Gasification: A Key Technology Enabler...2015/11/15 · • Gasification systems providing clean syngas, but – Gasification systems today are just developing – close coupled systems

© 2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1

© 2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP The information in this document is the property of Energy Technologies Institute LLP and may not be copied or communicated to a third party, or used for any purpose other than that for which it is supplied without the express written consent of Energy Technologies Institute LLP.This information is given in good faith based upon the latest information available to Energy Technologies Institute LLP, no warranty or representation is given concerning such information, which must not be taken as establishing any contractual or other commitment binding upon Energy Technologies Institute LLP or any of its subsidiary or associated companies.

Gasification: A Key Technology EnablerPaul Winstanley CEng. MEI. MSOE. MCIBSE. Project Manager


Agenda

• The ETI• UK energy use• Why energy from waste• Why gasification• What is Gasification• Phase 1 Waste Gasification project• Phase 2 Waste Gasification


The Energy Technologies Institute (ETI)

• The Energy Technologies Institute is a public-private partnership between global energy and engineering companies and UK Government

• The UK is facing increasing energy demands and stringent GHG emission targets out to 2050 (> 500 MtCO2e to 105 MtCO2e)

• This will require significant change to our energy system

• ETI was set up to identify and accelerate the development and demonstration of an integrated set of low carbon technologies to deliver this step change

• Part of a robust and affordable future energy system in the UK

ETI programme associate

ETI members


ETI covers 9 technology programme areas & invests in projects at three levels

Delivering...• New knowledge

o Up to £5M / 2 years• Technology development

o £5-15M / 2-4 years / TRL 3-5• Technology demonstration

• £15-30M+ / 3-5 years / TRL 5-6+

• Reduced risk


UK (ESME) energy flows 2015• Primary energy

• Bioenergy/waste excepted. most primary energy is imported

• Petroleum dominates -nearly 150 mtoe.

• Most electricity is indigenously produced

• Final UK energy consumption• 2013:150.1mtoe/6304 PJ• Transport accounts for

35½% of all of the energy consumed in the UK

• Domestic sector accounts for 29% & industrial sector accounts for 16%


62 million people 77-79 million people

2010 2050

24 million cars 35-43 million cars

24 million domestic dwellings 80% still in use in 2050, growing to 38 million houses

• Over 90GW generation capacity (1MW to 3.9GW)• Over 200 ‘significant’ power stations …. average age > 20 years old• 50% of power generation capacity held in 30 plants - average age 30 years old

Demand is growing, assets are ageing, prices are rising… irrespective of the UK’s GHG emission reduction targets

Need to design a future UK energy system which is sustainable, affordable and secure

The UK Energy Challenge…


BioenergyA key lever – particularly with CCS - Requires sustainable supplies – imports and indigenous

• Major potential for creating ‘negative emissions’ via CCS

• Could support a range of conversion and utilisation routes– Hydrogen– SNG– Heat

• ETI investing in soil science, logistics and value chain models

• Informing decisions– “what do we grow ?”– “where do we grow it ?” – “how do we handle it ?”


Future scenarios: emissions comparisonNegative emissions are highly desirable

• Both scenarios target is 105 million tonnes of CO2 in 2050• Clockwork has 30 MT of extra negative emissions from implementation of biomass + CCS

– This extra headroom helps avoid expensive abatement actions such as in transport– Provides more flexibility on transition

Clo

ckw

ork

Patc

hwor

k


Energy From Waste

Project Partners

• Project profiling waste arising's in the UK

• Evaluated different conversion technologies

• Identified technology development opportunities in the area of gasification and gas clean up


Why energy from waste• Drivers to use waste as a fuel

– Reduce waste sector emissions – 3.2% of UK GHG emissions in 2009– Landfill diversion – landfill tax and landfill diversion targets– UK commitments

• Reduction of UK emissions by 80% by 2050• To supply 15% of energy from renewable sources by 2020

• Energy from Waste FRP project

1. UK Waste Arisings

2. Technology Assessment

3. Modeling of System Performance Configurations As is vs Developed

4. Benefits Case


1. Waste system analysis• About 90MT of UK waste is energy bearing• Key waste streams are MSW and C&I – C&D is about 70% non combustible• C&I contains more paper and card than MSW – due to different recycling targets

– Both contain large percentages of thin film plastics with high CV• Plastics contribute significantly to waste CV – economically favourable to extract energy from

these providing efficiency is high enough• But, waste streams will always contain some recyclable materials as these can’t be

continuously recycled

England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland Total

MSW 29.1 1.8 2.1 1.1 34.1C&I waste 58.7 3.6 8.1 1.6 72.0C&D waste 89.6 12.2 11.8 1.7 115.3Total 177.4 17.6 22.0 4.4 221.4


2. Improve the definition of the opportunity for significant levels of primarily electricity and heat generation from the waste available in the UK, today and in coming decades.

• Overview of new technologies followed by testing program• FB gasification most suitable technology; downdraft possibly suitable at smaller scales• Strong focus on fuel feeding and syngas gas cleaning needed

– Feedstock pre-treatment may be necessary to homogenise the waste feed• Holistic system design is essential• Gasification and pyrolysis technologies tested were able to process mixed wastes of widely

varying composition• Operating engines on syngas shown to be feasible• Integrated AD / gasification set up is an opportunity


3. Opportunity - Identification of combinations of technologies for development and related technology improvement opportunities to fill gaps in the value chain.

• Current EFW’s are regional scale only.– Town scale is a major development opportunity– Local CHP plants will have strongest impact on reducing emissions from energy from wastes

• EFW technologies must be able to cope with changing wastes - drives towards thermal processes

– MSW and C&I production rates are reducing and mix of materials within wastes is changing with changes in recycling. Elemental composition is relatively stable

– Opportunity to develop waste pre-treatment technologies to homogenise waste• Limited range of options for wet wastes garden waste and food waste; AD appears most

attractive. – AD efficiency is low for the size of plant – work needed to improved process intensities

• Gasification* is preferred to liquefaction by pyrolysis for MSW & C&I– Liquefaction by pyrolysis more suited to consistent quality feedstock streams such as tyres

*including Pyrolysis/Gasification combinations and gasification by pyrolysis


4. UK benefits case - Clear UK benefits case for development and deployment of the identified technologiesCity34% of UK population live in cities500k people taken as scenario scale UK has 5 cities over 500k people and 26 between 200k and 500kMixed economy of residential, industrial and serviceNo agricultural

Town43% of UK population live in towns50k people taken as scenario scaleResidential and commercial (with surrounding agricultural).

Village21% of UK population live in villages5k people taken as scenario scale Residential, little commercial

Rural Agricultural2% of UK population live in a rural setting500 people taken as scenario scaleMainly farming and light industrial (arable or livestock)


Benefits Case Outcomes• Projected achievable electrical generation is approximately 25TWh per year

– Equivalent to 5-8% of UK electricity demand• Advanced EFW technologies can potentially contribute to a net decrease 5 to 10

MTCO2e/year at midpoint technology conversion and waste arisings scenarios• High total conversion efficiency technologies drive highest GHG savings• Focus on town and village scale technologies, especially gasification/pyrolysis

– City scale well served by incineration– Cost effective syngas clean-up is essential for community scale systems

City Town Village Rural

Av Population 500,000 50,000 5,000 500

% UK Popn. 34% 43% 21% 2%

Waste kT/yr (Mwe) 500 (75) 50 (8) 5 (0.8) 0.5 (0.1)

Number of plants 76 946 4,544 4,544


• Incineration and Anaerobic Digestion TRL 9• Pyrolysis and Gasification TRL5 (Laboratory scale, similar

system validation in relevant environment)• But, Gasification;

– Integrates well with upstream recycling activities– Provides great energy sector flexibility (power, gas,

liquids)– Is future proof, as an intermediate and destination

technology– Greatest potential for ETI to deliver LCOE and efficacy

improvements• Coupling of key elements (sorting, gasification, gas clean-

up, gas utilisation) of the system are vital

Technology Choices


Summary / Our Vision

• Town scale systems using local waste arisings• Gasification systems providing clean syngas, but

– Gasification systems today are just developing – close coupled systems are rolling out– Gas clean-up systems need development and demonstration– Utilisation of cleaned syngas in engines and turbines to give enhanced efficiencies not

yet commercially demonstrated– Finance community needs proven systems

• Flexible use of syngas, providing– Power at high efficiency plus heat– Fuels including hydrogen plus heat if possible


The Gasification Story – gasification is not new

1609 • Belgian Chemist Jan Baptisa Van Helmon

1788 • First Gasifier Patent

1878 • Gasifier used with internal combustion engine

1926 • Winkler fluidised bed gasifier

1931 • Lurgi pressurised bed gasifier

1939 • Germany produce fuels from coal

1940’s • Wide use of towns gas to fuel vehicles

~1974 • UK abandons the use of towns gas


What is gasification and how do we achieve our vision

Air/oxidant flow0 >100

Pyrolysis(produces mix ofgases,condensablevapours, char& ash)

Combustion(produces hotCO2, N2, minor CO, minor others,ash, heat)

Gasification(produces smallermix of gases (CO,H2, CO2, CH4, N2if air used) minor lower HC’s,some char & ash


400°C

600°C

1000°C

1500°C

400°C

Oil vapours and gas Pyrolysis of wood

Oil vapours crack to hydrocarbons and tar

Gases from soot (luminous)

Combustion of gas, tar and soot

Air diffusion in plume

Combustion products

Combustion / Gasification / Pyrolysis are all closely related


Unreacted feedstock (15°C)

Drying (<100°C)

Pyrolysis (100-400°C)

Oxidation (~1000°C)

Char and gas reduction (1000-700°C)

(too) cool char and ash (<700°C)

Feed + oxidant

flows

Hot raw syngas

Heat dries biomass as it approaches reaction zone

Heat devolatilises biomass to yield vapours, gases and char

C + O2 = CO2 + heatC+ 1/2O2 = CO

All “air consumed”C + CO2 = 2CO, C + H2O = CO + H2, C + 2H2 = CH42CO + O2 = 2CO2, CO + 3H2 = CH4 + H2O, 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O, CH4 + 3/2O2 = CO + 2H2OCO + H2O = CO2 + H2, CH4 + H2O = CO + 3H2

Chemical quenching in reduction zone meanstemperatures are too low to sustain reactions

Contains tars, particulates which need removal

e.g. RDF, wood chips


Market attractiveness (town scale, waste)

• Each has its own strengths and weaknesses– Each may be more or less suited to a

particular feedstock and/or application• Market attractiveness very much depends on

application and resource to be gasified– For high hazard wastes, plasma becomes

much more desirable– For fuels production from torrefied

woodchips, entrained flow becomes more desirable

• Lack of gasification technologies for clean syngas in <10MWe scale

– Atmospheric BFB starting to emerge– Pressurised BFB not far behind– CFB’s may be too large for town scale

high

low

Mar

ket

attra

ctiv

enes

s

strongest weakestTechnology strength

ABFB

ACFB

PBFB

PCFBplasma

EF

downdraft

Up draft


System integration is biggest challenge• Gasification needs demonstration• More innovation and demonstration needed in gas cleaning

– Cleaning can be by, for example, high temperature cracking and washing, low temperature scrubbing (e.g. OLGA)

• Waste handling – although simple on face of it, lack of focus here can jeopardise a whole project

Air

Waste handling

gasifier

O2

Cleaning / conditioning

Raw syngas

Clean syngas

Furnace / steam

engine

Gas turbine

Chem synthesis


Raw syngas quality is not sufficient for advanced processes

Courtesy of Progressive Energy


Methane (bioSNG)

Mixed alcohols synthesis

Furnace/Boiler

Fuel cell

Ethanol (fermentation)

Fischer Tropsch

Engine/Turbine

direct combustion

chemical synthesis

Gasification

Methanol synthesis

Carbon monoxide

Hydrogen

Ammonia

DiMethylEther (DME)

Diesel / jet fuel

n-paraffins

Fertilisers

Acetyls

MTO / MOGDFormaldehyde

Cleaned syngas

chemicals and m

aterials

Pow

er

HeatFuels

Gasification to produce clean syngas provides flexibility; mitigating against future energy system uncertainties Courtesy of NNFCC

Gasification provides flexibility – provided there is clean syngas


Deployment of gasification projects using Rankine (steam) cycles

Deployment of projects using clean syngas fuelling engines, turbines for power. CHP

Deployment of fully flexible options (turbines, H2, jet fuels etc)

High value job creation

IP creation

Increased R&D opportunities

Security of supply

Effective use of wastes

Use of widerresource base

GHG savings

Meeting 2050 targets

CHP opportunity

Today


Waste Gasification Project

Aim: Competition to design an economically and commercially viable, efficient energy from waste gasification demonstrator plant.in the 5-20 MWe scale range.

Outputs:- Process designs, site identification, costs, planning and permittingOutcomes:- Technical capabilities, deliverability, finance-ability

• Three companies commissioned to deliver their design• Designs supported with a combination of laboratory and pilot scale testing on

different feedstocks and through process modelling• £2.8 million over 1 year• Launched April 2012


Advanced Plasma Power• Site location West Midlands (Tyseley)• ≈ 5MWe reciprocating engines• Novelty of design: plasma torch syngas

cleaning and tar cracking

Broadcrown• Site Location West Midlands

(Wednesbury)• ≈ 3MWe reciprocating engines• Novelty of design: thermal syngas cleaning

and tar cracking

Royal Dahlman• Site location NE (Grimsby)• ≈ 7MWe Combined cycle gas turbine plant• Novelty of design: indirect gasifier, turbine

and chemical washing of syngas with “heavies” recycle back to gasifier


In Summary / Our Vision

• ETI has identified Bioenergy as very important – negative emissions of CO2

• Gasification is a key enabling technology– Flexibility – can yield a variety of energy outputs– Town scale systems using local waste arisings– Improved thermal integration

• Gasification systems today are just developing – close coupled systems are rolling out– Systems need development and robust demonstration– Advanced gasification systems are emerging


For more information about the ETI visit www.eti.co.uk

For the latest ETI news and announcements email [email protected]

The ETI can also be followed on Twitter @the_ETI

Registered Office Energy Technologies InstituteHolywell BuildingHolywell ParkLoughboroughLE11 3UZ

For all general enquiries telephone the ETI on 01509 202020.

Documents

Gasification: A Key Technology Enabler...2015/11/15 · • Gasification systems providing clean syngas, but – Gasification systems today are just developing – close coupled systems