科技报告详细信息
FEED SYSTEM INNOVATION FOR GASIFICATION OF LOCALLY ECONOMICAL ALTERNATIVE FUELS (FIGLEAF)
Swanson, Michael L. ; Musich, Mark A. ; Schmidt, Darren D. ; Schultz, Joseph K.
University of North Dakota
关键词: Coal Gasification;    02 Petroleum;    Wood Wastes;    Petroleum Products;    01 Coal, Lignite, And Peat;   
DOI  :  10.2172/815460
RP-ID  :  NONE
RP-ID  :  FC26-00NT40904
RP-ID  :  815460
美国|英语
来源: UNT Digital Library
PDF
【 摘 要 】

The Feed System Innovation for Gasification of Locally Economical Alternative Fuels (FIGLEAF) project was conducted by the Energy & Environmental Research Center and Gasification Engineering Corporation of Houston, Texas (a subsidiary of Global Energy Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio), with 80% cofunding from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The goal of the project was to identify and evaluate low-value fuels that could serve as alternative feedstocks and to develop a feed system to facilitate their use in integrated gasification combined-cycle and gasification coproduction facilities. The long-term goal, to be accomplished in a subsequent project, is to install a feed system for the selected fuel(s) at Global Energy's commercial-scale 262-MW Wabash River Coal Gasification Facility in West Terre Haute, Indiana. The feasibility study undertaken for the project consisted of identifying and evaluating the economic feasibility of potential fuel sources, developing a feed system design capable of providing a fuel at 400 psig to the second stage of the E-Gas (Destec) gasifier to be cogasified with coal, performing bench- and pilot-scale testing to verify concepts and clarify decision-based options, reviewing information on high-pressure feed system designs, and determining the economics of cofeeding alternative feedstocks with the conceptual feed system design. A preliminary assessment of feedstock availability within Indiana and Illinois was conducted. Feedstocks evaluated included those with potential tipping fees to offset processing cost: sewage sludge, municipal solid waste, used railroad ties, urban wood waste (UWW), and used tires/tire-derived fuel. Agricultural residues and dedicated energy crop fuels were not considered since they would have a net positive cost to the plant. Based on the feedstock assessment, sewage sludge was selected as the primary feedstock for consideration at the Wabash River Plant. Because of the limited waste heat available for drying and the ability of the gasifier to operate with alternative feedstocks at up to 80% moisture, a decision was made to investigate a pumping system for delivering the as-received fuel across the pressure boundary into the second stage of the gasifier. A high-pressure feed pump and fuel dispersion nozzles were tested for their ability to cross the pressure boundary and adequately disperse the sludge into the second stage of the gasifier. These results suggest that it is technically feasible to get the sludge dispersed to an appropriate size into the second stage of the gasifier although the recycle syngas pressure needed to disperse the sludge would be higher than originally desired. A preliminary design was prepared for a sludge-receiving, storage, and high-pressure feeding system at the Wabash River Plant. The installed capital costs were estimated at approximately $9.7 million, within an accuracy of {+-}10%. An economic analysis using DOE's IGCC Model, Version 3 spreadsheet indicates that in order to justify the additional capital cost of the system, Global Energy would have to receive a tipping fee of $12.40 per wet ton of municipal sludge delivered. This is based on operation with petroleum coke as the primary fuel. Similarly, with coal as the primary fuel, a minimum tipping of $16.70 would be required. The availability of delivered sludge from Indianapolis, Indiana, in this tipping-fee range is unlikely; however, given the higher treatment costs associated with sludge treatment in Chicago, Illinois, delivery of sludge from Chicago, given adequate rail access, might be economically viable.

【 预 览 】
附件列表
Files Size Format View
815460.pdf 59843KB PDF download
  文献评价指标  
  下载次数:15次 浏览次数:17次