas
turbine whilst maintaining the high efficiency and low emissions of
the combined cycle plant. Current oxygen-blown gasification tech-
nologies typically retain 70–90% of the chemical energy in syngas
with respect to the chemical energy in the feedstock. The syngas
produced during the process can be used to produce electricity, as
in the IGCC power plant described earlier, or to produce various
chemical products or fuels. Methanol and substitute natural gas
(SNG), among others, but also motor fuels such as diesel and petrol
can also be produced from syngas using well-known processes that
are commercially available at present.
6. Syngas conversion
6.1. Syngas conversion general
Following syngas production, the CO energy content is trans-
ferred to hydrogen via the WGS reaction, hence increasing the CO2
content of the syngas prior to capturing. The WGS reaction, already
industrially applied for over 90 years, is a mildly exothermal equi-
librium reaction, in which CO reacts with steam to produce H2 and
CO2 (Twigg, 1996) according to Eq. (3).
The equilibrium is indifferent to the pressure, while the exother-
mal character of the reaction causes the equilibrium CO2 content
to decrease at increasing temperature. To overcome this thermo-
dynamic constraint, generally a series of adiabatic reactors is used
with inter-stage cooling or quenching to reach the targeted overall
CO conversion (Ratnasamay and Wagner, 2009).
For bulk chemical processes, there are basically four types
of commercially proven WGS catalysts (Newsome, 1980),
(Ratnasamay and Wagner, 2009). Conventional catalysts for a
clean syngas are Iron-Chromium based high temperature shift
(HTS) catalysts that operate at about 320–520 ◦ C and Copper–Zinc
based low temperature shift (LTS) catalysts that operate at about
190 ◦ C to 260 ◦ C. Recently also thermally stabilized Copper-Zinc-
based medium temperature shift (MTS) catalysts are commercially
available that operate at about 200–400 ◦ C. Sulphided Cobalt-
Molybdinum (CoMoS) based catalysts for mid-temperature
operation are suitable for sulfur rich syngas at about 250–500 ◦ C.
For a sulfur containing feed, such as is the case in IGCC, sour
shift is preferred over sweet shift since sweet shift requires prior
AGR that induces an addition temperature swing in the process as
opposed to sour shift. For sweet shift, nevertheless, a multi-reactor
HTS section is used for bulk CO conversion because of the large
operational temperature window of the catalyst, allowing a high
adiabatic temperature rise within the reactor. The MTS section can
be applied similarly. Once bulk conversion is achieved, subsequent
LTS can be added if higher overall CO conversions are required.
Both the LTS and MTS catalysts are sulfur intolerant, requiring
feed desulphurization to about 50 ppb for economic life. HTS cat-
alysts can tolerate up to about 100 ppm sulfur (Bohlbro, 1963),
(Twigg, 1996). The outlet temperature of WGS reactors can be con-
trolled by the amount of steam present in the feed. HTS, MTS and
LTS catalysts display severe irreversible sintering at temperatures
exceeding their operational window.
For sulfur containing syngas, a multi-bed sour shift section can
be used. These catalysts require a minimum of a few hundreds ppm
sulfur to remain active and selective for the WGS reaction. This
limits the maximum operating temperature since too high tem-
perature can lead to the decomposition of the active CoMoS phase,
resulting in the highly exothermal methanation reaction to occur
(Ratnasamay and Wagner, 2009). Additionally, sour shift catalysts
can be operated at lower steam dry gas ratios compared to HTS
catalysts.
In a pre-combustion capture scheme, the WGS unit is operated
with significantly different boundary conditions compared to the
chemical industry:
• H2 /syngas purity and yield are drivers for the chemical indus-
try, while minimization of the carbon capture penalty drives
CCS. In CCS, increasingly higher CO conversions in WGS come
at an increasing capture penalty because of the increased steam
requirement.
• The syngas is very clean for the chemical industry, but may con-
tain e.g. sulfur in CCS
• The chemical industry is in base-load operation, while power
with CCS is foreseen to become power demand driven (Damen
et al., 2011).
These differences justify the ongoing development of WGS cat-
alysts and operation schemes, focusing on minimizing the steam
usage. In the WGS section, excess steam is conventionally utilized
for three reasons: i) to drive the WGS equilibrium to high CO con-
version, ii) limit the adiabatic temperature rise within the reactors
and iii) to minimize side reactions that can damage the catalyst and
the reactors. During steam optimization for CCS, these constraints
also have to be respected.
6.2. WGS split flow configuration
Conventionally, WGS reactors are operated in series with inter-
stage cooling. For NG derived syngas, the CO content is low and
the syngas already contains significant amounts of steam. Accord-
ingly, high overall CO conversions can be reached with moderate
steam addition. For coal syngas, the steam requirement can be
significant because of its high CO content. In a conventional lay-
out, the shift section consists of two reactors in series, where the
entire syngas stream passes both reactors. In case a HTS catalyst
is applied, to manage the adiabatic temperature rise for the 1st
HTS reactor in an IGCC syngas containing 60% CO, the required
steam/dry syngas ratio at end-of-life operational conditions (i.e.
340–360 ◦ C reactor inlet temperature) is very large at typically
2.4 kg.kg−1 (equaling overall steam/CO = 4.9 mol.mol−1 ) (van Dijk
et al., 2014), (Damen et al., 2011). For start-of-life conditions as
demonstrated in the Elcogas pre-combustion demonstration plant
(Casero et al., 2014), the inlet temperature is much lower at around
300 ◦ C and, accordingly the required steam/dry syngas ratio is lower
 D. Jansen et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 40 (2015) 167–187
Fig. 3. Schematic of the split flow configuration as applied in the Buggenum pre-combustion pilot plant, see (A). Steam/CO ratio given in mol.mol−1 . The performance in
terms of in- and outlet CO content as a function of temperature for the 3 reactor is represented in (B).
at steam/CO = 3.0 mol.mol−1 (Casero et al., 2014). To limit the steam
requirement, a split flow configuration can be applied in which
the syngas is distributed together with quench water in between
the reactors (Carbo et al., 2009a) (Carbo et al., 2009b). Although
the number of reactors and the total catalyst amount increases,
the steam requirement decreases and simulations indicate that at
85% CO2 capture rate, a configuration with four staged reactors is
still justified by the revenues of the increased net electric output
(Carbo et al., 2009a). The split-flow concept was demonstrated in
the Vattenfall “CO2 Catch-up” project in which a pre-combustion
CO2 capture unit was tested at the Buggenum IGCC power plant in
the Netherlands (Damen et al., 2011). The WGS section consisted
of three HTS reactors, where a split flow configuration was applied
for the first two reactors, see Fig. 3 (van Dijk et al., 2014). The first
reactor treats about one third of the syngas feed and operates at
high steam/CO feed ratio because of the large adiabatic temper-
ature rise. The remaining syngas is used as gas quench of the 1st
reactor effluent. Only a limited amount of steam is added to this gas
quench to obtain the required reactor 2 steam/CO feed ratio after
mixing. In this configuration, reactor 1 serves as CO peak shaver,
while the bulk of the conversion occurs in reactor 2. Reactor 3 is
added to boost the overall CO conversion to >90%. In this config-
uration the steam requirement is reduced to 1.3 kg.kg−1 (overall
steam/CO = 2.6 mol.mol−1 ) compared to 2.4 kg · kg−1 for a conven-
tional in series configuration at end-of-life design conditions.
6.3. WGS low steam operation
Another way of limiting the steam requirement is to operate the
reactors with a low steam syngas feed (Grol and Yang, 2009). How-
ever, lower steam feeds for the HTS catalyst introduces the risk of
reducing the active magnetite phase to metallic iron or producing
Iron–Carbide (Ratnasamay and Wagner, 2009), (Twigg, 1996) thus
resulting in the promotion of the very exothermal CH4 formation
and leading to much higher reactor temperatures than normally
observed in HTS. To prevent catalyst reduction and/or carbiding
at IGCC conditions, the lower steam/CO limit is 2.5 mol.mol−1 or
higher. For coal syngas, lowered steam/CO ratio operation is not
possible for the 1st HTS reactor because of the high adiabatic tem-
perature rise. In the split flow configuration, however, the steam
content of the 2nd reactor can be chosen freely and this reactor
can be operated at lowered steam content. This concept has suc-
cessfully been tested in the Buggenum “CO2 Catch-up” pilot plant
(Trapp, 2014), demonstrating stable reactor operation of an aged
catalyst (5000 h time on stream) during a 120 h test at steam/CO as
low as 1.5. Because of the high operational temperature window
for the HTS catalyst, lower steam feed operation results in a lower
overall CO conversion, and therewith lowered overall CO2 capture
173
Feed
Co-current Convenonal WGS
Gas-cooled WGS
Fig. 4. Outlet temperature and CO conversion for adiabatic operation as a function of
the steam/CO feed ratio He et al. (2012) indicating the region with increased chance
of methanation for a sour-shift catalyst (feed: 59.5 %dry CO, 27.9 %dry H2 , 1.8 %dry
CO2 , 10.7 %dry N2 , 250 ◦ C).
rate from 90% to about 80% albeit at a reduced CO2 capture penalty
of 10% relative (Trapp, 2014).
Sour shift catalysts and MTS catalysts operate at lower tempera-
tures while the operational temperature window is still large. Then
low steam operation can be combined with a high overall CO con-
version. As example, a much reduced steam demand in a multi-bed
sour WGS lay-out is illustrated by (He et al., 2012). In a modelling
study of a coal-based polygeneration system, the performance of
a conventional two reactors in series configuration, operated with
an overall steam/CO ratio of 2.2 mol.mol−1 , was compared to an
advanced four reactors in series configuration at an identical over-
all CO conversion (He et al., 2012). In the advanced configuration,
boiler water and MP steam was used for quenching, and reactors
1 and 2 are operated at sub-stoichiometric steam feeds. At sub-
stoichiometric steam feed, the heat production is limited due to
the depletion of steam as reactant, but also the CO conversion is
limited, see Fig. 4. These reactors basically function as CO peak
shavers, albeit at an increased catalyst volume (He et al., 2012). The
steam consumption was lowered from 0.78 to 0.32 mol.molsyngas −1 ,
although boiler water is consumed for quenching.
In a joint effort of BP and Johnson Matthey, a novel sour
shift catalyst and reactor concept were developed to significantly
reduce the steam requirement (Beavis et al., 2013). Instead of sub-
stoichiometric steam operation, operation at a steam/CO ratio of
about 1.1 mol.mol−1 was considered optimal with respect to the
energy efficiency and capital costs. However, as apparent from
Fig. 4, the resulting high outlet temperature would lead to desul-
phurization of the catalyst, causing reactor overheating by the
exothermal methanation reaction. The newly developed catalyst
with reduced methanation activity, was applied in a gas-cooled
converter reactor. In this concept (see Fig. 5), the syngas is first
used as a co-current cooling medium of the heat-exchanger reac-
174 D. Jansen et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 40 (2015) 167–187
Fig. 5. Schematic representation of the co-current gas cooled WGS reaction lay-out
for low-steam sour shift operation [reproduced from Beavis et al. (2013).
tor and then fed to the reactor after a cooling step. The adiabatic
temperature rise reduces from 80 ◦ C to 40 ◦ C.
For a clean syngas, the large temperature operating window of
the MTS catalyst would also allow for similar low steam operation,
optionally in combination with the distributed feed concept. This
has not yet been applied to the best of our knowledge.
7. H2 /CO2 separation technologies in pre-combustion CO2
capture
Absorption processes to separate hydrogen and carbon dioxide
involve scrubbing of syngas with a liquid solvent that selectively
removes acid components such as H2 S and CO2 (Hydrocarbon
Processing, 2012). The absorption occurs in a column fitted with
trays or dumped/structured packing. The acid components are
released upon regeneration after which the lean solvent is re-
circulated to the absorber. Depending on whether gas components
are simply dissolved physically or are bound chemically to the sol-
vent, various absorption processes are characterized as physical or
chemical. Mixing of physical and chemical solvent is used in cer-
tain processes, thereby exploiting beneficial characteristics of both
solvents.
7.1. Chemical solvents
The capacity of chemical solvents is limited by the active com-
ponent (amine) in the solution. Only weak additional loading by
physical absorption in water is observed once the chemical solvent
is saturated. At low partial pressures the absorption capacities of
chemical solvents are much higher when compared with absorp-
tion capacities of physical solvents, whereas physical solvents
provide better results at high partial pressures, see Fig. 6. Regenera-
tion in chemical absorption processes is accomplished by addition
of heat at low pressure through the reboiler of the stripper col-
umn. The accelerated mass transfer caused by chemical reaction
in the liquid phase combined with the steeply curved equilibrium
line generally results in fewer trays required for chemical absorp-
tion than its physical counterpart (for similar boundary conditions).
Chemical solvents are typically used for CO2 removal from gas
streams at low CO2 partial pressures because of their high affinity
for CO2 . Their energy requirements for regeneration are relatively
high. These solvents are the logical choice for post-combustion
CO2 capture from coal and gas fired power plants capturing CO2
from flue gases with low CO2 partial pressure. The post-combustion
review, which is also part of this special issue of the International
Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, gives an overview of the most
important developments with respect to the chemical amine based
solvents. However, the relative low partial pressure of CO2 in pre-
combustion capture in NGCC power plant make chemical solvents
1.5
Chemical Physical Solvent
1.0
Absorpon Capacity
0.5
Favours Physical Solvent
Favours Chemical Solvent
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Paral pressure
Fig. 6. Schematic representation of the loading of a chemical and physical solvent
as a function of the partial pressure.
and more specific MDEA (methyl-di-ethanolamine) also the pre-
ferred H2 /CO2 separation technology. MDEA is a so-called tertiary
amine. Tertiary amines react slower with carbon dioxide than pri-
mary and secondary amines thus require higher circulation rate
of liquid to remove carbon dioxide compared to primary and sec-
ondary amines. A major advantage of tertiary amine is their lower
heat requirements for CO2 release from the solvent. This is the
reason the MDEA is often used in pre-combustion for NGCC.
7.2. Physical solvents
The loading capacity of physical solvents primarily depends on
Henry’s law, which results in a virtual linear dependency between
the partial pressure of the component to be removed and the sol-
vent loading (see Fig. 6). This dependency on partial pressure can
be used effectively for solvent regeneration by means of simple
pressure reduction (flashing). This is particularly of interest when
bulk removal at high operating pressures and high product puri-
ties are pursued. Physical solvents are used to remove CO2 and H2 S
from raw gases from oil and coal gasification. The physical absorp-
tion of CO2 in the solvent is temperature and pressure dependent,
i.e. high partial pressures of CO2 and low temperatures facilitates
the absorption. The subsequent pressure reduction regenerates the
solvent with a relatively small energy requirement. High partial
pressures of CO2 at the absorber inlet make physical absorption
suitable for CO2 capture in an IGCC. Typical physical solvents used in
IGCC pre-combustion capture are (Hydrocarbon Processing, 2012).
7.3. Rectisol® process
Rectisol applies methanol to remove hydrogen sulphide to as
low as 0.1 ppm and CO2 to ppm range. This makes Rectisol the des-
ignated process for acid gas recovery (AGR) within coal-and heavy
oil-based synthesis of ammonia, methanol, hydrogen, substitute
natural gas (SNG) and Fischer-Tropsch products. The latter since
these processes only allow sub-ppm H2 S levels to avoid catalyst
poisoning and Rectisol is the only scrubbing process capable of
achieving these requirements. Moreover, Rectisol can be used for
combined CO2 and H2 S capture. This may be a good option when co-
storage of CO2 and H2 S is possible. In the selective Rectisol process
CO2 and H2 S are released in separate process steps. Rectisol differs
from other scrubbing processes in terms of the significantly lower
operating temperatures, typically ranging from –15 ◦ C to –60 ◦ C.
These temperatures facilitate increased capacity for H2 S and CO2 ,
while the viscosity remains at acceptable levels thus ensuring good
heat-and mass-transfer properties. Moreover, methanol has a high
 D. Jansen et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 40 (2015) 167–187
vapor pressure at elevated temperature, thus low operating tem-
peratures is required to prevent (excessive) solvent losses.
7.4. Purisol® process
Purisol applies N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) for highly selec-
tive H2 S absorption in the presence of CO2 , regardless of the
operating temperature (typically 15 ◦ C–40 ◦ C). An advantage of
Purisol is the possibility of combined H2 S and COS removal. Purisol
is industrially used for the removal of CO2 from high CO2 content
off-gases to a low residual level (e.g. ammonia production from
reformed natural gas). NMP is reported to be more volatile than
other physical solvents, which requires water scrubbing of gaseous
effluents to avoid excessive solvent losses.
7.5. SelexolTM process
Selexol uses a dimethyl ether of polyethylene glycol (DEPG) for
relatively high selective absorption of H2 S in the presence of CO2 , at
typical operating temperatures ranging from 0 ◦ C to 175 ◦ C. Despite
of increased solubility of H2 S and CO2 at lower temperatures,
Selexol has a relatively high viscosity under these circumstances
that will govern the practical operating window. Selexol can be
used for either combined CO2 and H2 S removal or the selective
removal of H2 S. It can also be used for bulk CO2 removal, when the
CO2 concentration is high compared to H2 S. The Selexol solvent is
chemically and thermally stable, and has a low vapor pressure that
limits solvent losses.
7.6. Low temperature separation
CO2 can be separated from other gases by compression, cool-
ing, condensation and flashing or distillation. Cryogenic distillation
is widely used commercially to produce pure CO2 for e.g. food
industry, from streams that already have high CO2 concentrations
(typically >90%). However, the purification capability of this pro-
cess is limited by the formation of solid CO2 and the equilibrium
composition at pressure and temperature close to the CO2 triple
point; therefore it is not used for more diluted CO2 streams. Another
major disadvantage is the amount of energy required to provide the
refrigeration necessary for the process, particularly for dilute gas
streams and to remove the components, such as water, that would
lead to the process blockages. Alternatively, the application of flash-
ing stages reduces the energy requirement at the cost of a lower
CO2 capture ratio. Low temperature separation would normally be
used in oxygen fired combustion in which the input gas contains a
high concentration of CO2 (Posch and Haider, 2012), (Pipitone and
Bolland, 2009), although system studies for CO2 –H2 separation in
an IGCC setting have also been performed (Berstad et al., 2011).
7.7. Solid physical adsorption (pressure swing and temperature
swing adsorption)
An adsorption process consists of two major steps: adsorption
and desorption. The technical feasibility of a process is dictated
by the adsorption step, whereas the desorption step controls the
energetic and economic viability. The affinity of an adsorbent for
one of the components to be separated must be balanced: the
sorbent must possess a certain selectivity but the stronger the
affinity, the higher the energy consumption of the sorbent regen-
eration. The desorption step, therefore has to be carefully balanced
against the adsorption step to be able to allow viable operation of
the adsorption step (Ruthven et al., 1994). The main advantage of
physical adsorption over chemical or physical absorption is its sim-
ple and energy efficient operation and regeneration, which can be
175
achieved with a pressure swing. Pressure swing adsorption pro-
cesses (PSA) have been employed for hydrogen purification by CO2
removal, targeting at high H2 purity and yield. For CCS applica-
tions, however, high purity and yield for the heavy component CO2
is required, causing the cycle design to differ significantly from con-
ventional H2 -PSA (Garcia et al., 2013), (Agarwal et al., 2010) (Casas
et al., 2013). Nevertheless, the PSA separation remains a trade-off
between the CO2 recovery and the CO2 purity. Using an activated
carbon as sorbent (Schell et al., 2013), a modeling study by (Casas
et al., 2013) resulted in pareto plots, representing the optimal per-
formance points for a certain PSA cycle, limited at about 95% CO2
purity and 95% CO2 recovery. The targeted 90% CO2 capture at 95%
CO2 purity could thus be obtained for a 60/40% H2 /CO2 feed.
7.8. Advanced adsorption separation process (SEWGS)
As discussed previously, the steam consumption in the WGS
section contributes significantly to the CO2 capture penalty. To
minimize this steam requirement, the CO conversion is combined
with CO2 removal in the so called sorption enhanced water–gas
shift process (SEWGS) (Hufton et al., 1999), (Selow et al., 2009).
The equilibrium limitation of the WGS conversion is relieved by
using a solid adsorbent that binds the CO2 product during the
WGS reaction, allowing almost complete CO conversion. Once the
adsorbent material is saturated with CO2 , adsorbent regeneration is
required and, as such, the SEWGS process combines full WGS con-
version with CO2 separation at high capture ratio. Preferable, the
CO2 loading of the adsorbent is operated at high pressure, while
the regeneration is performed at decreased pressure, resulting in
a multi-column pressure-swing operation at similar temperatures
for adsorption and regeneration of about 400 ◦ C. Typically, a potas-
sium promoted hydrotalcite-based material is used (Hufton et al.,
1999), (Young et al., 2002), (Boon et al., 2014). These materials have
excellent hydro-thermal stability (Cavani et al., 1991), are active for
the WGS reaction, are robust to H2 S in the feed (van Dijk et al., 2011)
and can be operated with a low steam feed. Because of the increased
operating temperature of the SEWGS process, syngas cooling and
reheating as required for solvent-based CO2 removal is superflu-
ous (Selow et al., 2009), (Gazzani and Manzolini, 2013). To limit the
temperature increase in the SEWGS unit, a high CO content syngas
would require a pre-shift section to decrease the CO content of the
SEWGS feed to between 5 and 10 vol%. This relaxed CO conversion
for the pre-shift section allows significant steam savings by apply-
ing split-flow operation and/or sub-stoichiometric operation. Since
the SEWGS unit co-captures H2 S (van Dijk et al., 2011), the pre-
shift section can be designed as sour or clean shift. Because of the
increased operating temperature, steam can be used in the cycle to
drive both the CO2 recovery and purity to >95% (Boon et al., 2015),
values higher than obtainable for conventional low-temperature
PSA separations (Casas et al., 2013). The development of the SEWGS
process aims at minimizing the steam requirement for the CO2 sep-
aration in the PSA cycle. Depending on the feed composition, the
total steam usage in SEWGS is between 0.2 and 2 mol steam per mol
CO2 captured (Boon et al., 2015). Moreover, a significant amount of
the steam present in the syngas goes with the high pressure H2 -rich
stream and is used in the combined cycle.
7.9. Gas turbine
Gas turbines are designed to operate at optimal conditions only
within limited operating conditions of the fuel feedstock: Changes
in physical properties and composition of the fuel, which repre-
sent the inherent variability of natural gas in the distribution grid
according to the extraction origin, need to be limited. Normally, the
176 D. Jansen et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 40 (2015) 167–187
Table 3
Examples of GT models for use of low calorific fuels.
Manufacturera Models for IGCC applications
Alstom 13E2, 11N2, 8B/C, KA11N2-2
Ansaldo V94.2K
GE 6B, 7EA, 9E, 6FA, 7F Syngas, 9F Syngas
MHI M501DA, M701F
Siemens SGT5-2000E, SGT6-3000E, SGT6-5000F
Sources: Soares (2015), Alstom (2014), Bonzani (2007), GE (2010), Isles (2012), Wu
et al. (2007).
variation is expressed in terms of few percent of the Wobbe index.1
When feeding the gas turbine with a fuel significantly different
from natural gas without any specific design, the main issues to
be considered are related to i) the combustion process and the pol-
lutant emissions (NOx ), ii) the compressor–turbine fluid-dynamic
matching, iii) the thermodynamic properties of the combustion
gases, and iv) the mechanical resistance of the GT components
(Gazzani et al., 2014). About the type of combustion, the devel-
opment of dry low NOx (DLN) premixed combustors running on
hydrogen-rich fuels is very challenging because of different issues
related to combustion stability (e.g. flashback issues, i.e., to the
propagation of the flame in the air–fuel mixture in the fuel sys-
tem ahead of the combustor). Therefore, despite research for the
development of premixed hydrogen combustors is investigated by
all manufacturers, diffusive-flame combustion are adopted today
with hydrogen-rich fuels. The resulting increase in the NOx forma-
tion because of the higher flame temperature is tackled by adding
large amounts of inert gases. Inert gases can be nitrogen if available
or steam.
Mismatching of compressor-turbine fluid-dynamic can occur
when the air to fuel ratio at combustor varies compared to design
conditions (i.e. lower Wobbe index than NG). The lower syngas LHV
compared to natural gas leads to a lower air demand at the GT com-
pressor inlet, with possible stall issues. Three possible solutions can
be implemented to re-establish a proper matching. The first one
consists of reducing the Turbine Inlet Temperature (TIT) to keep
the turbine design pressure ratio. TIT reduction implies lower ther-
modynamic cycle efficiency. In the second option, the compressor
is redesigned to match the new conditions. The last option is based
on closing the Variable Guide Vanes (VGV) at compressor inlet to
reduce the air flow rates. For very low Wobbe indexes, the first
and last option must be adopted simultaneously. The integration
of the compressor with part of the plant requiring compressed air
(i.e. Air Separation Unit or Auto-Thermal reformer) can reduce the
above-mentioned issue while increasing the plant and start-up pro-
cedures complexities. Indeed, with an integrated ASU-GT system,
the required reduction in the air volumetric flow rate at the com-
pressor inlet is limited (about 8% compared to the nominal flow
rate of the natural gas reference case); this condition is in the range
of VGV application.
Finally, the use of decarbonized fuels increases the H2 O content
in the exhaust gases, which results in a modified temperature-
enthalpy drop along the expansion and in a higher heat transfer
coefficient between gas and GT. To avoid blades damages, either
an adjustment to the cooling circuits or a reduction of the TIT is
required, in this last case with additional penalization to the GT
efficiency.
Currently, all the main GT manufacturers offer a model that can
run on syngas/hydrogen combustion based on diffusive-flame com-
bustors (see Table 3). These GTs have been developed modifying the
NG-based models and, as such, are not designed from scratch with
1
The Wobbe index indicates the volumetric heating value of the value and it is
defined as the heating value divide by the square root of the density
the aim of obtaining the most efficient use of hydrogen-based fuels.
Conversely, they features high reliability and have experienced sev-
eral thousands of operating hours.
7.10. CO2 compression
Despite being separated at moderately high pressure, in state-
of-the-art pre-combustion capture plants CO2 is available as pure
gas at about ambient pressure. The resulting volume flow rate
(>50 m3 /s) exceeds the typical values encountered throughout
oil, gas and chemical industry thus requiring compressors sim-
ilar to GT applications. Although different compression schemes
do exist (Botero et al., 2009), the current state-of-the-art process
is based on a mixed compression-pumping arrangement. The CO2
stream is firstly compressed slightly above the critical pressure; the
compression energy expenditure is minimized by using multiple
intercooled stages. The number of stages results from a compro-
mise between efficiency losses and investment costs: Most of the
studies (Abu-Zahra et al., 2007), (Romano et al., 2010), (Manzolini
et al., 2011) indicates an optimum between four and seven stages.
Afterward, CO2 is cooled thus entering the liquid phase area. As
last step, liquefied CO2 is pumped to the delivery pressure (usually
110 or 150 bar, depending on the CO2 transport specifications). In
order to avoid acid formation and limit transportation issues, CO2
is dehydrated using solid sorbents.
Depending on the separation technology employed, the CO2
stream might contain traces of inert gases, such as N2 , H2 , and CH4 .
Therefore, if the CO2 purity level does not meet the specifications of
the storage or utilization, a purification process must be employed.
Main processes rely either on cryogenic flash separation (Chiesa
et al., 2011) or on cryogenic distillation (Posch and Haider, 2012);
internal cooling with CO2 compression and expansion is generally
the preferred choice to provide the cooling effect.
8. Current status pre-combustion CO2 capture for CCS in
power generation
Pre-combustion technologies in natural gas are usually consid-
ered for emerging CO2 separation concepts as hydrogen selective
membranes or sorption enhanced water gas shift (SEWGS). There
is a limited number of published studies compared to post-
combustion and emerging technologies on commercial systems
based on CO2 separation by MDEA (Alliance, 2012), (Atsonios
et al., 2013), (Fluor Daniel Inc., 2000), (Lozza and Chiesa, 2002a,b),
(Manzolini et al., 2011), (Nord and Bolland, 2011a,b), (Nord et al.,
2009a,b), (Romano et al., 2010).
This is not the case for CO2 capture employed in IGCC, where
there are several published works (Botros and Brisson, 2011),
(Botros and Brisson, 2013), (Chen and Rubin, 2009), (Cormos,
2011), (Cormos, 2012), (Gatti et al., 2014), (Gazzani et al., 2013a,b),
(Giuffrida et al., 2012a,b), (Grol and Yang, 2009), (Kunze and
Spliethoff, 2010), (Kunze et al., 2011), (Majoumerd and Assadi,
2014), (Majoumerd et al., 2012), (Manzolini et al., 2013a,b),
(Martelli et al., 2011), (NETL, 2010).
Considering the number of existing installations, no full-scale
plants for pre-combustion capture with power generation from
natural gas exist. Accordingly, the following discussion on this
topic is mainly focused on the research activity. On the other
hand, different IGCC plants for power production without CO2
capture exist. Focusing on coal–fuelled, power-dedicated, plants,
Puertollano–Elcogas and Buggenum–Vattenfal IGCC have continu-
ously operated for several years; additionally, four new plants are
currently running or being built (see Table 7). Furthermore, the first
IGCC with fully integrated CO2 capture has been built in US (Kem-
per County-Mississippi Power). In March 2015, the plant’s gasifiers
 D. Jansen et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 40 (2015) 167–187 177

Table 4
Main assumptions and results of some studies on NG pre-combustion technology based on commercial CO2 separation systems.

Reference Pre-reformer ATR oxidant ATR temp. [◦ C] Capture process CO2 avoided [%] Net efficiency Efficiency
[LHV%] penalty [%points]

Stork Engineering Consultancy (2000) N/A Oxygen 1050 Selexol 84.8 48.35 7.84
Fluor Daniel Inc. (2000) HE-Reformer Air 900 MDEA 89.6 43.1 –
Lozza and Chiesa (2000a,b) N/A Air 980 DEA 90.1 48.47 7.64
Ertesvag et al. (2005) Adiabatic Air 900 N.A. 86.2 48.88 10.0
Nord et al. (2009a,b) Adiabatic Air 950 MDEA 93.4 41.9 14.0
Romano et al. (2010) HE-Reformer Air 1050 MDEA 91.56 50.65 7.96
Gazzani et al. (2013a,b) GHR Air 950 MDEA 91.5 50.30 8.00
Atsonios et al. (2013) GHR Air 950 MDEA 88.4 50.37 7.97

were fired for the first time, operating as planned. With the initial The CO2 separation can be carried out by physical, chemical
firing of the gasifiers, the next milestone to achieve later 2015 is absorption or also the combination of the two. Considering the typ-
the production of syngas from lignite coal. The project startup has ical operating pressures set by the GT combustor (usually in the
been delayed until March 2016 (NETL, 2015). range of 30 bar) and CO2 concentrations (around 15%), the pre-
ferred option is the MDEA technology which is discussed in the
post combustion review paper and in section 3 of this paper. The
8.1. Pre-combustion CO2 capture in NGCC power plants
CO2 capture rate of by MDEA can be as high as 95%, leading to an
overall CO2 avoidance in the range of 90%.2 The CO2 is released at
As anticipated in the beginning of this section, there are not
a pressure slightly above the atmospheric and can be compressed
as many studies on NG pre-combustion capture as for IGCC or
for transport and storage.
emerging technologies for CO2 separation. This is mainly because
After CO2 separation, the decarbonized hydrogen rich fuel is sent
economic assessment in the early 2000 showed lower cost of CO2
to the power section for power generation. The power section con-
avoided for post-combustion capture in NGCC over pre-combustion
sists in all studies in a combined cycle which guarantees very high
capture in NGCC (Fluor Daniel Inc., 2000), (Kvamsdal et al., 2007).
efficiency conversion and low specific costs. Issues of operating the
In addition, the post-combustion lay-out does not imply modifica-
gas turbine with low heating value fuels have been already dis-
tions to the gas turbine as described before. The lay-out discussed
cussed. Beside plant components which are very similar among all
below is based on the most recent works on NGCC pre-combustion
studies, the main difference lays in the thermal integration between
which have been carried out mainly by academia in European FP6
the fuel de-carbonization and Hydrogen Island and the power sec-
and FP7 projects. The plant sections for the pre-combustion CO2
tion. A tighter integration guarantees higher performances, but it
capture in NGCC are depicted in Fig. 7 together with main compo-
is penalized cost wise.
nents.
Another possible integration is in the air compression for the
The fuel decarbonization and hydrogen section includes all
reformer which can be directly taken from the GT compressor outlet
the reactors necessary to transfer the fuel heating value to
or compressed by a dedicated component. The former solution is
hydrogen. These reactors are typically the reformer and the
more challenging during start-up and shut-down. The separated
water–gas shift. Upstream the reforming reactor, a desulphuriza-
compressor allows higher flexibility during start-up operation but
tion section is required to avoid catalyst poisoning from sulfur
implies lower compression efficiency. When the air is taken directly
components present in the natural gas. The reformer is usually of
from the GT compressor, the GT compressor can work close to the
the auto-thermal type. Compared to steam reforming, it has sev-
design conditions of NG applications.
eral advantages as lower steam to carbon ratio, produces a diluted
Since fuel costs share about 60% of the cost of electricity, an
syngas with benefits for the gas turbine combustor and it is cheaper
efficient integration would be the preferred choice. Conversely, the
thanks to the integrated heat supply.
increasing penetration of renewable electricity production requires
Different types of lay-out can be adopted differing by the
fossil fuel plants to be flexible to compensate the renewables
thermal integration and reactants pre-heating. The first solution
variability; moreover, the lower number of equivalent (operating)
adopted by (Nord and Bolland, 2011a,b) consists of pre-heating the
hours calls for fast start-up and shut-down dynamic. Accordingly,
natural gas and steam streams with exhaust gases from the GT.
a tighter integration of syngas and power islands would limit the
The second option is based on Gas Heated Reformer -Auto thermal
plant flexibility leading to overwhelming difficulties in the plant
reformer (GHR-ATR) that converts a steam-methane mixture into
management. On the other hand, if the hydrogen market would
hydrogen using two sequential steps: a pre-reforming gas heated
be fully developed, pre-combustion capture NGCC plants could
reformer (GHR) and a more conventional air blown auto thermal
address this issue by switching between power and H2 production.
reformer (ATR) (Abbott, 2006), (Abbott, 2008). The regenerative
Describing in detail one of the considered lay-outs (see Fig. 7),
heat exchanger of the GHR-ATR replaces in the conventional con-
the NG is fed at 70 bar and 10 ◦ C, and preheated to the temperature
figuration a waste-heat boiler producing high pressure saturated
required by the Hydro De-Sulfurization reactor (HDS) through a
steam. Therefore, it has the thermodynamic advantages of recov-
recuperative and a syngas heat exchanger. Before HDS, a hydrogen-
ering heat at high temperature and reducing the amount of natural
rich gas must be mixed to the NG to achieve 2% hydrogen content in
gas to be burned to sustain the reforming reaction. However, metal
the stream as required by the desulphurization process. The desired
dusting can become an issue, therefore more expensive materials
S/C ratio is achieved in two different steps: the NG is saturated in
should be adopted (Dean and Sheldon, 2001). A third option, pre-
a direct contact saturator and then additional steam is added; sat-
sented in (Romano et al., 2010) consists of adopting an adiabatic
uration reduces the amount of steam bled from the turbine for the
reformer and then a regenerative heat exchanger to pre-heat the
reacting stream cooling the reformate.
In all cases, downstream the reforming reactor, two WGS reac- 2
CO2 capture rate is defined as the CO2 captured at the MDEA process divided
tors with intermediate cooling are adopted to convert CO into H2 , by the overall CO2 content in the fuel, while the CO2 avoidance refers to the CO2
a HTS reactor for bulk CO conversion followed by a LTS reactor to emissions avoided compared to the reference case, hence accounting for the energy
further enhance the CO conversion. penalties of capturing the CO2
178 D. Jansen et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 40 (2015) 167–187

reforming recovering low temperature heat. After reforming, the Table 5

Performance comparison of two different pre combustion CO2 capture systems with
syngas is cooled in the GHR or recuperative heat exchanger whilst
the none capture NGCC reference case.
heating the natural gas-steam mixture up to 625 ◦ C and providing
heat for the reforming reaction in the GHR. Further syngas cooling NGCC* NGCC SEWGSa
with
for HTS conditions is carried out in a waste heat boiler, produc-
MDEAa
ing high pressure steam. The syngas leaves the HTS reactor at an
equilibrium temperature of about 450 ◦ C where it is cooled by par- Number of gas turbine 2 2 2
Gas Turbine Electric Net Power [MWel] 272.1 294.5 277.4
allel heat exchangers: in the first the syngas is cooled to 340 ◦ C by
Net Power Output, [MWel] 829.9 830.0 795.5
evaporating HP water and supplies the heat required by the desul- Thermal Power InputLHV , [MWth] 1422.6 1651.0 1555.5
phurization process; in the second, the syngas is cooled to 190 ◦ C Net Electric Efficiency (LHV), [%] 58.34 50.30 51.14
by heating GT fuel and preheating HP water. Then, an adiabatic LTS Net Electric Efficiency (HHV), [%] 52.67 45.39 46.18
Emissions [gCO2 /kWhel ] 351.8 29.8 50.2
reactor is adopted.
CO2 avoided, [%] – 91.5 85.7
A second saturator is used on the hydrogen rich mixture stream
a
and allows heating to reduce the NOx production in the GT com- Numbers obtained from Gazzani et al. (2013a,b).

bustor using feed water heated by the syngas at the MDEA inlet.
The heat necessary for the CO2 stripping from the MDEA solution
is obtained by bleeding LP steam from the turbine. Results of sys-
tem assessment studies on pre-combustion CO2 capture in NGCC
are summarized in Table 4. It is noted that there is a wide range
of efficiencies depending on the integration between the hydrogen
island and the power section as well as assumptions.
When advanced technology for CO2 capture as Sorption
Enhanced Water Gas shift (SEWGS) is entailed, the process lay-out
varies as shown in Fig. 8. Until the SEWGS, the process coincides
with the pre-combustion lay-out presented above since it requires
a reformer for methane conversion. Differences arise from the WGS
section: the main advantage of SEWGS is the separation of CO2 at
high temperature while producing H2 rich stream which is directly
fed to the gas turbine. The SEWGS combines the WGS reaction with
the CO2 separation pushing the reaction toward the product for-
mation, hence increasing the H2 production. Even if the SEWGS
performs the WGS reaction together with CO2 separation, a pre-
shift HTS section is also included to reduce the temperature rise
inside the SEWGS. Beside the thermodynamic advantage of SEWGS
toward MDEA of avoiding H2 rich stream temperature swing, the
other important parameter is the parasitic losses for CO2 sepa-
ration. Recent sorbent developments showed that the amount of
steam for separating the CO2 and regenerating the sorbent is sim-
ilar or even better than MDEA leading to an overall advantage in
terms of efficiency. Moreover, the MDEA case is penalized in terms
of CO2 avoidance by the CO equilibrium in the LTS, while this does
not occur in SEWGS. All these numbers are summarized in Table 5.
The simulations all have been performed using the same reference
case and assumptions (Gazzani et al., 2013a,b).
As for the economic assessment, there are even less papers
dealing with the cost of electricity and cost of CO2 avoided for
the pre-combustion technology on MDEA (Atsonios et al., 2013),
(Manzolini et al., 2013a,b) Moreover the economic assessment
was mainly performed as reference case rather than for demon-
strating the economic feasibility of commercial systems for CO2
capture in NGCC plants. In general, the NGCC plants are character-

Fig. 7. Layout of the NGCC power plant with pre-combustion CO2 capture.
 D. Jansen et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 40 (2015) 167–187 179

Fig. 8. Layout of the NGCC power plant with CO2 capture by SEWGS.

Table 6
Economic evaluation for commercial pre-combustion technologies (MDEA) and an advanced solution (SEWGS) for two different studies.

Atsonios et al. (2013) Manzolini et al. (2013a,b)

NGCC with MEA NGCC with MDEA NGCC NGCC with MEA NGCC with MDEA SEWGS
Investment costs [D/MWhel ] 13.11 18.46 9.55 15.59 19. 89 16.49
Fixed O&M costs [D/MWhel ] 6.74 8.55 3.85 5.24 7.31 6.16
Consumables [D/MWhel ] 1.33 1.1 0.59 1.38 1.39 1.81
Fuel costs [D/MWhel ] 46.96 46.46 40.11 46.89 46.55 45.39
Cost of Electricity [D/MWhel ] 68.14 74.57 54.10 69.10 74.63 69.85
Cost of CO2 avoided [D/CO2 ] 46.60 67.03 N/A 47.5 63.8 49.0

ized by low capital costs (CAPEX) and high operating costs (OPEX);
pre-combustion technologies require the adoption of expensive
components (i.e. GHR-ATR, MDEA) as well as integration costs,
doubling the CAPEX of reference NGCC. The post-combustion tech-
nologies are cheaper and simpler to be integrated, therefore most of
studies and investment in NGCC focused on post-combustion tech-
nologies. Two recent works (Atsonios et al., 2013), (Manzolini et al.,
2013a,b) outlined the penalties in terms of cost of electricity and
cost of CO2 avoided compared to commercial MEA. Results are sum-
marized in Table 6. In the same Table 6, calculated costs for SEWGS
application are also outlined. SEWGS reduces costs compared to
similar CO2 capture technologies (i.e. MDEA) but it is still higher
than reference MEA. This is because the abovementioned issue of
additional equipment and plant complexity. Advantages compared
to MDEA are both in terms of higher efficiency and CAPEX savings
thanks to the CO2 separation at high temperature.
8.2. Pre-combustion CO2 capture in IGCC power plants
The integration of a pre-combustion CO2 -capture technology
into an IGCC plant can be carried out without significant modifica-
tions. Accordingly, in order to make a coal-based pre-combustion
capture technology appealing, it is required to start from a state-
of-the-art, advanced IGCC plant.
8.3. State-of-the-art IGCC plant
The integration of the gasifier with the power island is usually
based on a 1-1-1 configuration, i.e. one gasification train for each
gas turbine and heat recovery steam generator. This is because the
current gasifier yield does not provide enough syngas to feed mul-
tiple heavy duty gas turbines. Depending on the overall number of
gasification trains and on the required flexibility, each heat recov-
ery steam cycle (HRSC) can either have a dedicated steam turbine or
share it with another HRSC. Each gasification train is composed of
a gasifier reactor with all equipment for syngas cooling and scrub-
bing, an air separation unit and a syngas clean process.
A general, state-of-the-art, IGCC scheme is shown in Fig. 9. Air
supplied to the ASU may come from the compressor of the gas tur-
bine, from an entirely independent compressor or part from the
GT and part from an independent compressor. Highly integrated
design improves the plant efficiency but reduces the operating flex-
180 D. Jansen et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 40 (2015) 167–187

Table 7
List of the most recent IGCC plants for power production without CO2 capture on service from 2007. Data from Isles (2012), Kim (2009), Mississippi Power (2014), Nunokawa
(2013), Peltier (2013), Xu Shisen (2014).

Edwardsport Greengen Nakoso KOWEPCO

Country USA China Japan South korea

Company Duke energy Huaneng Joban joint power company Korea western power co
Plant configurationa 2x (1-1-1) 1x (1-1-1) 1x (1-1-1) 1x (1-1-1)
Gasification process GE-Texaco CHNG MHI Shell
ASU Air product Kai feng Air-blown n.a.
Gas turbine GE 7FB Siemens SGT5-2000E MHI M701DA GE 7F
2 × 236 MW 1 × 130 MW
Steam turbine GE 1 × 322 MW Shanghai electric MHI 1 × 120 MW GE
Syngas desulfurization Selexol MDEA MDEA Sulfinol
CCS ready Yes Yes No No
Year of operation 2013 2012 2007b 2015c
Power output 618 MW 265 MW 250 MW 300 MW
Efficiency 38.5% HHV 41% LHV 43% LHV (net) >42% (estimated)
48% (gross)
Emissions SOx 0.014 Lbs/MMBtu <1.4 mg/Nm3 1 ppm 16% O2 7 ppm
NOx 0.02 Lbs/MMBtu 52 mg/Nm3 3.4 ppm 16% O2 30 ppm
PM 0.007 Lbs/MMBtu <1.0 mg/Nm3 0.1 mg/Nm3 16% O2 <3 mg/Nm3
Cost 3500 MUSD n.a. n.a. n.a.
(5600 $/kW)
a
As Gasification train-gas turbine-steam recovery generator.
b
Owned and operated by Joban Joint Power Company (JJPC) since July 2013; built and operated by MHI until the takeover of JJPC.
c
At the time this work was written, the Kowepco IGCC was under construction with expected start-up in 2015.

ibility. The present experience with power plants based on coal
gasification recommends a maximum of 50% integration, i.e. 50% of
the mass flow of air entering the ASU comes from the GT compres-
sor, on grounds of reliability and availability (Franco et al., 2011).
An expander between the gas turbine compressor and the ASU can
be adopted to recover part of the compression work. The advan-
tages obtained integrating the gas turbine compressor with the
ASU main compressor are driven by the higher GT flexibility as
previously mentioned. Concerning the overall compressor duty, no
significant advantages exist when power and Gasification Island are
integrated: the GT compressor features higher isentropic efficiency
whilst the ASU main compressor is intercooled.
The state-of-the art technology for oxygen production at this
size is cryogenic distillation. The distillation column of the ASU
works at about 5–6 bar, producing almost pure N2 and 95%mol O2 at
atmospheric pressure. N2 produced in the ASU is used to decrease

Fig. 9. General plant layout of an IGCC for power production with emphasis on the main technologies for coal gasification and acid gas removal. The syngas cleaning island
is represented for: (a) without CO2 capture, and (b) with CO2 capture.
 D. Jansen et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 40 (2015) 167–187
the stoichiometric temperature of the gas turbine combustor - to
control the NOx formation, (Gazzani et al., 2014) - and, for dry fed
gasifiers, to charge the coal into the lock hoppers and to clean the
candle filters.
The hot syngas exiting the gasifier is in the range of
1200–1700 ◦ C and is cooled down by means of different heat
exchanger configurations depending on the technology used. Main
solutions encompass: i) convective coolers, ii) radiant coolers, iii)
water quench and, iv) gas quench. Different combinations of these
are possible depending on the plant specifications and coal type.
Most of the syngas sensible energy is collected producing saturated
HP or IP steam, which is sent to the HRSG. Following the syn-
gas cooling and depending on the gasification process, entrained
solid particles are removed. The main technologies adopted are
candle filters (e.g. Shell process) or water scrubber (GE process).
Finally, soluble contaminants are removed in a water wash. Low
temperature heat is recovered producing hot water for the syn-
gas saturator. Liquid water from the scrubber is clarified in a sour
water stripper by means of LP steam and subsequently recycled
back to the scrubber. In the entrained gasifiers, the molten slag
flows along the reactor wall and is collected at the bottom section.
In IGCC power plants, sulfur contained in solid coal is mainly con-
verted to H2 S, and barely to COS, since the gasification is carried
out in an oxygen-depleted environment. Accordingly, the derived
syngas must be cleaned before use in the combustion turbine in
order to: i) protect the GT from corrosion, erosion, and fouling,
and ii) minimize the pollutant emissions into the environment.
This requires the adoption of different processes to remove all the
sulfur compounds from the syngas and their following transfor-
mation in non-pollutant species. Therefore, syngas, which exits
the scrubber at about 150–200 ◦ C, is cooled to ambient tempera-
ture before entering the Acid Gas Removal (AGR) process, where
H2 S is removed by means of an absorption cycle. If the solvent
is not selective toward COS, a catalytic COS medium-temperature
hydrolyzer is used prior of the AGR. In such a case, a regenerative
heat exchanger is adopted to efficiently operate the process. The
H2 S removed in the AGR is converted to elemental sulfur in a Claus
unit, whose sulfur recovery efficiency is usually enhanced adopting
a tail gas treatment (e.g. with processes as SCOT, BSR, TPA Resulf
etc.). The steam generated by H2 S combustion in the Claus plant is
balanced by the heat required to keep S molten and to regenerate
the solvent of the Claus-tail gas treatment. After the AGR unit, syn-
gas is mixed with nitrogen from the ASU and then saturated with
medium pressure water in order to increase the GT efficiency while
limiting NOx formation.
Similarly to a conventional combined cycle, a three pressure
level heat recovery steam cycle is used to recover heat from gas
turbine flue gas and syngas cooling. Depending on the gasifica-
tion process, the intermediate pressure level can be coupled with
the gasifier reactor pressure such that the steam demand and the
reactor wall cooling are optimized. In order to avoid sulphuric
acid condensation, a higher stack temperature (>115 ◦ C) is required
compared to natural gas fired combined cycle. Because of the high
stack temperature and large steam production outside HRSG, a
regenerative pre-heater of the Rankine cycle can enhance the steam
production.
Despite the energy losses due to the coal gasification, the IGCC
power generation efficiency ranges between 40 and 46% (LHV, net),
therefore competing with USC plants but with more efficient emis-
sion abatements.
8.4. New IGCC plants without CO2 capture
After more than two decades of commercial demonstration, a
new generation of coal-based IGCC plants for power production
has recently entered -or will be soon-in service. Table 7 reports the
181
list of IGCC plants without CO2 capture (whereas two of them are
capture ready) built or currently being built. Additionally, a full-
scale IGCC with CO2 capture is entering operation in US; this plant
is discussed later in the text. Notably, among the plants reported in
Table 7, Edwardsport is the only IGCC in western countries, which
confirms that the largest market for gasification is Asia, with China
leading the list of new projects (GTC, 2015). In addition to these
plants, several others are in advanced stage of design and full oper-
ation is foreseen before 2020 (NETL, 2015), (GCCSI, 2015).
8.5. Commercial ready solutions for CO2 capture in IGCC
In IGCC plants with CO2 capture, the syngas decarbonization
takes place after the gasifier coolers and before the power cycle.
All units composing an IGCC with CO2 capture are commercially
available but for high-TIT hydrogen-fired gas turbine. Neverthe-
less, main gas turbine vendors as MHI, GE, Siemens and Alstom offer
modified gas turbines which can operate with low-LHV and high-
H2 content gas at a reduced efficiency (see Table 3). Accordingly,
CO2 capture from IGCC plants can be regarded as a commercially
available technology, which has already undergone pilot demon-
strations for instance in Europe and Japan:
1. The Vattenfall “CO2 Catch-up” project in Buggenum, the
Netherlands
The objective of the CO2 Catch-up project was to demonstrate on
a pilot scale, pre-combustion CO2 capture in the IGCC power plant
in Buggenum, the Netherlands, in order to verify the technology
performance and to generate knowledge in the form of validated
(process) models and operational experience. The pilot plant con-
sisted of an advanced split flow WGS section using HTS catalyst,
followed by condensate recovery, CO2 removal by DEPG physical
solvent and CO2 compression (Damen et al., 2011)]. A slipstream
of the syngas of 29 t.d−1 , corresponding to about 2 MWe capacity,
was used to capture 33 t.d−1 of CO2 at a capture rate of 85%. The
WGS section was operated for 5800 h, while the CO2 scrubber was
operated for 3200 h with intermediate packing exchange. The pilot
unit officially opened May 2011 and the test program was com-
pleted beginning 2013 (Damen et al., 2014). The Buggenum 250
MWe IGCC power plant has been closed in April 1st 2013.
2. The pre-combustion capture pilot of ELCOGAS in Puertollano,
Spain
The 14 MWe pilot plant for CO2 capture and H2 coproduction is
integrated in the Puertollano IGCC Plant and treats 2% of the total
syngas generated in the IGCC power plant (Casero et al., 2014). The
feeding gas was either sweet (design conditions) or sour. The pro-
cess is composed by three units: a WGS unit (sweet and sour tested
separately for 350 h and 860 h, respectively), CO2 and H2 separation
unit (using chemical absorption technology operated for 960 h),
and H2 purification unit (PSA operated for 80 h). The pilot captured
100 t.d−1 of CO2 using the pre-combustion technology, at a cap-
ture rate higher than 90%. The pilot also produced 99.99% purity
hydrogen. The pilot was in operation from 2010 to 2014.
3. The Eagle project by NEDO, J-Power and Hitachi in Kitakyushu,
Japan.
From the 150 t coal per day IGCC, a syngas slipstreams of 22 t.d−1
is withdrawn either upstream or downstream the MDEA AGR to be
fed to i) a sour shift + physical wash or ii) a sweet shift + chemical
wash section, to capture 24 t.d−1 of CO2 (Nagasaki et al., 2013).
The sour shift consists of 3 reactors in series containing a newly
developed catalyst operated at a steam/CO feed of 1.2. The physical
wash section is a Rectisol unit, producing a H2 S-rich and a CO2 -rich
stream. The sweet shift section also consists of 3 reactors, being
two HTS and one LTS. The chemical wash section uses MDEA. Heat
integration is realized by using the LTS reaction heat to perform a
heated flash regeneration of the rich solvent. Moreover, the steam
required for the shift section is generated from cooling water in
182 D. Jansen et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 40 (2015) 167–187

Table 8
Main features and results of recent studies on IGCC pre-combustion technology based on commercial CO2 separation systems.

Reference Gasifier Coal oxidant Capture process CO2 avoided [%] Net efficiency Efficiency CO2 emissions
[%, LHV] penalty [g/kWh]
[%points]

NETL GE Oxygen Selexol 88% 36.1 −7.1 93.4

(2010) Shell Oxygen Selexol 86% 34.5 −12.1 99.0
E-gas Oxygen Selexol 87% 34.3 −9.6 87.3
Martelli et al. (2011) Shell Oxygen Selexol 92% 36.6 −11.1 52.0
Gazzani et al. (2013a,b) Shell Oxygen Selexol 87% 36.0 −11.1 99.0
Kunze and Spliethoff (2010) Siemens Oxygen Rectisol n.a. 38.5 −11.0 77.0
Cormos Siemens Oxygen Selexol >90% 36.0 −7.1 76.1
(2011) GE Oxygen Selexol >90% 35.9 n.a. 65.5
Shell Oxygen Selexol >90% 37.1 −9.5 86.9
Shell Oxygen Rectisol >90% 36.7 −9.9 89.1
Shell Oxygen MDEA >90% 36.5 −10.1 85.5
Majoumerd et al. (2012) Shell Oxygen Selexol 90% 36.3 −10.0 78.6
Guiffrida (2012) MHI Air MDEA 88% 38.1 −10.8 87.0

the intermediate HTS coolers. Pilot testing indicated that the sour
layout has a 10% lower energy penalty relative to the sweet lay-out.
The IGCC plant layout with state-of-the-art CCS is shown in Fig. 9
considering the b) syngas cleaning solution. As it can be noted with
respect to the no-capture case, the main differences are introduced
by the WGS reactor, the CO2 selective absorption process and the
CO2 compressor.
Thanks to the high pressure of the gasification process, phys-
ical or mixed physical-chemical solvents are usually adopted for
CO2 removal in IGCC. There exist more than 30 commercial pro-
cesses for gas sweetening throughout oil, chemical and natural gas
industries; main processes include SelexolTM and Rectisol© (both
physical solvents) or MDEA and Sulfinol© (mixed solvents). Differ-
ently from IGCC without capture, COS hydrolysis is not required
as it is converted to H2 S in the WGS reactor. The acid gas removal
is carried out in two stages, except for CO2 and H2 S co-capture. In
the first stage, H2 S is removed whilst CO2 is separated in the sec-
ond stage. The process results in three product streams: i) a rich
fuel gas, ii) a CO2 rich stream, and iii) an acid gas fed to the sulfur
recovery plant (Claus or similar). The CO2 stream is purified before
the final compression and H2 -CO are recycled back to the process.
The absorption process is generally designed to capture maximum
90 % of the CO2 in the syngas. Eventually, the remaining CO2 emis-
sions will originate from: i) CO2 slip from the absorption process,
ii) unconverted CO and CH4 burned in the gas turbine combustor
and iii) CO2 captured along with H2 S and vented in the Claus plant.
Table 8 shows the main plant features and the performance results
of different studies on CO2 capture in IGCC plants with commercial
technologies.
The net electric efficiency varies between 34 % and 38 % LHV,
mainly depending on the gasification process used. The result-
ing penalization compared to the no-capture case ranges between
7 and 12%-points. Considering a given gasification process, e.g.
Shell, most of the studies predict similar efficiency (around 36.5%
LHV) and similar specific CO2 emissions (85 g/kWh). CO2 avoided
is always close to 90%.
9. New IGCC plants with CO2 capture
Concerning progresses on construction of IGCC with CCS, the
Mississippi Power’s Kemper County project is the only IGCC, and
the second large scale power facility, with CCS in the world. As
described in (Koneru et al., 2012), Kemper County plant is based on
the TRIGÔ gasification technology, a fluidized gasifier derived from
the catalytic cracking units used in petrochemical industry. The net
power output will be 524 MW with a peak capacity of 582 MW
when HRSG post-firing is used. The gas turbine is a Siemens SGT6-
5000F. The plant layout is based on two 1-1-1 configurations, i.e.
two separate gasification trains with two gas turbines and HRSGs.
The air fed gasifier is integrated with the GT compressor such that
40% of the air is taken from the power block. Superheated high
pressure steam is produce in the syngas coolers. The sour WGS
converts 90% of the entering CO. The AGR units employ Selexol
process that remove 99% of the H2 S and approximately 65% of
the CO2 . The captured CO2 is dehydrated, compressed and used
for EOR.
9.1. Advancements in IGCC plant with CO2 capture and
commercial ready technologies
From a technological perspective, there is a large potential for
IGCC improvements in the mid-long term perspective. In order
to make the integration of a commercial-ready CCS technology
in an IGCC power plant successful, three main key-points should
be addressed: i) reduction of the WGS steam consumption, ii)
advanced sulfur removal system and iii) optimized heat integration
with the HRSG.
Table 9 presents an exemplary summary of the advancements
achievable in IGCC with CO2 capture. Concerning the first key-point,
a new sour WGS catalyst, with reduced S/C requirements, has been
proposed in (Beavis et al., 2013). New WGS process configurations
are reported in (Carbo et al., 2009a), (Martelli et al., 2011), (Grol and
Yang, 2009) and validated in (van Dijk et al., 2014). Different strate-
gies to improve and integrate an existing sulfur removal process
(Rectisol)© are reported in (Gatti et al., 2014). Finally, advanced sul-
fur removal can be carried out thanks to the SEWGS process, which
allows the co-separation of CO2 and H2 S in an IGCC plant. Detailed
thermodynamic analysis is presented in (Gazzani et al., 2013a,b).
From a technical point of view, SEWGS is now ready to move to
the next development level, which is a pilot plant installation with
a capacity of 35 t CO2 per day (Jansen et al., 2013). Considering an
improved heat recovery integration, advanced solutions are pre-
sented in (Botros and Brisson, 2011), (Botros and Brisson, 2013)
and (Martelli et al., 2011). Alongside improvements linked to the
CO2 capture process, IGCC can benefit of any advancements in
hydrogen-fuelled GT. For example, the use of premixed DLN com-
bustor would straightforward lead to an efficiency improvement
of about 1.5–2.5 percentage points with minor modification to the
rest of the process (Gazzani et al., 2014).
9.2. IGCC costs
The main issue for IGCC deployment remains the high capital
expenditure (CAPEX) compared to other fossil fuels plants (EPRI,
 D. Jansen et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 40 (2015) 167–187 183

Table 9
Improved solutions for integration of pre-combustion CO2 capture in IGCC plants.

Reference Improvement Capture process Initial efficiency [%, Resulting Efficiency Efficiency
LHV] [%, LHV] improvement
[%-points]

Martelli et al. (2011) Optimized WGS Selexol 36.6 38.15 +1.6

configuration
Botros and Brisson (2011) Optimized heat Selexol 32.6b 34.7–38.1b +2.1/+5.5
recovery in the syngas
cooling sectiona
Botros and Brisson (2013) New materials and Selexol 32.6 33.5 +0.8
working fluids for
syngas cooling
Gazzani et al. (2013a,b) New CO2 and H2 S SEWGS 36.0 39.8 +3.5
separation technology
Gatti et al. (2014) Improved Rectisol Rectisol n.a. n.a. 20% decrease Rectisol
process equivalent power
a
Efficiency ranges depending on the different design of the syngas cooling section proposed.
b
Original data are available on the ground of HHV efficiency for Illinois #6 Bituminous. LHV-based efficiency values have been calculated using the HHV-LHV ratio for
Illinois #6 Bituminous reported in NETL (2010).

Table 10
Economic evaluation for application of pre-combustion technologies to an IGCC plant.

Reference Type of analysis Total investment CoE Cost of CO2 avoided Notes

Chen and Rubin (2009) n.a. 2513 $/kW(1656 D/kW) a

65.9 $/MWh 41.2 $/tonCO2 (31.7 D/tonCO2 )a
GE + Selexol $ @ 2008
Manzolini NOAK 2881 D/kW 89.6 D/MWh 36.7 D/tonCO2 Shell + SelexolD @ 2008
et al. NOAK 2599 D/kW 82.3 D/MWh 23.5 D/tonCO2 Shell + SEWGSD @ 2008
Martelli
(2013a,b)et al. (2011) n.a. 2584 $/kW(1988 D/kW)a 96.2 $/MWh 50.5 $/tonCO2 (38.8 D/tonCO2 )a Shell + Selexol $ @ 2008
NETL Mixed N/F-OAK 3801 $/kW(2924 D/kW)a 133.9 $/MWh 66 $/tonCO2 (50.8 D/tonCO2 )a GE + Selexol $ @ 2007
(2010) Mixed N/F-OAK 4451 $/kW(3424 D/kW)a 151.4 $/MWh 86 $/tonCO2 (66.2 D/tonCO2 )a Shell + Selexol $ @ 2007
Cormos n.a. 2556 D/kW 73.2 D/MWh 29.3 D/tonCO2 Shell + Selexol
(2012) n.a. 2622 D/kW 76.2 D/MWh 23.7 D/tonCO2 Siemens + Selexol
Majoumerd and Assadi (2014) NOAK 2902 D/kW 90 D/MWh 50 D/tonCO2 Shell + Selexol D @ 2013
a
Obtained using a $ to D exchange rate equal to 1.3 (average of the 2010–2015 years).

2012). Estimating the cost of IGCC plants has long been an open
issue. Recent underestimation of investment costs in Edwardsport
and Kemper County confirms the difficulty of such an exercise: esti-
mated cost at beginning of the Edwards port project (Oct 2006)
was 1.9 billion USD whilst total project cost reached 3.5 billion
USD. Similarly, Kemper County IGCC costs raised from 2.4 billion
to 5.6 billion USD. Recently, a common framework and method
for establishing costs in CCS plants was presented in (Rubin et al.,
2013). Table 10 reports the results of different economic analysis
for integration of CO2 pre-combustion capture in IGCC plant. As
shown, the variability in the cost of CO2 avoided, as well the COE,
is quite high among the different studies; it ranges between 20 and
70 D/tonCO2 . The reasons of this lay mainly in the different method-
ology adopted, e.g. considering or not the inflation rate, and the
contingencies used, e.g. 10% in (Manzolini et al., 2013a,b), 5–40% in
(NETL, 2010).
10. Pre-combustion CO2 capture in industry for CCS
The industrial sector includes several industries where CO2 is
produced as a by-product of chemical conversion and/or from the
combustion of fossil fuels. Industrial sources with high CO2 con-
centration gas streams include conversion of coal-to-liquid fuels
and chemical processes for production of chemical commodities,
such as ethanol, ammonia, hydrogen and synthetic methane gas.
CO2 capture technologies in those industrial applications have been
commercially deployed. Other industrial sources include cement
production, iron and steel, and oil refining where gas streams with
relatively lower CO2 concentration, but often higher compared to
power generation, are vented.
The Global CCS Institute (GCCSI, 2014), identified in total, 13
Large Scale Integrated Project (LSIP) currently in operation, being
9 pre-combustion, 3 industrial separation and 1 post-combustion.
Of the 9 pre combustion LSIP, 8 projects concern the CO2 removal
from natural gas i.e. natural gas processing. These 8 industrial CCS
projects are however, outside the scope of this review because they
do not comply with the IPCC definition of pre-combustion capture.
The remaining 4 projects concern 3 industrial projects and finally
1 for synfuel from coal.
10.1. Coal to chemicals
Clean synthetic carbon fuels and chemicals can be produced
from syngas generated via gasification of coal or other carbon
containing feedstock’s. Products include synthetic natural gas,
Fischer-Tropsch diesel, gasoline, dimethyl ether, methanol and
ammonia. In this type of plants, a stream of relatively pure CO2
stream is separated and vented and could be easily and at rela-
tive low cost be made on specs for transport and storage. Typical
examples of this are:
• Great Plains Synfuel Plant, Beulah North Dakota, USA
Rectisol is used at the Great Plains Synfuel Plant for the acid
gas removal from the syngas produced by an updraft Lurgi gasifier.
H2 S and CO2 are simultaneously absorbed in one column. Desorp-
tion is achieved by staged flash regeneration. H2 S is converted into
elementary sulfur in the downstream Stretford process. This pro-
cess also produces a CO2 stream with 2 vol% H2 S (3.3 Mt CO2 /a) of
which a substantial part (1.0–1.5 Mt CO2 /a) is compressed, trans-
ported and injected in the Weyburn field in Canada for Enhanced
Oil Recovery (EOR). The cleaned syngas is used for the production
of Synthetic Natural Gas (SNG).
• Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilisers (Kansas,USA).
Petroleum coke is gasified to produce a hydrogen rich syn-
184 D. Jansen et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 40 (2015) 167–187
gas, from which ammonia and urea ammonium nitrate fertilisers
are subsequently synthesised. As a byproduct of manufacturing
ammonia and the fertilisers, the plant also produces significant
amounts of CO2 . In March 2011, Chaparral Energy announced
the execution of a long-term CO2 purchase and sales agreement
with Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers for the CO2 for
EOR.
• The Koch Nitrogen Company facility (Oklahoma, USA). This one
of the largest fertiliser production plants in North America, pro-
ducing ammonia, liquid fertiliser and Urea. The plant was built in
1974. Plant upgrades were undertaken in 2011. The high purity,
high concentration CO2 off-gas is dehydrated and compressed.
Since 1982, Chaparral Energy and Merit Energy transported
around 680,000 t of CO2 per annum from the fertiliser plant to
depleted oil fields in southern Oklahoma for EOR.
Furthermore two pre-combustion integrated CCS projects in
China in the chemical industry (coal to chemicals) are in prepa-
ration (GCCSI, 2014):
• Sinopec Qilu Petrochemical CCS Project; The CO2 from coal to
chemical facility that is producing butyl alcohol and methanol
will be used for EOR. The Rectisol process is used for the CO2
capture.
• Yanchang Integrated CCS Demonstration Project; The CO2 is cap-
tured from a gasification facility for coal to chemicals, including a
0.2 Mt.y−1 methanol plant and 0.2 Mt.y−1 acetic acid plan, at the
Shaanxi Yanchang Petroleum Yulin Coal Chemical company. The
captured CO2 is primarily for use in EOR operations.
Expected date of operation for both projects is 2016.
10.2. Oil and refinery
In the oil and refining industry currently only one pre-
combustion project is in operation i.e. the Air Products Steam
Methane reformer EOR Project.
• The project is made up of 2 Steam Methane Reformers (SMR)
located within the Valero Refinery in Port Arthur. The first plant
has been capturing CO2 since December 2012, while the second
plant completed construction in February 2013 and began carbon
capture operations in March 2013. Both units are currently oper-
ating at full capacity. Vacuum pressure swing adsorption (VPSA)
separates CO2 prior to the hydrogen PSA purification. Each SMR
and CO2 capture line is fully integrated with the associated com-
bined heat and power (CHP) plant. The 1 Mt.y−1 CO2 is delivered
to the Denbury’s Green Pipeline in Texas. The CO2 will be piped
101–150 km before injection for EOR in Denbury’s onshore oper-
ations. The CO2 will aid in recovering 1.6–3.1 million additional
barrels annually of domestic oil.
Two others pre-combustion refinery CCS project are under con-
struction in Canada (GCCSI, 2014):
• Quest project; 1.0 Mt.y−1 CO2 is captured from the “Scotford”
steam methane reformer units, that produces hydrogen for
upgrading bitumen. The CO2 is captured using Shell’s patented
ADIP-X amine-based capture technology.
• Alberta Carbon Trunk Line (“ACTL”) with North West Sturgeon
Refinery CO2 Stream: The CO2 is captured from the North West
Sturgeon bitumen refinery and Agrium Fertilizer Plant, both
northeast of Edmonton, Alberta.
Expected date of operation for both projects is 2015.
10.3. Steel Industry
The iron and steel industry is the largest energy-consuming
manufacturing sector in the world, accounting for 10–15% of total
industrial energy consumption. The majority of the CO2 emitted
by the iron and steel sector comes from the coal consumption in
the blast furnaces reactor. The capture technology for this area are
divers. In recent years CO2 capture concepts for this sector have
been investigated and developed by the European Low Impact Steel
project (formerly ULCOS). However, many of its R&D activities have
been delayed or canceled as result of the difficult economic con-
ditions and currently limited pilots or demonstrations are under
development.
• As part of the CATO2 CCS programme in the Netherlands, ECN
and two industrial partners are developing the SEWGS pre-
combusting technology for the decarbonization of BF gas that is
now used in gas turbine combined cycle power generation (De
Winter, 2014). By introducing the SEWGS technology the BF gas is
transformed into a H2 /N2 gas mixture suitable for fueling a modi-
fied gas turbine that operates with low-LHV and high-H2 content
gas. Assessments studies indicate lower energy penalties, higher
capture ratios and lower cost compared to a post-combustion
capture route (Gazzani et al., 2013a,b). Within the EU Horizon
2020 program, recently the pilot demonstration project STEP-
WISE has been kicked-off.
• In Japan, the COURSE 50 Project aims to develop technologies to
enable a 20% reduction in emissions through the application of
CCS. Both chemical absorption and physical adsorption technolo-
gies are being developed and/or evaluated. For instance JFE Steel
Corporation is evaluating an adsorption-based process (zeolite
adsorbent) to capture CO2 from blast furnaces, and it has con-
structed a 3 t.d−1 facility called the ‘Advanced Separation System
by Carbon Oxides Adsorption’ (ASCOA-3). The system is reported
to have achieved a capture energy target of 123 kWhe/t CO2 for
33% CO2 inlet gas (IEA GHG, 2013).
• The world’s first iron and steel project to apply pre-combustion
CO2 capture at large scale is now under construction in the
United Arab Emirates (GCCSI, 2014). The project is based on a
Direct Reduction Iron (DRI) making process instead of a blast fur-
nace. The DRI uses a Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) process
to produce H2 and CO. An amine solvent-based process is used
to capture CO2 from the SMR product gases. The carbon capture
process is already embedded in the direct reduction plant. The
advantage of this process is that it produces a very pure stream
of CO2 (>98%), so the actual CCS project only involves dehydra-
tion and compression of the CO2 gas. The project is expected to
be operational in 2016.
11. Conclusion/outlook
11.1. General
This paper presented an overview of the latest achievements
in the pre-combustion decarbonization route for the production of
electricity with CO2 capture. Pre-combustion technologies applied
to both natural gas and coal were considered since they are the main
primary energy source for electricity production worldwide. It was
shown that, from a purely technical point of view, pre-combustion
CO2 capture could be nowadays applied. The technologies for
reforming & partial oxidation and gasification producing syngas are
all being used at an industrial scale in the chemical industry. This
also holds for the water gas shift section, which consists of two reac-
tion steps with intermediate cooling, and the H2 /CO2 separation
section using either a chemical or a physical solvent operating at
 D. Jansen et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 40 (2015) 167–187
low temperature. Concerning the power island, gas turbines for low
LHV fuels are commercially offered by the main GT manufacturers.
Although these GT models feature an efficiency lower than when
running on natural gas, it is believed that the performance gap could
be closed if the market size would justify the development of syngas
tailor-made GT. An additional added value of the pre-combustion
capture route is the flexibility in the power plant output i.e., the
possibility to switch between hydrogen production and power gen-
eration (co-production of hydrogen and power) depending on the
power demand. In fact, due to relative high investment cost, the
syngas section is preferentially operated at base load. The flexibil-
ity for e.g. intermittency is realized by the combined cycle. Finally, it
was shown that, thanks to the technology maturity and similarities,
pre-combustion CO2 capture can be applied to high CO2 emitting
industries such as chemicals (gas and coal based) and iron & steel.
Regardless the above mentioned points, there has been limited
efforts in the development of pre-combustion CO2 capture route
in the last decade. This is mainly caused by the fact that in power
generation, R&D, pilot testing, and demonstration are focusing on
post-combustion capture with improved and new chemical sol-
vents. This is true for both natural gas fueled and coal fueled power
plants.
In the following section, conclusions for each analyzed field are
drawn.
11.2. Pre-combustion in NGCC
• Pre-combustion can be applied in natural gas combined cycle
power generation. However, the required additional investment
cost for the syngas generation makes pre-combustion capture
from an economic point of view, less attractive compared to
the post combustion capture route using chemical solvents (IEA-
GHGT, 2012), (Beavis, 2011).
• To date there is no natural gas fueled pre-combustion power
plant or pilot demo in operation. Calculated efficiency penalties
vary significantly from one study to another depending on the
assumptions and on the integration of the five different plant
sections. In literature efficiency losses from 8 to even 16%-points
have been reported. The major efficiency losses are caused by
the syngas production, the shift section, the H2 /CO2 separation
section and finally the CO2 compression and drying section.
• The use of the SEWGS technology in a NGCC instead of the con-
ventional pre-combustion set-up of a two stage shift and a MDEA
solvent CO2 separation, makes pre-combustion capture almost
cost competitive with post-combustion capture. However, the
higher plant efficiency does not compensate the investment cost
for additional syngas generation equipment completely.
11.3. Pre-combustion in IGCC
• Entrained flow gasification is the most suitable technology for
the conversion of solid fuels, in pursuit of pre-combustion CO2
capture and electricity generation in an IGCC.
• For more than two decades IGCC has been commercial demon-
strated worldwide. To date however, only 4 IGCC power plant
are in operation. Currently, none of them is equipped with CO2
capture.
• The first IGCC with fully integrated CO2 capture has been built in
the US (Kemper County-Mississippi Power). However, the project
startup is delayed until March 2016.
• Analysis of the efficiency losses associated with pre-combustion
(first generation technologies) capture shows that the biggest loss
is incurred in the WGS section. In fact, the WGS section is respon-
sible for 44% of the total efficiency loss of 8–11%-points that CO2
capture confers in an IGCC power plant. This is mainly due to the
185
use of steam for the WGS reaction and the limits in recovering
the heat produced in the conversion.
• Therefore, in the more conventional pre-combustion set-up for
IGCC, R&D in the past years focused on minimizing the amount
of steam in the WGS section needed. Alternative configurations
of the WGS section such as a split flow configuration, develop-
ment of new shift catalysts which can operate with less steam
compared to the conventional catalysts, and finally, combining
the WGS reaction with CO2 adsorption are R&D topics.
• From a technological perspective, there is a large potential for
IGCC improvements in the mid-long term perspective. Optimized
WGS set-ups that have been assessed and sometimes validated
can improve the efficiency i.e. reduce the efficiency penalty in
the range of 1.5 (optimized WGS configuration) to 5.2%-points
(combined sour WGS and CO2 &H2 S removal with SEWGS).
• In literature, cost of CO2 avoided reported ranges from 20 to
−70 D per tonne. The reasons for this wide range are the dif-
ferent methodologies used to calculate the avoidance cost, e.g.
considering or not the inflation rate, and the different contingen-
cies used, e.g. 10% in (Manzolini et al., 2013a,b), 5–40% in NETL
studies (NETL, 2010).
11.4. Pre-combustion industry
• The industrial sector includes several processes where CO2 is pro-
duced as a by-product of chemical conversion. Industrial sources
with high CO2 concentration gas streams include plants for con-
version of coal-to-liquid fuels and chemical processes (mostly
on basis of natural gas) for production of chemical commodities,
such as ethanol, ammonia, hydrogen and synthetic methane gas.
• Pre-combustion CO2 capture technologies in those industrial
applications are commercially available and the associated CO2
separation costs are already included in the product prices.
• To date only 4 pre-combustion CO2 capture plants in industry
are in operation i.e. the Great Plains Synfuel Plant (Beulah, North
Dakota, USA), the Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers plant
(Kansas, USA), the Koch Nitrogen Company facility (Oklahoma,
USA) and the Air Products Steam Methane reformer Project at
Valero Energy refinery (Port Arthur, Texas, USA).
• Two pre-combustion large scale integrated CCS projects in the
chemical industry (coal to chemicals) are in preparation in China.
Expected date of operation is 2016.
• The world’s first iron and steel project to apply pre-combustion
CO2 capture at large scale is now under construction in the United
Arab Emirates. The project is based on a Direct Reduction Iron
(DRI) making process instead of a blast furnace.
• In the steel industry, decarbonization of blast furnace via pre-
combustion CO2 capture is relatively easy to perform without
interfering with the primary processes of iron making. Pilot test-
ing of this concept with the SEWGS technology will be realized
in the new EU Horizon 2020 project STEPWISE.
References
Abanades, J.C., Arias, B., Lyngfelt, A., Mattisson, T., Wiley, D.E., Li, H., Ho, M.T.,
Mangano, Brandani S., International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control (2015),
(In press).
Abbott et al. Process for the production of Hydrocarbons. US 7087,652 B2 United
States, August 8, 2006.
Abbott et al. Production of hydrocarbons by steam reforming and fisher-tropsch
reaction. US 7323,497 B2 USA, 29 January 2008.
Abu-Zahra, M.R.M., Schneiders, L.H.J., Niederer, J.P.M., Feron, P.H.M., Versteeg, G.F.,
2007. CO2 capture from power plants. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 1, 37–46,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1750-5836(06) 00007-7
Agarwal, A., Biegler, L.T., Zitney, S.E., 2010. Superstructure-based optimal synthesis
of pressure swing adsorption cycles for precombustion CO2 capture. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 49 (11), 5066–5079.
C., Alliance, 2012. The economic and reliability benefits of CSP with thermal energy
storage: recent studies and research needs.
186 D. Jansen et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 40 (2015) 167–187
Alstom, 2014. Online document – Technical performance of gas power plants,
Alstom Power.
Atsonios, K., Koumanakos, A., Panopolous, K., Doukelis, A., Kakaras, E., 2013.
Techno-economic comparison of CO2 capture technologies employed with
natural gas derived, In: IGTI 2013 ASME TURBO-EXPO Proceedings.
GT2013-95117, Austin, Texas, US, pp. 1-8.
Beavis, 2011. The EU FP6 CACHET project: final results. Energy Procedia 4,
1074–1081.
Beavis, R., Forsyth, J., Roberts, E., Song, B., Combes, G., Abbott, J., Macleod, N., Vass,
E., Davies, M., Barton, I., 2013. A step-change sour shift process for improving
the efficiency of IGCC with CCS. Energy Procedia 37, 2256–2264.
Berkel, F.P.F., van Korobitsyn M.A., Christie G.M. (2000), “Final Report NOVEM
contract no. 219.401-0012, SOFC as a gas generator”, Report no. ECN-C-00-122.
Petten, The Netherlands: ECN.
Berstad, D., Nekså, P., Gjøvåg, M.A., 2011. Low-temperature syngas separation and
CO2 capture for enhanced efficiency of IGCC power plants. Energy Procedia 4,
1260–1267.
Bohlbro, H., 1963. The Kinetics of the water gas conversion. III. Influence of H2 S on
the rate equation. Acta Chem. Scand. 17, 1001–1011.
Bonzani F., Ansaldo Energia experience on syngas for IGCC power plant, presented
at European Turbine Network Working group’s workshop 2007.
Boon, J., Cobden, P.D., van Dijk, H.A.J., Hoogland, C., van Selow, E.R., van Sint
Annaland, M., 2014. Isotherm model for high-temperature, high-pressure
adsorption of CO2 and H2 O on K-promoted hydrotalcite. Chem. Eng. J. 248,
406–414.
Boon, J., Cobden, P.D., van Dijk, H.A.J., van Sint Annaland, M., 2015.
High-temperature pressure swing adsorption cycle design for
sorption-enhanced water-gas shift. Chem. Eng. Sci. 122, 219–231.
Botero, C., Finkenrath, M., Belloni, C., Bertolo, S., Ercole, M.D., Gori, E., Tacconelli, R.,
2009. Gt-60 2 17. Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo.
Botros, B.B., Brisson, J.G., 2011. Targeting the optimum steam system for power
generation with increased flexibility in the steam power island design. Energy
36, 4625–4632, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.03.045
Botros, B.B., Brisson, J.G., 2013. Improving high temperature heat capture for
power generation in gasification plants. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 61, 129–137,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2013.01.033
Bracht, M.E., 1997. Water gas shift membrane reactor for CO2 control in IGCC:
techno-economic feasibility study. Energy Convers. Mgmt. 38, 46–52.
Breault, R., 2010. Gasification processes old and new: a basic review of the major
technologies. Energies 3, 216–240.
Carbo, M.C., Boon, J., Jansen, D., van Dijk, H.A.J., Dijkstra, J.W., van den Brink, R.W.,
Verkooijen, A.H.M., 2009a. Steam demand reduction of water–gas shift
reaction in IGCC power plants with pre-combustion CO2 capture. Int. J.
Greenhouse Gas Control 3 (6), 712–719.
Carbo, M.C., Jansen, D., Boon, J., Dijkstra, J.W., van den Brink, R.W., Verkooijen,
A.H.M., 2009b. Staged water-gas shift configuration: key to efficiency penalty
reduction during pre-combustion decarbonisation in IGCC. Energy Procedia,
661–668.
Casas, N., Schell, J., Joss, L., Mazzotti, M., 2013. A parametric study of a PSA process
for pre-combustion CO2 capture. Sep. Purif. Technol. 104, 183–192.
Casero, P., García Peña, F., Coca, P., Trujillo, J., 2014. ELCOGAS 14 MWth
pre-combustion carbon dioxide capture pilot. Technical & economical
achievements. Fuel 116, 804–811.
Cavani, F., Trifiro, F., Vaccari, A., 1991. Hydrotalcite-type anionic clays: preparation,
properties and applications. Catal. Today 11, 173–301.
Chen, C., Rubin, E.S., 2009. CO2 control technology effects on IGCC plant
performance and cost. Energy Policy 37, 915–924, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2008.09.093
Chiesa, P., Campanari, S., Manzolini, G., 2011. CO2 cryogenic separation from
combined cycles integrated with molten carbonate fuel cells. Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 36, 10355–10365, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.09.068
Cormos, C.-C., 2011. Evaluation of power generation schemes based on
hydrogen-fuelled combined cycle with carbon capture and storage (CCS). Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 36, 3726–3738, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.
12.042
Cormos, C., 2012. Integrated assessment of IGCC power generation technology
with carbon capture and storage (CCS). Energy 42, 434–445, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2012.03.025
Damen, K., Gnutek, R., Kaptein, J., Nannan, N.R., Oyarzun, B., Trapp, C., Colonna, P.,
van Dijk, E., Gross, J., Bardow, A., 2011. Developments in the pre-combustion
CO2 capture pilot plant at the Buggenum IGCC. Energy Procedia 4,
1214–1221.
Damen K., Faber R., Gnutek R., Performance and modelling of the pre-combustion
capture pilot plant at the Buggenum IGCC. CATO2 report,WP1.2A1-D01a.
De Winter, J. 2014. Process simulation of SEWGS technology for applications in the
steel industry, master thesis. Tronheim: Norwegian University of Science and
Technology, Department of Energy and Process Engineering.
Dean, J., Sheldon, W., 2001. Estimating metal dusting attack on stainless steel
alloys in syngas environments. Corrosion.
DOE/NETL, (2013). Advanced Carbon Dioxide Capture R&D Program: Technology
Update. Appendix B.
EPRI. 2012. Integrated-Gasification Combined-Cycle (IGCC) Research and
Development Roadmap.
Ertesvåg, I.S., Kvamsdal, H.M., Bolland, O., 2005. Exergy analysis of a gas-turbine
combined-cycle power plant with precombustion CO2 capture. Energy 30,
5–39, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2004.05.029
Fluor Daniel Inc. (2000). Fluor Daniel Inc, 2000. Electricity Productionand CO2
Capture via Partial Oxidation of Natural Gas.
Franco, F., Anantharaman, R., Bolland, O., Booth, N., van Dorst, E., Ekstrom, C.,
Sanchez Fernandes, E., Macchi, E., Manzolini, G., et al. 2011. European best
practice guidelines for assessment of CO2 capture technologies.
Garcia, S., Gil, M.V., Pis, J.J., Rubiera, F., Pevida, C., 2013. Cyclic operation of a
fixed-bed pressure and temperature swing process for CO2 capture:
experimental and statistical analysis. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 12, 35–54.
Gatti, M., Martelli, E., Marechal, F., Consonni, S., 2014. Review, modeling, heat
integration, and improved schemes of Rectisol® -based processes for CO2
capture. Appl. Therm. Eng. 70, 1123–1140, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2014.05.001
Gazzani, M., Macchi, E., Manzolini, G., 2013a. CO2 capture in natural gas combined
cycle with SEWGS. Part A: thermodynamic performances. Int. J. Greenhouse
Gas Control 12, 493–501.
Gazzani, M., Macchi, E., Manzolini, G., 2013b. CO2 capture in integrated gasification
combined cycle with SEWGS – part A: thermodynamic performances. Fuel 105,
206–219.
Gazzani, M., Manzolini, G., 2013. Application of sorption enhanced water gas shift
for carbon capture in integrated steelworks. Energy Procedia 37, 7125–7133.
Gazzani, M., Chiesa, P., Martelli, E., Sigali, S., Brunetti, I., 2014. Using hydrogen as
gas turbine fuel: premixed versus diffusive flame combustors. J. Eng. Gas
Turbines Power 136, 051504.
GCCSI. (2015). http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/projects/large-scale-ccs-
projects
GCCSI. (2014). Globel status of CCS 2014.
GE. (2010). Online document – Syngas Turbine Technology, GE Energy GEA18028.
Giuffrida, A., Romano, M.C., Lozza, G., 2012a. Gt2012-69787. In: Proceedings of the
Turbo Expo 2012, ASME, Copenhagen, pp. 1–10.
Grol E., Yang W.C., Evaluation of alternative water-gas shift configurations for IGCC
systems, NETL report DOE/NETL-401/080509, August 5, 2009, NETL report
DOE/NETL-401/080509, August 5, 2009. NETL report DOE/NETL- 401/080509.
GTC. (2015). The Gasification Technologies Council (GTC).
Giuffrida, A., Romano, M.C., Lozza, G., 2012b. Gt2012-69787. In: Proceedings of the
Turbo Expo 2012, ASME, Copenhagen, pp. 1–10.
He, F., Liu, P., Li, Z., Ni, W., 2012. Interating low steam demand CO shift process to
coal based polygeneration energy systems: process design and analysis.
Energy 45, 169–175.
Higman, C., van der Burgt, M.J., 2008. Gasification, Gulf Professional Publishing.
Gulf Professional Publishing, Burlington.
Hufton, J.R., Mayorga, S., Sircar, S., 1999. Sorption-enhanced reaction process for
hydrogen production. Aiche J. 45 (2), 248–256.
Hydrocarbon Processing. (2012). Hydrocarbon Processing: Gas Processes
Handbook 2012. Gulf Publishing, Hydrocarbon Processing | 2012 | ISBN: n/a |
241 pages | PDF.
IEA GHG. (2013). IEA workshop CCS in Steel Industry, Tokyo, November 2013.
Tokyo.
IEA-GHGT. 2012. CO2 capture at gas fired power plants, 2012-08. IEA GHGT
programme.
IPCC, 2005. Ipcc Special Report On Carbon Dioxide Capture And Storage.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Isles J., 2012. Prospects for lower cost and more efficient IGCC power, Gas Turbine
World: November-December.
Jansen, D., v. Selow, E., Cobden, P., Manzolini, G., Macchi, E., Gazzani, M., Blom, R.,
Henriksen, P., 2013. SEWGS technology is now ready for scale-up! Energy
Procedia 37, 2265–2273.
Frank Kerry, G., 2007. Industrial Gas Handbook: Gas Separation And Purification.
CRC Press.
Kim, J.H., 2009. Korean IGCC technology development status, Korea Western
Power Co.
P., Koneru, A., Siddiqui, R., Rush, 2012. No Title. Mod. Power Syst. 10–12.
Kunze, C., Spliethoff, H., 2010. Modelling of an IGCC plant with carbon capture for.
Fuel Process. Technol. 91, 934–941, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2010.02.
017
Kunze, C., Riedl, K., Spliethoff, H., 2011. Structured exergy analysis of an integrated
gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plant with carbon capture. Energy 36,
1480–1487, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.01.020
Kvamsdal, H.M., Jordal, K., Bolland, O., 2007. A quantitative comparison of gas
turbine cycles with CO2 capture. Energy 32, 10–24, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2006.02.006
Lozza, G., Chiesa, P., 2002a. Natural gas decarbonization to reduce CO2 emission
from combined cycles-part I: partial oxidation. J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 124,
82, http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.1395581
Lozza, G., Chiesa, P., 2002b. Natural gas decarbonization to reduce CO2 emission
from combined cycles-Part II: steam-methane reforming. J. Eng. Gas Turbines
Power 124, 89, http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.1395582
Majoumerd, M.M., De, S., Assadi, M., Breuhaus, P., 2012. An EU initiative for future
generation of IGCC power plants using hydrogen-rich syngas: simulation
results for the baseline configuration. Appl. Energy 99, 280–290, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.05.02
Majoumerd, M.M., Assadi, M., 2014. Techno-economic assessment of fossil fuel
power plants with CO2 capture – results of EU H2-IGCC project. Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 39, 16771–16784, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.08.020
Manzolini, G., Macchi, E., Binotti, M., Gazzani, M., 2011. Integration of SEWGS for
carbon capture in natural gas combined cycle. Part A: thermodynamic
performances. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 5, 200–213.
 D. Jansen et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 40 (2015) 167–187
Manzolini, G., Macchi, E., Gazzani, M., 2013a. CO2 capture in integrated gasification
combined cycle with SEWGS - part B: economic assessment. Fuel 105,
220–227.
Manzolini, G., Macchi, E., Gazzani, M., 2013b. CO2 capture in natural gas combined
cycle with SEWGS. Part B: economic assessment. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control
12, 502–509.
Martelli, E., Kreutz, T., Carbo, M., Consonni, S., Jansen, D., 2011. Shell coal IGCCS
with carbon capture: conventional gas quench vs. innovative configurations.
Appl. Energy 88, 3978–3989, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.04.046
Mississippi Power. 2014. Exhibit 99.01- Kemper County Integrated Coal
Gasification Combined Cycle Project Monthly Status Report through November
2013 to the Mississippi Public Service Commission submitted by Mississippi
Power Company pursuant to Docket No.
Nagasaki, N., Sasaki, K., Suzuki, T., Dodo, F., 2013. Near-zero-emission IGCC power
plant technology. Hitachi Review 62 (1), 39–47.
NETL. 2010. Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Volume 1:
Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity.
NETL. 2015. Gasification Plant Databases, http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/
energy-systems/gasification/gasification-plant-databases
Newsome, D.S., 1980. The water-gas shift reaction. Catal. Rev. Sci. Eng. 21 (2),
275–318.
Nord, L.O., Anantharaman, R., Bolland, O., 2009a. Design and off-design analyses of
a pre-combustion CO2 capture process in a natural gas combined cycle power
plant. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 3, 385–392, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijggc.2009.02.001
Nord, L.O., Anantharaman, R., Rausand, M., Bolland, O., 2009b. A qualitative
reliability and operability analysis of an integrated reforming combined cycle
plant with CO2 capture. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 3, 411–421, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2009.02.004
Nord, L.O., Bolland, O., 2011a. HRSG design for integrated reforming combined
cycle with CO2 capture. J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 133, 011702, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1115/1.4001822
Nord, L.O., Bolland, O., 2011b. Plant flexibility of a pre-combustion CO2 capture
cycle. Energy Procedia 4, 2556–2563, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.
02.153
Nunokawa, M., 2013. Progress in Nakoso 250 MW Air-Blown IGCC Demonstration
Project. International Conference on Power Engineering (ICOPE).
Peltier R., 2013. Edwardsport Generating Station, Knox County, Indiana. Powermag
October.
Pipitone, G., Bolland, O., 2009. Power generation with CO2 capture: technology for
CO2 purification. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 3, 528–534.
Posch, S., Haider, M., 2012. Optimization of CO2 compression and purification units
(CO2 CPU) for CCS power plants. Fuel 101, 254–263, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuel.2011.07.039
Ratnasamay, C., Wagner, J.P., 2009. Water gas shift catalysis. Catal. Rev. 51,
325–440.
187
Romano, M.C., Chiesa, P., Lozza, G., 2010. Pre-combustion CO2 capture from natural
gas power plants, with ATR and MDEA processes. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas
Control 4, 785–797, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.04.015
Rubin, E.S., Booras, G., Davison, J., Ekstrom, C., Matuszewski, M., McCoy, S., Short,
C., 2013. Toward a common method of cost estimation for CO2 capture and
storage at fossil fuel power plants. Global CCS Institute.
Ruthven, D.M., Farooq, S., Knaebel, K.S., 1994. Pressure Swing Adsorption. VCH,
New York, ISBN 1-56081-517-5.
van Selow, E.R., Cobden, P.D., Verbraeken, P.A., Hufton, J.R., van den Brink, R.W.,
2009. Carbon capture by sorption-enhanced water–gas shift reaction process
using hydrotalcite-based material. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 48 (9), 4184–4193.
Simbeck, D.R., Korens, D.R., Biasca, F.E., Vejtasa, S., Dickenson, R.L., 1993.
Gasification guidebook status. In: Applications And Technologies. Palo Alto, CA
EPRI.
Smith, A., Klosek, J., 2001. A review of air separation technologies and their
integration with energy conversion processes. Fuel Process. Technol. 70,
115–134.
Soares, C., 2015. Gas Turbines: A Handbook Of Air, Land And Sea Applications,
Second Edition. Butterworth-Heinmann, ISBN: 978-0-12-410461-7.
Steinberg, M., Cheng, H., 1989. Modern and prospective technologies for hydrogen
production form fossil fuels. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy Vol. 14 (11),
797–820.
Stork Engineering Consultancy, 2000. Leading Options for the Capture of CO2
Emissions at PowerStations.
Trapp C., Advances in Model-based design of flexible and prompt energy systems:
the CO2 capture plant at the Buggenum IGCC power station as a test case, Ph.D.
Thesis, 2014, Delft Technical University, ISBN: 978-94-6259-222-3.
Twigg M.V., Catalyst handbook, Manson Publishing, 2nd edition, 1996.
van Dijk, H.A.J., Walspurger, S., Cobden, P.D., van den Brink, R.W., de Vos, F.G.,
2011. Testing of hydrotalcite-based sorbents for CO2 and H2 S capture for use in
sorption enhanced water gas shift. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 5 (3),
505–551.
van Dijk, H.A.J., Cohen, D., Hakeem, A.A., Makkee, M., Damen, K., 2014. Validation of
a water–gas shift reactor model based on a commercial FeCr catalyst for
pre-combustion CO2 capture in an IGCC power plant. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas
Control, 29.
Wu, L., Brown, P., Diakunchak, I., Gulati, A., Lenze, M., Koestlin, B., 2007. Advanced
gas turbine combustion system development for high hydrogen fuels,
GT2007-28337 Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2007, Montreal, Canada.
Xu Shisen, CCUS progress in China, China Huaneng, keynote lecture of GHGT 12,
Austin TX, 2014.
Young, Z., Mata, V., Rodrigues, A.E., 2002. Adsorption of carbon dioxide at high
temperature-a review. Sep. Purif. Technol. 26 (2–3), 195–205.