Integrated gasification combined cycle
Coal can be found in abundance in the USA and many other countries and its price has remained relatively constant in recent years.
Fossil fuel consumption and its contribution to large-scale CO2 emissions is becoming a pressing issue because of the adverse effects of climate change.
Thus, the lower emissions that IGCC technology allows through gasification and pre-combustion carbon capture is discussed as a way to addressing aforementioned concerns.
[1] Below is a schematic flow diagram of an IGCC plant: The gasification process can produce syngas from a wide variety of carbon-containing feedstocks, such as high-sulfur coal, heavy petroleum residues, and biomass.
In the Reno demonstration project, researchers found that then-current IGCC technology would not work more than 300 feet (100m) above sea level.
[6] The DOE report in reference 3 however makes no mention of any altitude effect, and most of the problems were associated with the solid waste extraction system.
[10][11] (See FutureGen)Poland's Kędzierzyn will soon host a Zero-Emission Power & Chemical Plant that combines coal gasification technology with Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS).
Other operating IGCC plants in existence around the world are the Alexander (formerly Buggenum) in the Netherlands, Puertollano in Spain, and JGC in Japan.
The Texas Clean Energy project planned to build a 400 MW IGCC facility that would incorporate carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) technology.
The project would have been the first coal power plant in the United States to combine IGCC and 90% carbon capture and storage.
[12] There are several advantages and disadvantages when compared to conventional post combustion carbon capture and various variations [13] A key issue in implementing IGCC is its high capital cost, which prevents it from competing with other power plant technologies.
The advantage of IGCC comes from the ease of retrofitting existing power plants that could offset the high capital cost.
Second, the thermocoupler was replaced in less than two years; an indication that the gasifier had problems with a variety of feedstocks; from bituminous to sub-bituminous coal.
This is an unpublished paper from Harvard University) General Electric is currently designing an IGCC model plant that should introduce greater reliability.
Several factors help this performance: Another IGCC success story has been the 250 MW Buggenum plant in The Netherlands, which was commissioned in 1994 and closed in 2013,[21] had good availability.
Projects are being developed by AEP, Duke Energy, and Southern Company in the US, and in Europe by ZAK/PKE, Centrica (UK), E.ON and RWE (both Germany) and NUON (Netherlands).
of Commerce analysis found IGCC to have the highest cost, with an emissions profile not significantly better than pulverized coal.
The high cost of IGCC is the biggest obstacle to its integration in the power market; however, most energy executives recognize that carbon regulation is coming soon.
IGCC with CCS requires some sort of mandate, higher carbon market price, or regulatory framework to properly incentivize the industry.
[24] In Japan, electric power companies, in conjunction with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries has been operating a 200 t/d IGCC pilot plant since the early '90s.
It burns PRB coal with an unburned carbon content ratio of <0.1% and no detected leaching of trace elements.
The main advantage is that it is possible to improve the performance of cold gas efficiency and to reduce the unburned carbon (char).
In the United States, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers published the Performance Test Code for IGCC Power Generation Plants (PTC 47) in 2006 which provides procedures for the determination of quantity and quality of fuel gas by its flow rate, temperature, pressure, composition, heating value, and its content of contaminants.
"Any one of the several new or likely regulatory initiatives for CO2 emissions from power plants - including state carbon controls, EPA's regulations under the Clean Air Act, or the enactment of federal global warming legislation - would add a significant cost to carbon-intensive coal generation";[29] U.S.
Senator Hillary Clinton from New York has proposed that this full risk disclosure be required of all publicly traded power companies nationwide.
[30] This honest disclosure has begun to reduce investor interest in all types of existing-technology coal-fired power plant development, including IGCC.
Reid stated that global warming is a reality, and just one proposed coal-fired plant would contribute to it by burning seven million tons of coal a year.
