0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Cycle Innovations

Comparison of Preanode and Postanode Carbon Dioxide Separation for IGFC Systems

[+] Author and Article Information
Eric Liese

 National Energy Technology Laboratory, P.O. Box 880 Morgantown, WV 26507eric.liese@netl.doe.gov

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 132(6), 061703 (Mar 24, 2010) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4000140 History: Received April 21, 2009; Revised April 23, 2009; Published March 24, 2010; Online March 24, 2010

This paper examines the arrangement of a solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) within a coal gasification cycle, this combination generally being called an integrated gasification fuel cell cycle. This work relies on a previous study performed by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) that details thermodynamic simulations of integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) systems and considers various gasifier types and includes cases for 90% CO2 capture (2007, “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants, Vol. 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity,” National Energy Technology Laboratory Report No. DOE/NETL-2007/1281). All systems in this study assume a Conoco Philips gasifier and cold-gas clean up conditions for the coal gasification system (Cases 3 and 4 in the NETL IGCC report). Four system arrangements, cases, are examined. Cases 1 and 2 remove the CO2 after the SOFC anode. Case 3 assumes steam addition, a water-gas-shift (WGS) catalyst, and a Selexol process to remove the CO2 in the gas cleanup section, sending a hydrogen-rich gas to the fuel cell anode. Case 4 assumes Selexol in the cold-gas cleanup section as in Case 3; however, there is no steam addition, and the WGS takes places in the SOFC and after the anode. Results demonstrate significant efficiency advantages compared with IGCC with CO2 capture. The hydrogen-rich case (Case 3) has better net electric efficiency compared with typical postanode CO2 capture cases (Cases 1 and 2), with a simpler arrangement but at a lower SOFC power density, or a lower efficiency at the same power density. Case 4 gives an efficiency similar to Case 3 but also at a lower SOFC power density. Carbon deposition concerns are also discussed.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2010 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Case 1: postanode CO2 capture with cathode recuperator

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Case 2: postanode CO2 capture with cathode recycle

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Case 3: preanode CO2 capture with steam addition and WGS

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Case 4: preanode CO2 capture with second fuel recycle

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Ternary diagram for C–H–O equilibrium at 650°C

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Ternary diagram for C–H–O equilibrium at 5 bar, Case 4 considerations

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In