Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Coal 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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1980

Coal gasification systems engineering and analysis. Appendix A: Coal gasification catalog

The scope of work in preparing the Coal Gasification Data Catalog included the following subtasks: (1) candidate system subsystem definition, (2) raw materials analysis, (3) market analysis for by-products, (4) alternate products analysis, (5) preliminary integrated facility requirements. Definition of candidate systems/subsystems includes the identity of and alternates for each process unit, raw material requirements, and the cost and design drivers for each process design.

Source record↗
DOE OSTI2019

Best Practices in Underground Coal Gasification

Underground coal gasification (UCG) converts coal in-situ into a gaseous product, commonly known as synthesis gas or syngas through the same chemical reactions that occur in surface gasifiers. Gasification converts hydrocarbons into a synthesis gas (syngas) at elevated pressures and temperatures and can be used to create many products (electric power, chemical feedstock, liquid fuels, hydrogen, synthetic gas). Gasification provides numerous opportunities for pollution control, especially with respect to emissions of sulfur, nitrous oxides, and mercury. UCG could increase the coal resource available for utilization enormously by gasifying otherwise unmineable deep or thin coals under many different geological settings. A 300-400% increase in recoverable coal reserves in the U.S. is possible. For developing countries undergoing rapid economic expansion, including India and China, UCG also may be a particularly compelling technology. UCG has been tested in many different experimental tests in many countries. The U.S. carried out over 30 pilots between 1975 and 1996, testing bituminous, sub-bituminous, and lignite coals. Before that, the Former Soviet Union executed over 50 years of research on UCG, field tests and several commercial projects, including an electric power plant in Angren, Uzbekistan that is still in operation today after 47 years. Since 1991, China has executed at least 16 tests, and has several commercial UCG projects for chemical and fertilizer feedstocks. In 2000, Australia began a large pilot (Chinchilla) which produced syngas for 3 years before a controlled shut-down and controlled restart. As present, multiple commercial projects are in various stages of development in the U.S., Canada, South Africa, India, Australia, New Zealand, and China to produce power, liquid fuels, and synthetic natural gas.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
NASA NTRS1978

Considerations on coal gasification

Commercial processes for the gasification of coal with oxygen are discussed. The Koppers-Totzek process for the gasification of coal dust entrained in a stream of gasifying agents is described in particular detail. The outlook for future applications of coal gasification is presented.

Franzen, J. E.↗
NASA NTRS1981

Assessment of advanced coal gasification processes

A technical assessment of the following advanced coal gasification processes is presented: high throughput gasification (HTG) process; single stage high mass flux (HMF) processes; (CS/R) hydrogasification process; and the catalytic coal gasification (CCG) process. Each process is evaluated for its potential to produce synthetic natural gas from a bituminous coal. Key similarities, differences, strengths, weaknesses, and potential improvements to each process are identified. The HTG and the HMF gasifiers share similarities with respect to: short residence time (SRT), high throughput rate, slagging, and syngas as the initial raw product gas. The CS/R hydrogasifier is also SRT, but is nonslagging and produces a raw gas high in methane content. The CCG gasifier is a long residence time, catalytic, fluidbed reactor producing all of the raw product methane in the gasifier.

Mccarthy, J.↗
NASA NTRS1981

Assessment of Advanced Coal Gasification Processes

This report represents a technical assessment of the following advanced coal gasification processes: AVCO High Throughput Gasification (HTG) Process; Bell Single-Stage High Mass Flux (HMF) Process; Cities Service/Rockwell (CS/R) Hydrogasification Process; Exxon Catalytic Coal Gasification (CCG) Process. Each process is evaluated for its potential to produce SNG from a bituminous coal. In addition to identifying the new technology these processes represent, key similarities/differences, strengths/weaknesses, and potential improvements to each process are identified. The AVCO HTG and the Bell HMF gasifiers share similarities with respect to: short residence time (SRT), high throughput rate, slagging and syngas as the initial raw product gas. The CS/R Hydrogasifier is also SRT but is non-slagging and produces a raw gas high in methane content. The Exxon CCG gasifier is a long residence time, catalytic, fluidbed reactor producing all of the raw product methane in the gasifier. The report makes the following assessments: 1) while each process has significant potential as coal gasifiers, the CS/R and Exxon processes are better suited for SNG production; 2) the Exxon process is the closest to a commercial level for near-term SNG production; and 3) the SRT processes require significant development including scale-up and turndown demonstration, char processing and/or utilization demonstration, and reactor control and safety features development.

coal gasification↗
NASA NTRS1986

Continuous Removal of Coal-Gasification Residue

Continuous-flow hopper processes solid residue from coal gasification, converting it from ashes, cinders, and clinkers to particles size of sand granules. Unit does not require repeated depressurization of lockhopper to admit and release materials. Therefore consumes less energy. Because unit has no airlock valves opened and closed repeatedly on hot, abrasive particles, subjected to lesser wear. Coal-gasification residue flows slowly through pressure-letdown device. Material enters and leaves continuously. Cleanout door on each pressure-letdown chamber allows access for maintenance and emergencies.

Collins, Earl R., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS1980

Advanced technology applications for second and third general coal gasification systems

The historical background of coal conversion is reviewed and the programmatic status (operational, construction, design, proposed) of coal gasification processes is tabulated for both commercial and demonstration projects as well as for large and small pilot plants. Both second and third generation processes typically operate at higher temperatures and pressures than first generation methods. Much of the equipment that has been tested has failed. The most difficult problems are in process control. The mechanics of three-phase flow are not fully understood. Companies participating in coal conversion projects are ordering duplicates of failure prone units. No real solutions to any of the significant problems in technology development have been developed in recent years.

Bradford, R.↗
NASA NTRS1981

Conceptual design study of a coal gasification combined-cycle powerplant for industrial cogeneration

A conceptual design study was conducted to assess technical feasibility, environmental characteristics, and economics of coal gasification. The feasibility of a coal gasification combined cycle cogeneration powerplant was examined in response to energy needs and to national policy aimed at decreasing dependence on oil and natural gas. The powerplant provides the steam heating and baseload electrical requirements while serving as a prototype for industrial cogeneration and a modular building block for utility applications. The following topics are discussed: (1) screening of candidate gasification, sulfur removal and power conversion components; (2) definition of a reference system; (3) quantification of plant emissions and waste streams; (4) estimates of capital and operating costs; and (5) a procurement and construction schedule. It is concluded that the proposed powerplant is technically feasible and environmentally superior.

Bloomfield, H. S.↗
DOE OSTI2023

Coal gasification operations with carbon capture (CCS)

Hydrogen production through coal gasification, with carbon capture. To access the model referenced in the report, please visit https://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analysis/details?id=e20c7c55-0123-48e2-a97f-0b967f214767

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2022

Utilizing lowly-reactive coal gasification fly ash (CGFA) to stabilize aggregate bases

This study explored the feasibility of utilizing lowly-reactive coal gasification fly ash (CGFA) for stabilizing road aggregate bases. Three types of aggregate stabilizers including the ordinary Portland cement (OPC)-CGFA, hydrated lime (CH)-CGFA and alkali-activated CH-CGFA were evaluated based on the performances of compacted base specimens. It was found that the OPC-CGFA stabilized bases showed better mechanical and durability properties while the CH-CGFA samples had low water stability and freeze-thaw durability due to the dissolution of unreacted CH. However, the reaction degree of CGFA associated with the performances of CH-CGFA stabilization could be considerably enhanced by the alkali-activation. The sustainability and economic feasibility analyses showed the use of CGFA could significantly reduce the CO 2 emissions and costs, highlighting the synergy between the recycling of CGFA and the construction of sustainable road bases. Here, a framework of selecting CGFA-based stabilizers for road bases was proposed considering the performance ratings of the material properties.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
NASA NTRS1978

The Texaco coal gasification process for manufacture of medium BTU gas

The development of the Texaco coal gasification process is discussed with particular emphasis on its close relationship to the fully commercialized Texaco synthesis gas generation process for residual oil gasification. The end uses of the product gas are covered, with special attention to electric power generation via combined cycle technology. Control of SO2, NOx, and particulate emissions in the power generating mode is also covered. The application of this technology in a proposed Texaco-Southern California Edison demonstration project is mentioned. Investment information released for a 1000-megawatt advanced combined cycle gasification facility, is also reviewed.

Schlinger, W. G.↗
DOE OSTI2019

Application of Chemical Looping with Spouting Fluidized Bed for Hydrogen-Rich Syngas Production from Catalytic Coal Gasification

The goal of this final project report is to comprehensively summarize the work conducted in project DE-FE0024000. In accordance with the Statement of Project Objectives (SOPO), the University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy Research (UKy-CAER) developed a multifaceted particle as a catalyst-oxygen carrier (catalyst-OC) for chemical looping gasification. The project also included the design, fabrication, commissioning and performance evaluation of a novel spouted bed approach to gasifiers in conjunction with chemical looping concepts to significantly reduce the capital cost associated with typical gasification technologies. Specifically, UKy-CAER investigated red mud (RM) with and without Cu additives for catalytic and stability benefits in a bench scale reactor, provided the detailed front-end design of a 50 kWth chemical looping gasification (CLG) plant and completed a 70+ hour long experimental campaign to evaluate the coal feed system and the performance and flexibility of the 50 kWth facility with various coal and OCs. Project results verified UKy-CAER’s proposed approach to catalytic coal gasification technology using a chemical looping process with three reaction zones to provide in-situ separated oxygen for coal partial-combustion (e.g. gasification) with water-gas shift reaction. Central to the project was kinetically facile red mud OC and a spouted bed gasifier configuration that enabled the success of the following operation, performance and economic objectives: (1) Low-temperature gasifier operation (as low as 600°C); (2) Avoidance of ash and OCs aggolmeration; (3) Elimination of methane formation; and (4) Promotion of water-gas shift (WGS) reactions and syngas reforming. The red mud OC is economical and the novel spouted bed reducer shows promise, as summarized in this report, as an effective means for improved plant efficiency with reduced process complexity.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
NASA NTRS1980

Coal gasification systems engineering and analysis. Appendix B: Medium B+U gas design

A four module, 20,000 TPD, based on KT coal gasification technology was designed. The plant processes Kentucky No. 9 coal with provisions for up to five percent North Alabama coal. Medium BTU gas with heat content of 305 BTU/SCF and not more than 200 ppm sulfur is the primary plant product. Sulfur is recovered for scale as prilled sulfur. Ash disposal is on site. The plant is designed for zero water discharge. Trade studies provided the basis for not using boiler produced steam to drive prime movers. Thus process derived steam in excess of process requirements in superheated for power use in prime movers. Electricity from the TVA grid is used to supply the balance of the plant prime mover power requirements. A study of the effect of mine mouth coal cleaning showed that coal cleaning is not an economically preferred route. The design procedure involved defining available processes to meet the requirements of each system, technical/economic trade studies to select the preferred processes, and engineering design and flow sheet development for each module. Cost studies assumed a staggered construction schedule for the four modules beginning spring 1981 and a 90% on stream factor.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1977

Lock hopper values for coal gasification plant service

Although the operating principle of the lock hopper system is extremely simple, valve applications involving this service for coal gasification plants are likewise extremely difficult. The difficulties center on the requirement of handling highly erosive pulverized coal or char (either in dry or slurry form) combined with the requirement of providing tight sealing against high-pressure (possibly very hot) gas. Operating pressures and temperatures in these applications typically range up to 1600 psi (110bar) and 600F (316C), with certain process requirements going even higher. In addition, and of primary concern, is the need for reliable operation over long service periods with the provision for practical and economical maintenance. Currently available data indicate the requirement for something in the order of 20,000 to 30,000 open-close cycles per year and a desire to operate at least that long without valve failure.

Schoeneweis, E. F.↗
NASA NTRS1978

Some studies on a solid-state sulfur probe for coal gasification systems

As a part of a program for the development of a sulfur probe for monitoring the sulfur potential in coal gasification reactors, an investigation was conducted regarding the efficiency of the solid electrolyte cell Ar+H2+H2S/CaS+CaF2+(Pt)//CaF2//Pt)+CaF2+CaS/H2S+H2+Ar. A demonstration is provided of the theory, design, and operation of a solid-state sulfur probe based on CaF2 electrolyte. It was found that the cell responds to changes in sulfur potential in a manner predicted by the Nernst equation. The response time of the cell at 1225 K, after a small change in temperature or gas composition, was 2.5 Hr, while at a lower temperature of 990 K the response time was approximately 9 hr. The cell emf was insensitive to a moderate increase in the flow rate of the test gas and/or the reference gas. The exact factors affecting the slow response time of galvanic cells based on a CaF2 electrolyte have not yet been determined. The rate-limiting steps may be either the kinetics of electrode reactions or the rate of transport through the electrolyte.

Jacob, K. T.↗