Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “gasification”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 199 records · Page 11

Combustion of two-component miscible droplets in reduced gravity

This research focuses on the combustion of binary miscible droplets initially in the mm size range. Experiments are performed using the NASA Lewis 2.2 sec drop tower in Cleveland, Ohio, where mixtures of alkanes and/or alcohols are studied. The fuel components are selected to have significantly different volatilities. Initial oxygen mole fractions from about 0.15-0.5 and initial pressures from 0.2-2 atm are employed. Different inerts are used (He, CO2, Ar, N2) to change burning rates and sooting behaviors. Objectives are to observe the following: (1) Transient droplet diameters (including three-staged combustion behaviors and microexplosion; (2) Transient flow behaviors (sudden flame contraction, luminosity, extinction); and (3) Behaviors of observable soot particles. theoretical and computational research in support of this program has also been undertaken. This research includes analytical studies to determine the effects of small but nonzero gravitational levels on droplet gasification, analytical studies of hydrodynamic stability of spherically-symmetrical droplet gasification (to address the question as to whether spherically-symmetrical droplet gasification may be destabilized from capillary, i.e., Marangoni effects), and computational modeling of effects of capillary stresses on droplet gasification.

Shaw, Benjamin D.↗

Design Study for Bio-Oil Production from Biomass Using a Dual Fluidized-Bed Reactor

To evaluate the re-design and reconfiguration of a dual-fluidized bed (DFB) gasification system into a recirculating pyrolysis reactor, Computation Fluid Dynamic (CFD) simulations of the system were conducted. The Barracuda Virtual Reactor® computational particle fluid dynamic code was used to perform simulations of the pyrolysis process. Modeling of the chemical reaction kinetics for both gas phase and solid particle phase were included. The recirculating pyrolysis reactor shown in Fig. 1a is based on a bubbling-bed biomass pyrolyzer and a riser combustor to convert the remaining char. The operational differences in the re-configuration of the DFB gasification system into a recirculating pyrolysis system for the production of bio-oil are (1) replacement of a low-surface area inert bed material with a high-surface-area bed material that has acidic properties to provide catalytic activity for the production of bio-oil with reduced oxygen content, (2) lower temperature and residence time for bio-oil production from pyrolysis, (3) replacement of the fluidization gas in the bubbling bed pyrolyzer from steam to nitrogen, and (4) the reduction of pyrolyzer freeboard volume. The bed material used for catalytic pyrolysis is Sasol 300 (300-micron dia., bulk density 0.94 kg/l, and surface area 130 m2/g) and is a theta-alumina with mild acidity. This is in comparison with previous standard bed material Carbo HSP (430-micron dia., bulk density 2.01 kg/l, and surface area 0.03 m2/g) used for gasification. For bio-oil production, pyrolysis in the bubbling bed requires temperatures in the range of 550 C in comparison with gasification temperatures near 850 C. To attain this lower temperature requires management of the energy mass balances, with control of the bed material recirculation rate between bubbling bed pyrolyzer and riser combustor, the introduction of a nitrogen purge in the pyrolyzer, and adjusting the pressure balance between the two vessels. To extract bio-oil from the pyrolysis reactor with a snorkel, two different freeboard configurations were evaluated. In Fig. 1 b the existing high freeboard configuration is shown and in Fig. 1 c the reduced freeboard design is presented. The introduction of a nitrogen purge for the high free board configuration provided the highest bio-oil production from the CFD simulations. To decrease the bed-material circulation rate, primary and secondary air on the combustor side were reduced, and the pressure on the combustor was slightly increased. A portion of the biomass and bio-oil was observed to be transported to the combustor, leading to a smaller pyrolysis yield. The control of the pyrolyzer temperature is performed by controlling the circulation rate. Good fluidization of the bubbling bed and cascade PID control are required to keep the temperature from oscillating due to large time delay experienced when changing primary and secondary air. (a) (b) (c) Figure 1. (a) Dual Fluidized Bed pyrolysis system configuration, (b) mole fraction of nonpolar biooil in high freeboard configuration, and (c) mole fraction of nonpolar bio-oil in low freeboard configuration with nitrogen purge introduced in both configurations.

BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES,BIOMASS FUELS↗

Wabash Hydrogen Negative Emissions Technology Demonstration

The objectives of the Wabash Hydrogen Negative Emissions Technology Demonstration Project (Wabash Project) are to develop and design all aspects of the scope, cost, characteristics and investment case of a world class flexible gasification, net negative carbon, hydrogen co-products power plant. The outcome of this undertaking is a complete set of deliverables that has been produced by a preeminent team of engineers, constructors, operators, and developers, building upon previous technology, utilizing cutting edge technology, and thoroughly defining all aspects of this fully integrated 21st Century Powerplant. The Wabash Project encapsulates several cross-cutting initiatives within the US Department of Energy, such as 100% hydrogen powered combustion turbine, geological carbon sequestration, coal with biomass gasification and hydrogen energy storage. The flexible gasifier at the Wabash Valley Resources plant is a slurry-fed, entrained flow, high-temperature, oxygen-blown gasifier that has been proven commercially to operate successfully on various coals and petroleum coke (petcoke). The ability to be fuel flexible and feed various biomass (woody biomass and agriculture residue) and petroleum waste (plastics) was evaluated during BP 1 (BP1). This involved the preparation and testing of feedstocks into slurries to determine what fuels can be fed to the gasifier. By utilizing a flexible oxygen-blown gasifier, the ability to address operational issues common to lower temperature biomass gasification, such as the handling of tars, can be mitigated. The overall goal is to achieve a design capable of carbon-negative emissions while leveraging the substantial investments made and operating experience already gained at the Wabash site.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

A new approach of reduction of carbon dioxide emission and optimal use of carbon and hydrogen content for the desired syngas production from coal

We report this research is designed to make progress in overcoming the challenges through the development of a two-stage coal processing. Specifically, a two-stage process was used to maximize the use of the carbon in coal or increase the carbon monoxide yield or lower carbon dioxide and methane yields. Carbon dioxide-char gasification in the absence of water can generate carbon monoxide with near-zero methane, which is desired to produce high-carbon and low-hydrogen chemicals such as oxalic acid through catalytic carbon monoxide coupling and hydrolysis. The technology is applicable to any coal, although Power River Basin (PRB) coal is used as an example feedstock in this research Also, the sodium-iron catalyst can accelerate not only the reaction kinetics in both stages but also increase the hydrogen/carbon monoxide ratio in the syngas produced in the second stage. In other words, the catalyst is a multifunctional agent, which can not only intensify the overall coal process efficiency but also improve the qualities of the desired syngas products and reduce carbon dioxide emission. Thus, In the 1st stage, the catalysts can significantly reduce the CO 2 -char gasification by as high as 75.00%. In the 2nd stage, the H 2 /CO ratio of ideal syngas is ~2:1 with near-0 CH 4 generation and the CH4 production can be reduced as high as 61.29% for the CO 2 –H 2 O-Char coal gasification. The activation energy for the 2nd stage is reduced by as high as 35.43% than that of raw coal without use Na–Fe catalyst. The overall carbon footprint reduction for the study is reduced by 87.33% in the 1st stage and 96.77% compared to the direct coal combustion.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

Radically Engineered Modular Air Separation System with Tailored Oxygen Sorbents

The commercial energy sector relies heavily on fossil fuel conversion, and in the process releases a significant amount of CO 2 . A promising technology to utilize fossil fuels with relatively affordable CO 2 capture is gasification. However, it requires a pure oxygen stream. The current state of the art method to produce oxygen is cryogenic air separation, which supercools air to a liquid, and then using distillation columns to separate the components. While this method has been thoroughly studied, it only has a 25% efficiency from a second law standpoint and therefore requires a significant amount of energy (and associated emissions) for oxygen production. This, then, lowers the incentive for carbon capture within a plant, so alternative methods need to be investigated. One potential method, chemical looping air separation (CLAS), is a promising method to replace state of the art oxygen generation technologies. CLAS utilizes a cyclic redox scheme with an oxygen sorbent to create pure oxygen streams. This approach typically utilizes a dual reactor scheme where the oxygen deficient sorbent enters the first reactor and is subjected to high oxygen partial pressures to re-oxidize the sorbent. Then the sorbent is sent to the reducing reactor, where it is subjected to low oxygen partial pressure (steam or vacuum) to releases oxygen. The overarching objective of this project was to discover the principles for rational design and optimization of oxygen sorbents and process design to ensure the process is a viable replacement for cryogenic air separation, especially in the context of modular gasification systems. This was done through development, characterization, testing, and analyses of (a) high temperature mixed composite oxides; (b) low temperature doped perovskite oxides (A1 x A2 1-x B1 y B2 1-y O 3 ); (c) scale up synthesis and testing of the optimized sorbent particles; (d) process design and analyses of the CLAS system in the context of modular gasification applications.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

Chapter 11: Biochar Production

In production of biochar, thermochemical processes that can be used to treat biomass include pyrolysis, gasification, hydrothermal processing, and combustion. Each of these processes is defined by specific operating conditions (e.g., temperature, presence of oxygen) and feedstock requirements for optimal conversion to the product of primary interest. Each process results in varying fractions of gaseous, liquid, and solid products. Though other publications have emphasized the gaseous bio-energy products of such processes (e.g., bio-oil, synthesis gas or "syngas") with biochar as a co-product, in this discussion, we focus primarily on biochar as the In production of biochar, thermochemical processes that can be used to treat biomass include pyrolysis, gasification, hydrothermal processing, and combustion. Each of these processes is defined by specific operating conditions (e.g., temperature, presence of oxygen) and feedstock requirements for optimal conversion to the product of primary interest. Each process results in varying fractions of gaseous, liquid, and solid products. Though other publications have emphasized the gaseous bio-energy products of such processes (e.g., bio-oil, synthesis gas or "syngas") with biochar as a co-product, in this discussion, we focus primarily on biochar as the main product, with heat and electrical energy as co-products of secondary interest. The reasons for this are as follows: when producing biochar, heat is the simplest form of energy to capture and utilize, electrical energy can be generated from heat energy with a wide range of available technologies small and large; rather than immediately combusting the gases released from biomass, there is potential to refine the gases into bio-oil and syngas. However, much larger investments of capital are needed to build facilities for which gaseous fuel production is the primary goal, as compared to those focused on biochar production with heat and electrical energy co-products. While the economic viability of biochar production will be improved by production of high-value co-products (e.g., wood acids for use in pesticides), the simplest production scheme is one in which biochar and heat are the primary products. Here we aim to provide a broader overview of thermochemical processes and technologies most relevant to biochar production in its current state of commercialization. All biochar is a result of pyrolysis (the reaction) but not all biochar is made with a dedicated pyrolysis reactor (the technology type). Further, all biochar is the result of a lack of complete combustion (the reaction), even biochar produced in a combustion or gasification reactor (the technology type). This is an important distinction to acknowledge in the following sections in which we discuss both thermochemical conversion reactions and technology types.

biochar↗

Modeling Framework for the Assessment of a Sustainable Hydrogen Production and Supply Chain Network in California

The cost-effective and sustainable deployment of hydrogen supply and demand networks, especially in large economic regions like California, can be challenging considering the spatial-temporal availability and variability of the different actors across the network such as production processes, distribution modes, and end-users. In this presentation, we will provide an overview and demonstration of a modeling framework used to assess the environmental, economic, and human health impacts of plausible hydrogen production and supply chain networks in California. Scenarios focus on green hydrogen production pathways using water electrolysis and biomass gasification. End-use applications included in the model are transit, medium and heavy-duty trucking, port authorities, and power and aviation companies that currently consume natural gas, diesel, and aviation fuel for their day-to-day operation. Representative locations for hydrogen production and end-use are based on recent projections of the hydrogen economy in California. All mass and energy flows, as well as estimated emissions, are based on H2A process model designs and projections of technology performance, literature review, and LBNL process, economic and life cycle modeling, and not on company data for the sake of this presentation. Human health impacts are included following methodologies developed for the University of California Irvine HyDeal project. Life cycle phases associated with hydrogen production include feedstock preparation (water and biomass), energy production and consumption (renewable, grid, and combination of renewable and grid electricity), maintenance (chemical utilization in electrolysis and natural gas combustion in gasification), carbon sequestration, hydrogen storage (compression and liquefaction), and distribution (truck and pipeline). We apply the framework utilizing California specific emission factors, financial data, and human health damages and explore the impact of network characteristics on results. Example variations include: the inclusion of policy incentives or not, different representations of the electricity grid and source, electrolysis versus gasification versus combinations of both for production, liquefaction versus compression based on producer capacity cutoffs, transportation truck versus pipeline based on existing infrastructure, and ultimate end use. Comparison of these different scenarios can help inform future projects by demonstrating the trade-offs among environmental, economic, and human health impacts. This model, automated in R, is a starting platform upon which new analysis, modeling capabilities, locations, and emission factors can be rapidly tested and integrated.

Zaki, Mohammed Tamim↗

Small-Scale Engineered High Flexibility Gasifier

This project advances a small-scale gasification unit as the first step in syngas-based hydrogen, chemicals, and synthetic fuels production. This unit is associated with an enhanced flexibility to different carbonaceous feedstocks including different types of coals, biomass, and plastics. The purpose of the project was to demonstrate feasibility and efficiency of coal pyrolysis in an auger reactor (pyrolyzer); supplemental methane and pyrolysis gas conversion into syngas in a proprietary non-catalytic converter; combined performance of pyrolyzer and non-catalytic converter to convert coal into syngas The proposed technology is based on an application of an intermediate speed pyrolysis at the temperature range 400-600°C as the first stage of biomass processing. At an industrial scale, an incorporation of coal pyrolysis into a feeding machine – auger-reactor allows to decrease its capital cost. At a pilot scale, it permits to employ electricity to build a compact device for testing of downstream equipment. The auger-reactor (pyrolyzer) generates pyrolysis gas and char practically from any carbonaceous feedstocks but their compositions and quantities are determined by their types. Pyrolysis gas is converted into syngas (mix of H 2 and CO) in a novel, proprietary hydrogen flame assisted non-catalytic converter which employs O 2 instead of air as an oxidizer. This reactor (converter) allows an easy adjustment to different pyrolysis gas compositions and tolerates a presence of sulfur and nitrogen contaminants. Our technology assumes carbonaceous feedstocks gasification with oxygen to allow the products H 2 , CO or CO 2 to be not diluted in N 2 and ready for the following synthesis of chemicals and fuels. Due to the same reason, it permits a more efficient CO 2 capture for its transport and storage. An implementation of our small-scale gasification process may overcome economic constrains by a flexible acceptance of coal, biomass, and plastics as well as their unsorted mixtures to make syngas for the following production of pure hydrogen, chemical and/or synthetic fuels.

42 ENGINEERING↗

Pilot Testing of a Highly Efficient Pre-combustion Sorbent-based Carbon Capture System

TDA developed and demonstrated a highly efficient pre-combustion carbon capture system. The overall objective of this work was to develop a new sorbent-based pre-combustion carbon capture technology for Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plants. In this project our goal was to demonstrate the techno-economic viability of the new technology by 1) demonstrating it in large-scale slipstream tests, and 2) carrying out a high fidelity engineering and cost analysis. TDA’s process used an advanced physical adsorbent that selectively removes CO 2 from coal-derived synthesis gas above the dew point of the gas at temperatures as high as 300°C. The sorbent consists of a mesoporous carbon whose surface was grafted with functional groups that remove CO 2 via a well-known acid-base interaction. As documented in bench-scale experiments and field tests with actual coal gas, the sorbent achieved a very high capacity for CO 2 at temperatures as high as 300°C. The sorbent bound CO 2 more strongly than common physical adsorbents, providing the chemical potential needed for the high temperature operation. However, because CO 2 does not form a true covalent bond with the surface sites (as is the case with chemical absorbents), the sorbent regeneration could be carried out with only a very small energy input. The heat input to regenerate our sorbent was only 4.9 kcal per mol of CO 2 , which is much lower than that for chemical absorbents (e.g., 29.9 kcal/mol CO 2 for sodium carbonate) and was similar to the requirements of physical solvents (e.g., 4 kcal/mol CO 2 for Selexol TM ). Because the sorbent operates above the dew point of the synthesis gas (unlike the Selexol TM process), a higher power cycle efficiency can be achieved. With previous DOE/NETL funding (Contract No. DE-FE-0000469), we demonstrated the techno-economic viability of the technology in bench-scale tests and slipstream demonstrations at the National Carbon Capture Center (NCCC), Wilsonville, Alabama and Wabash River IGCC plant in Terra Haute, Indiana. We demonstrated a stable working CO 2 capacity for over 11,650 cycles with simulated synthesis gas. We also evaluated its performance with actual synthesis gas in two test campaigns at the Wabash River IGCC Plant, Terre Haute, IN and the National Carbon Capture Center (NCCC), Wilsonville, AL. The slipstream tests clearly showed that the actual coal gas constituents and potential contaminants (e.g. trace metals, halides, tars) had no effect on the sorbent’s ability to remove CO 2 (the same sorbent beds were used in both field tests with no sign of deactivation for 2,000 cycles with over 26,750 SCF of gas treated). As expected, due to the high temperature CO 2 removal capability and low energy needed to regenerate the sorbent, the power cycle efficiency with our process was greater than 34% on a higher heating value (HHV) basis; in comparison, the same IGCC plant equipped with the Selexol TM solvent for carbon capture can only achieve 31.4% HHV efficiency. The capital cost for an IGCC system with TDA’s process is estimated as $2,417/kW e , which is 12% lower than that of the IGCC/ Selexol TM process. The levelized cost for electricity including the transport, storage and monitoring (TS&M) cost for CO 2 was calculated as $\$ $92.9/MWh (lowest reported to our knowledge), which is much better than the $105.2/MWh estimated for the IGCC/ Selexol TM process. In this project (DE-FE0013105), TDA Research, in collaboration with our partners Gas Technology Institute (GTI), Illinois Clean Coal Institute (ICCI), University of California, Irvine (UCI), University of Alberta (UOA), Siemens, NCCC and Sinopec advanced the technical maturity of the technology; scaling it up by a factor of 100. We optimized the reactor design using computational fluid dynamics (CFD); using adsorption modeling we improved the pressure swing adsorption (PSA) cycle sequence. We carried out two field test campaigns with a fully-equipped 0.1 MW e prototype unit (for a total of 844 hours) using actual synthesis gas to prove the viability of the new technology. A successful 30 day (707 hrs) evaluation was completed at NCCC under air blown gasification conditions. We demonstrated 97.3% carbon capture at 1,500 SLPM, 93% carbon capture at 1,800 SLPM, and 90% carbon capture at 2,100 SLPM in the NCCC tests. We also demonstrated the system for 137 hours at a Sinopec petrochemical plant under oxygen blown gasification, demonstrating 86% carbon capture at 2,660 SLPM. In collaboration with University of California, Irvine (UCI), we completed a techno-economic analysis (TEA) for TDA’s warm gas cleanup technology integrated to IGCC power plant. The net plant efficiencies (on a coal HHV basis) for the warm gas cleanup cases were estimated to be 34.0% for E-GasTM gasifier, 34.4% for GE gasifier, 33.4 for the Shell gasifier and 34.2 for the TRIG TM gasifier (Cases 2, 4, 6 and 8 in this study) with a catalytic combustor for CO 2 purification, which are significantly higher than those for the Cold Gas Case, or an increase of as much as 12% in the heat rate for Case 2, 6% for Case 4, 9% for Case 6, and 9% for Case 8. The 1st year cost of electricity with the transport, storage and monitoring (TS&M) costs for the CO 2 included was $\$ $129.2/MWh for the E-GasTM gasifier Warm Gas Cleanup Case, $\$ $131.9/MWh for the GE gasifier Warm Gas Cleanup Case, $\$ $146.8/MWh for the Shell Gasifier Warm Gas Cleanup Case, and $\$ $129.9/MWh for the TRIG TM gasifier Warm Gas Cleanup Case. For comparison, the costs for the baseline Cold Gas CO 2 removal with Selexol for the different gasifiers were: $\$ $146.6/MWh for the E-Gas TM gasifier, $\$ $142.2/MWh for the GE gasifier, $\$ $159.0/MWh for the Shell gasifier and $\$ $144.3/MWh for the TRIG TM gasifier. In summary, the costs for our system were 7 to 12% lower than the corresponding Cold Gas Cleanup cases. The results of this techno-economic analysis suggested that TDA’s high temperature PSA-based Warm Gas Clean-up Technology can make a substantial improvement in the IGCC plant thermal performance for achieving near zero CO 2 emissions for E-Gas TM , GE, Shell and TRIG TM gasifier based IGCC power plants. The capital expenses were estimated to be lower than that of Selexol’s™. Taken together, the higher net plant efficiency and lower capital and operating costs resulted in substantial reduction in the cost of carbon capture for the IGCC plant equipped with TDA’s high temperature PSA-based carbon capture system. Finally, in collaboration with Gas Technology Institute (GTI) we completed the environmental health and safety assessment for TDA’s warm gas carbon capture technology.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

From Waste to Clean Fuel: Using Microwave Chemistry to Achieve Process Decarbonization

Microwave co-gasification of plastics and biomass has several advantages over conventional gasification, including enhanced hydrogen production and greater solid-to-gas conversion, as opposed to undesirable char and tar -- via process electrification route. A previous study at NETL has revealed the efficient role of microwave heating, which can liberate the oxygenated free radicals and encourage bond cleavage in non-microwave active plastics, if combined with microwave-active corn stover. However, further reduction of the unwanted tar must be achieved for future process scale-up and higher energy efficiency, which can be realized via a microwave-assisted catalytic approach. This continuous study investigates a series of microwave-active Fe catalysts that can efficiently enhance H2 production and reduce tar for plastic-corn stover co-gasification. The results suggest that in presence of magnetite, hydrogen yield increase 100% as compared to non-catalytic system at similar reaction conditions.

Abedin, Ashraf↗

Development of a machine learning model for polyethylene pyrolysis using a detailed reaction mechanism

Waste plastics have recently received significant attention as the issue of waste generation continues to increase. Thermal conversion processes, such as pyrolysis and gasification, are attractive potential technologies for utilizing waste plastics and reducing overall waste generation. Efficient utilization of plastics requires a detailed understanding of the conversion process such as pyrolysis and gasification. However, a mechanistic understanding of these processes lead to large and complex kinetic schemes that are not suited for large-scale and long-time simulation methods. Currently, most modeling approaches for pyrolysis and gasification rely on globally lumped, simplified kinetic schemes that provide results that are classified by their product type and not individual species, which limit the level of fidelity achieved via modeling. A machine learning (ML) model has been developed for the primary reactions of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) in an attempt to increase computational efficiency while still maintaining a high level of detail and accuracy. The ML model is trained on a detailed reaction mechanism containing 42 total species and 737 chemical reactions. A DeepONet branch and trunk architecture was adopted to train the model using time-steps relevant to computational fluid dynamics simulations. The ML used physics-informed loss functions to ensure mass conservation. The surrogate model has been deployed in simple MFiX CFD simulations, single particle and an experimental drop tube reactor, and has shown promising performance compared to the original scheme.

Houston, Ross↗

U-gas +Cool GTL™ - A New Integrated Process for Direct Biomass Conversion to Liquid Fuels

The U-Gas gasification technology, marketed by Sungas, is a proven fluid bed gasification technology for biomass conversion. U-Gas has been tested on a wide variety of biomass feeds including wood and waste streams. The U-Gas Technology has successfully converted wood for more than 20 years in a gasification plant in Skive Denmark at the 150t/d size. GTI has also recently developed the Cool GTL process for converting biogas to high quality gasoline, jet, and diesel fuels. The technoeconomics and LCA for the combination of the two technologies results an integrated optimized process, which will be discussed. The Cool GTL process is still in development and the development should be complete by 2023. Cool GTL converts high CO2 content feeds to synthesis gas with a 2-2.4/1 H2/CO ratio suitable for fuels synthesis. The process is based on a novel, highly stabile CO2/steam reforming catalyst. The 2.0-2.4/1 H2/CO synthesis gas ratio is always achieved, independently of feed CO2 content, by adjusting the amount of water added according to the amount of CO2 in the feed. The reformer catalyst has been tested for 500 hours and shows no measurable deactivation. The product from the reformer then goes directly to a low temperature slurry bed Fischer Tropsch reactor with an integrated finishing hydroisomerization reactor which makes hydrocarbon liquids from the synthesis gas. With this configuration no wax is produced. The technoeconomics and carbon intensity for the integration of UGas and the Cool GTL processes will be compared to other biomass conversion approaches. The use of electrolysis to boost H2 in the feed and increase liquid production will also be analyzed as a potential process improvement with sensitivities to the cost of electricity and the use of renewable electricity.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗

Calculating the Effects of Solids Input and Removal as a Temperature Control in the Advanced Scale Up Reactor Experiment (ASURE) Facility at NETL Using Aspen

The Advanced Scale Up Reactor Experiment (ASURE) facility at NETL is being designed to be a fuel-flexible multi-purpose reactor that can be used for pyrolysis/gasification or evaluation of other high pressure “circulating fluidized bed” (CFB) chemical processes. The initial system design calculations for pyrolysis/gasification are presented in this work showing the expected performance of the ASURE facility when used as a biomass conversion reactor. Several other areas of application include gasification of any carbonaceous fuel including biomass, coal, plastics, and other waste materials. The reactor can therefore be used to produce SYNGAS of various compositions and hydrogen as well as other high value chemicals resulting from a typical tuned gasification process. This paper discusses an ASPEN model of the facility, focusing on the riser of the CFB reactor and the solids recirculation loop. The ASPEN model divides the riser into two sections. A bottom section which receives ash, char and sand which have been recirculated from a return loop. In this section an inert fluidization gas, (N2 or CO2), is introduced which acts as the primary mover of the solids through the system. The bottom section is equipped with a restricted air feed so that the recirculated char can be partially oxidized. This oxidation process along with the inventory of recirculating sand are used to effectively control the temperature in the following two chemical conversion sections of the reactor which are the pyrolysis zone followed by a tar cracking zone. Fresh fuel is added to the pyrolysis zone and undergoes drying and devolatilization. The products ash, char, volatile matter, and water vapor exit the pyrolysis zone and enter the reaction block for tar cracking. Steam and CO2 gasification reactions will be incorporated into the tar cracking zone, however at the design operating temperature, conversion from these reactions is expected to be essentially zero. The unit when completed in 2026 will test mixtures of biomass, plastics, and waste coal. This presentation discusses the basic ASPEN engineering design model for this project and provides preliminary sensitivity studies to determine how the various parts of the reactor will perform.

ASSURE↗

Transport Cost for Carbon Removal Projects With Biomass and CO2 Storage

Strategies to remove carbon from the atmosphere are needed to meet global climate goals. Promising strategies include the conversion of waste biomass to hydrogen, methane, liquid fuels, or electricity coupled with CO 2 capture and storage (CCS). A key challenge for these projects is the need to connect geographically dispersed biomass supplies with geologic storage sites by either transporting biomass or CO 2 . We assess the cost of transport for biomass conversion projects with CCS using publicly available cost data for trucking, rail, and CO 2 pipelines in the United States. We find that for large projects (order of 1 Mt/yr CO 2 or greater), CO 2 by pipeline is the lowest cost option. However, for projects that send most of the biomass carbon to storage, such as gasification to hydrogen or electricity production, biomass by rail is a competitive option. For smaller projects and lower fractions of carbon sent to storage, such as for pyrolysis to liquid fuels, CO 2 by rail is the lowest cost option. Assessing three plausible example projects in the United States, we estimate that total transport costs range from $24/t-CO 2 stored for a gasification to hydrogen project traversing 670 km to $\$ 36$/t for a gasification to renewable natural gas project traversing 530 km. In general, if developers have flexibility in choosing transport mode and project type, biomass sources and storage sites can be connected across hundreds of kilometers for transport costs in the range of $20-40/t-CO 2 stored. Truck and rail are often viable modes when pipelines cannot be constructed. Distances of 1,000 km or more can be connected in the same cost range when shared CO 2 pipelines are employed.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗

Feasibility of using nuclear microreactor process heat for bioconversion and agricultural processes

Introduction There is a global goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 43% by 2023. Nuclear microreactors, a subset of small modular reactors, offer a potential solution due to their compact size, transportability, and carbon-neutral power generation capabilities. Methods This study explores the feasibility of using heat from nuclear microreactors for bioconversion and agricultural processes, including transforming biomass into energy carriers and products such as syngas, bio-oil, and pasteurized milk. Operating requirements for gasification, pyrolysis, hydrothermal carbonization, hydrothermal liquefaction, hydrothermal gasification, ethanol production, anaerobic digestion, and pasteurization were obtained through a literature review. A Brayton cycle model based on the eVinci TM microreactor was developed to assess the feasibility of powering these processes using nuclear microreactor heat. Results and Discussion Exergetic efficiency values for high-temperature processes ranged from 72% to 100%, whereas lower-temperature processes ranged from 2% to 53%. These efficiencies depend on the available source temperature for each microreactor design. There were trade-offs between producing net power and using process heat, particularly for high-temperature processes. Three heat exchanger locations were considered: before the turbine (600 ℃ ), between the turbine and regenerator (370 ℃ ), and after the regenerator (192 ℃ ). High-temperature processes like gasification require temperatures too high for feasibility. Middle temperature processes are better suited to a heat exchanger between the turbine and regenerator, while also operable before the turbine. Lower-temperature processes like pasteurization and anaerobic digestion can use waste heat after the regenerator and do not impact power production. These findings are valuable for optimizing nuclear microreactor heat use and aligning with global climate initiatives.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗

Performance characteristics of a slagging gasifier for MHD combustor systems

The performance of a two stage, coal combustor concept for magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) systems was investigated analytically. The two stage MHD combustor is comprised of an entrained flow, slagging gasifier as the first stage, and a gas phase reactor as the second stage. The first stage was modeled by assuming instantaneous coal devolatilization, and volatiles combustion and char gasification by CO2 and H2O in plug flow. The second stage combustor was modeled assuming adiabatic instantaneous gas phase reactions. Of primary interest was the dependence of char gasification efficiency on first stage particle residence time. The influence of first stage stoichiometry, heat loss, coal moisture, coal size distribution, and degree of coal devolatilization on gasifier performance and second stage exhaust temperature was determined. Performance predictions indicate that particle residence times on the order of 500 msec would be required to achieve gasification efficiencies in the range of 90 to 95 percent. The use of a finer coal size distribution significantly reduces the required gasifier residence time for acceptable levels of fuel use efficiency. Residence time requirements are also decreased by increased levels of coal devolatilization. Combustor design efforts should maximize devolatilization by minimizing mixing times associated with coal injection.

Smith, K. O.↗

Coal conversion and synthetic-fuel production

Report evaluates potential coal gasification and synthetic-fuel production technologies for 1985 to 1990. Book includes overview of present and future technical and economic potential, ways of evaluating gasification facility designs, discussion of promising processes, characterization of potential markets, and list of available gasification systems.

Bradford, R.↗

Coal conversion processes and analysis methodologies for synthetic fuels production

Information to identify viable coal gasification and utilization technologies is presented. Analysis capabilities required to support design and implementation of coal based synthetic fuels complexes are identified. The potential market in the Southeast United States for coal based synthetic fuels is investigated. A requirements analysis to identify the types of modeling and analysis capabilities required to conduct and monitor coal gasification project designs is discussed. Models and methodologies to satisfy these requirements are identified and evaluated, and recommendations are developed. Requirements for development of technology and data needed to improve gasification feasibility and economies are examined.

Source record↗