A NOTE TO THE READER This <strong>Abstract</strong>s <strong>Booklet</strong> is prepared solely as a convenient reference for the Conference participants. <strong>Abstract</strong>s are arranged in a numerical order <strong>of</strong> the oral and poster sessions as published in the Final Conference Program. In order to facilitate the task for the reader to locate a specific abstract in a given session, each paper is given two numbers: the first designates the session number and the second represents the paper number in that session. For example, Paper No. 25-1 is the first paper to be presented in the Oral Session #25. Similarly, Paper No. P3-1 is the first paper to appear in the Poster Session #3. It should be cautioned that this <strong>Abstract</strong>s <strong>Booklet</strong> is prepared based on the original abstract that was submitted, unless the author noted an abstract change. The contents <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Booklet</strong> do not reflect late changes made by the authors for their presentations at the Conference. The reader should consult the Final Conference Program for any such changes. Furthermore, updated and detailed full manuscripts are published in the CD-ROM Conference Proceedings, made available to all registered participants at the Conference. On behalf <strong>of</strong> the Twenty-Third Annual International Pittsburgh Coal Conference, we wish to express our sincere appreciation to Ms. Heidi M. Aufdenkamp, Ms. Diane McMartin, and Mr. Yannick Heintz for their invaluable assistance in preparing this <strong>Abstract</strong> <strong>Booklet</strong>. Badie Morsi Executive Director International Pittsburgh Coal Conference <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Pittsburgh September <strong>2006</strong> Copyright © <strong>2006</strong> Pittsburgh Coal Conference
1-1 SESSION 1 GASIFICATION TECHNOLOGIES: APPLICATIONS AND ECONOMICS – 1 The Gasification Industry: Progress & Prospects James M. Childress, Gasification Technologies Council, USA The author will review the major factors that have driven the scope <strong>of</strong> development <strong>of</strong> the gasification industry over the immediate past (three years) – energy market, environmental regulation, technology development and government policies (at the federal and state level – and <strong>of</strong>fer insights into what the future may hold over the near and mid term period. The focus will be on the U.S. industry with somewhat less detailed analysis <strong>of</strong> international developments in major markets. 1-2 Polygeneration: Market Barriers and Incentives Considered Lynn L. Schloesser, Eastman Chemical Company, USA The global market has potential for advances in technological efficiency in the conversion <strong>of</strong> coal to energy and materials. Following the rise <strong>of</strong> “market power” and the technology deployment <strong>of</strong> combined heat and power (CHP); gasification as coproduction, or polygeneration (production <strong>of</strong> electricity, process steam, chemical feedstocks or fuels), <strong>of</strong>fers economic opportunity for doubling or tripling efficiency (extending the life <strong>of</strong> coal reserves), achieving near-zero emissions, and building a bridge to the hydrogen economy. Gasification technology as polygeneration is poised to become commercial, particularly in the natural gas dependent, industrial sectors. Though industrials are motivated by tight natural gas supply and demand, market barriers remain. This paper briefly examines the technology, and the market incentives, opportunities, and barriers to polygeneration, with particular emphasis on electricity market barriers and economic incentives in North America. 1-3 Quantifying the Real Option Value <strong>of</strong> Coal Gasification Polygeneration Gary Leatherman, Booz Allen Hamilton, USA One <strong>of</strong> the more promising applications <strong>of</strong> coal gasification is polygeneration wherein the technology is configured for the co production <strong>of</strong> multiple products such as electricity, fuels and/or chemicals. The inherent optionality provided by coal gasification polygeneration is an attractive source <strong>of</strong> potential value. Polygeneration is a "real" option that can manifest its value in two ways: 1) arbitrage- wherein the relative quantities <strong>of</strong> the various products are varied in response to the market to maximize pr<strong>of</strong>its and 2) insurance- wherein a single product gasification plant can be modified to produce another product should production <strong>of</strong> the primary product no longer be financially viable. However, the value <strong>of</strong> this optionality is constrained by operational and financial issues. For instance, turn-down ratios, start-up/shut-down cycle time, impact <strong>of</strong> product cycling on availability, and base-load nature <strong>of</strong> IGCC electricity production can all impact the extent to which the plant operator can modify production. Among financial constraints are long term power (or other product) purchase agreements, which are almost mandatory for project financing, and the power market context (i.e. regulated, deregulated) in which the plant is located. This paper attempts to quantitatively assess the inherent economic value <strong>of</strong> polygeneration optionality and examine the impact <strong>of</strong> real-world operational and financial constraints on this value. To this end a simulation model was developed and subsequently used to assess the incremental value added by polygeneration optionality through both arbitrage and insurance. 1-4 Global Experience with Coal Gasification Coal-To-Gas, Coal-To-Liquids, and IGCC Coal-To-Power Wm. Mark Hart, West Hawk Development Corp., CANADA Coal gasification is globally a ‘hot’ topic for ultra-clean energy, utilization, and transportation <strong>of</strong> fuels and IGCC electric power generation. Amid surging energy prices, rising domestic demand, and concerns about energy security, many countries seek coal gasification to develop and diversify domestic resources. Coal gasification been successfully used in the USA, Europe, Russia, and South Africa with plants that convert coal to diesel fuel, power, pipeline quality gas, and various other co-products with economics competitive to refining crude oil. Environmentally sound, proven technologies to exploit coal more effectively are now being aggressively applied around the globe with US$ billions in new projects now being advanced. Increasing demand for petroleum based fuels along with anticipated increases in natural gas prices will continue to drive this trend. This paper discusses coal-to-liquids (CTL), coal-togas (CTG), and coal-to-power (CTP/IGCC), projects and technologies around the world, including from Germany and South Africa and current activities in the USA, Canada, and Europe. 1 1-5 Environmental Permitting for IGCC Power Plants Stephen Jenkins, URS Corporate, USA Over the past 10 years, power company environmental staff and state and federal environmental agency staff have had extensive experience with the permitting requirements for hundreds <strong>of</strong> natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants and some coal-fired power plants. Due to the costs <strong>of</strong> natural gas, stricter environmental requirements, and incentives in the Energy Policy Act <strong>of</strong> 2005, many power companies are now planning to develop Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plants that will use coal or blends <strong>of</strong> coal and other feedstocks. Since there are only two operating IGCC power plants in the U.S., with only 10 years <strong>of</strong> operating history, there is limited information on environmental pr<strong>of</strong>iles and performance, and little hands-on experience in power companies and environmental agencies with the air, water, and waste permitting requirements for IGCC power plants. This paper explains how IGCC technology and environmental pr<strong>of</strong>iles are different from natural gas-fired combined cycle and coal-fired power plant technology, as well as how permitting procedures are similar to and different from those used for natural gas-fired combined cycle power plant and coal-fired power plant permitting. The paper also discusses the specific regulations that now apply to IGCC power plants, and provides a summary <strong>of</strong> key guidelines for air, water, and waste permitting. This will promote the use <strong>of</strong> standardized approaches and calculation methods in permit applications, making it easier for environmental agency staff to review the applications. This will help assure that the new fleet <strong>of</strong> IGCC power plants will be developed based on permits that have comparable emission limits and utilize effective compliance assurance methods based on the lessons learned over the past 10 years <strong>of</strong> IGCC power plant operation. SESSION 2 SYNTHESIS OF LIQUID FUELS, CHEMICALS, MATERIALS AND OTHER NON-FUEL USES OF COAL: BASICS, FT/DME 2-1 Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis in Microstructured Reactors: the Importance <strong>of</strong> Flow Distribution on Both the Process and Coolant Streams Kai Jarosch, Anna Lee Tonkovich, Sean Fitzgerald, Velocys, Inc., USA To date, synthetic fuel processes have required enormous economies <strong>of</strong> scale to produce competitively priced products. Systems based on microchannel technology hold the potential to significantly reduce overall costs and enable production <strong>of</strong> synthetic fuels at smaller scales from a variety <strong>of</strong> low cost feedstock materials. Reactors using this technology are characterized by parallel arrays <strong>of</strong> microchannels, with typical dimensions in the 0.010-inch to 0.200-inch range. Processes are intensified by reducing heat and mass transfer distances, thus decreasing transfer resistance between process fluids and channel walls. Overall system volumes are reduced 10- to 100-fold or more, permitting smaller, lower cost units to produce commercially significant quantities <strong>of</strong> synthetic fuel. At present, several commercial Fischer-Tropsch (FT) processes are used: a tubular fixed bed, slurry bed, fluid bed, and circulating fluid bed. These conventional processes are limited by heat and/or mass transfer performance, and are operated with GHSV less than 1000 hr -1 with selectivity to the undesired methane side product near 10%. Methane production is a strong function <strong>of</strong> temperature. As the catalyst temperature increases with the exothermic reaction, the methane selectivity continues to rise. The use <strong>of</strong> microchannel reactors for GTL has demonstrated improved temperature control and reduced methane selectivity. The scale-up challenge <strong>of</strong> enhanced FT performance in large scale microchannel reactors has not yet been addressed in the literature. This work will describe the importance <strong>of</strong> flow distribution on both the process channels and cooling channels to maintain performance as the number <strong>of</strong> parallel process channels increases from one to ten to ten thousand and beyond. FT performance in a single microchannel has been reported in the literature, where CO conversion approached 70% per pass and methane selectivity less than 11% after more than 1000 hours on stream. A catalyst similar to those reported above was evaluated in multi-channel microstructured reactors consisting <strong>of</strong> more than 10 parallel microchannels interleaved with coolant channels. Cooling was provided by a cross-flow stream <strong>of</strong> coolant that was allowed to partially vaporize thus quickly removing the heat released by the FT reaction. Two reactor designs were evaluated both with and without tight control <strong>of</strong> the coolant flow distribution. In both cases the process stream had a flow mal-distribution <strong>of</strong> less than 10%. In the first case, the reactor design did not achieve tight control <strong>of</strong> the cool flow distribution and when operated the coolant flow rate from channel-to-channel deviated by more than 30%. This mal-distribution resulted in a steep temperature gradient in the catalyst, <strong>of</strong> more than 30°C, at the inlet <strong>of</strong> the process channels. Due to the poor temperature control, the selectivity to methane exceeded 30%. The second case, the multi-channel microstructured reactor was designed to provide a tight control <strong>of</strong> the flow distribution on the coolant side, and in operation the coolant flow rate from channel-to-channel deviated by less than 5%. The resulting process performance mirrored the performance <strong>of</strong> the single channel microstructured reactor. Scale-up <strong>of</strong> microstructured reactors for FT synthesis requires careful design <strong>of</strong> the flow distribution system for both the process channels and the coolant channels. The objective is
Change language