Energy Developments: New Forms, Renewables, Conservation: Proceedings of ENERGEX '84, The Global Energy Forum, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, May 14-19, 1984

ENERGEX ′84 INTERNATIONAL STEERING COMMITTEE

ENERGEX ′84 CHAIRMEN

ENERGEX ′84 GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES

ENERGEX ′84 MAJOR SPONSORS

City of Regina

Government of Canada

Government of Saskatchewan

University of Regina

ENERGEX ′84 SPONSORS

Association of Canadian Studies

Association of Consulting Engineers of Canada, Energy Secretariat

Biomass Energy Institute

Brace Research Insitute

Brown & Root Inc.

Caltex Petroleum Corporation

Canadian Association of Physicists

Canadian Council of Professional Engineers

Canadian Gas Association

Canadian General Standards Board

Canadian Home Insulators Contractors Association

Canadian Manufacturers Association

Canadian Petroleum Association

Canadian Solar Industries Association

Canertech Inc.

Centre for Energy and Environmental Research, Puerto Rico

Ceylon Institute of Scientific and Industrial Research, Sri Lanka

Chemical Institute of Canada

Comision Nacional de Investigaciones Especiales, Argentina

Dhaka University, Bangladesh

Economic Community of West African States

Financial Times, Business Information Ltd.

Geothermal Energy

Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada

Independent Petroleum Association of Canada

Institut de Mecanique, Belgium

Instituto Centroamericano de Investigacion Technologia Industrial, Guatemala

Instituto Nacional de Fomento Cooperative, Costa Rica

Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, Kuwait

Laboratorio Nacional Engenhairo Tecnolgia Industrial, Portugal

Regina Chamber of Commerce

Renewable Energy News

Saskatchewan Association of Architects

Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce

Saskatchewan Society of Manufactures Engineers

Tata Energy Research Institute, India

The Coal Association of Canada

Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Colombia

Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria, Chile

University of Singapore, Singapore

University of Stirling, Scotland

University of West Indies, Trinidad

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

ALGERIA, Dr. M. Bouhadef Station d’Experimentation Solaire

ANGUILLA, Mr. R.V.C. Hodge Accountant General Treasury Department

ARGENTINA, Ing. A.T. Rapallini Jafe Grupo Energia No Convencional Comison Nacional de Investigaciones Espaciales

AUSTRALIA, Mr. R. Hopkins Research Policy and Programs Branch Department of Resources and Energy

AUSTRIA, Dr. L. Schrattenholzer International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis

BANGLADESH, Mr. Ahmed Al Saroug Assistant Advisor Science and Technology Division

BARBADOS, Mr. I.W. Lashley Management Counsellor Barbados Institute of Management and Productivity

BELGIUM, Prof. Ing. L. Delvaux Laboratoire de Genie Chimique Institut de Mecanique

BOLIVIA, Prof. M.A. Ramierez Universidad Boliviana, Instituto de Investigaciones Fisicas

BOTSWANA, Mr. D. Medford Botswana Technology Centre

BRAZIL, Dr. J. Goldemberg President, Companhia Energetica de Sao Paulo

BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS, Mr. R.J. Arnott General Manager, British Virgin Islands Electricity Corporation

BURUNDI, Mr. J.P. Trussart Project Manager Centre d’Etude Burundais en Energies Alternatives

CAMEROON, Mr. M. Tomdito University Centre of Douala

CHILE, Dr. P. Sariento M. Universidad Técnica Federico Santa Maria

COLOMBIA, Prof. H. Pinzon-Isaza Universidad Nacional de Columbia

COMMONWEALTH OF DOMINICA, Mr. S.A.W. Boyd, Secretary Dominica Christian Council

COSTA RICA, Mr. R.A. Rojas Executive Director Institut Nacional de Fomento Cooperativ

CYPRUS, I. Papadopoulos Ministry of Commerce and Industry

ECUADOR, Ing. R.R. Maldonado Institute Nacional de Energia

EGYPT, Dr. H. Mohamed Ali National Research Centre

ENGLAND, June Morton Administrator UK-ISES

ETHIOPIA, Mr. Woldgiorghis Executive Secretary Ethiopian Energy Commission

FIJI, Mr. T. Scanlan Energy Officer, South Pacific Bureau for Economic Co-operation

FINLAND, Dr. Tor Stubb Ekono Oy

FRANCE, Mr. Ruth Roux Agence Francaise Pour La Maitrise De L’Energie

GAMBIA, Mr. M.M. Sahor Director, Water Resources

GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, Dr. Hans-Jurgen Piprek Abteilungsleiter, Abteilung Interanationale Zusammenarbeit Ministerium Fur Kohla und Energie

GUATEMALA, Mr. R. de Leon Instituto Centroamericano de Investigacion y Technologia Industrial

GUYANA, Mr. N.B. Barnwell Engineering Manager Guyana Electricity Corporation

GHANA, Mr. E. Appiah Korang Office of Petroleum Dept. Ministry of Fuel and Power

HAITI, Mr. P. Saint-Albin Planificateur de L’Energie Ministère du Plan

HONG KONG, Dr. Wong Ming Hung Dept. of Biology The Chinese University of Hong Kong

HUNGARY, Dr. T. Jaszay Deputy Director, Institute for Engineering, Thermodynamics and Energy Systems, Technical University of Budapest

ICELAND, Dr. I.B. Fridliefsson UUN Coordinator Geothermal Division

INDIA, Mr. C.R. Das Co-ordinator, Tata Research Institute

INDONESIA, Dr. Ketut Kontra Director of Planning State Electricity Enterprise

IRAN, Dr. M. Yaghoubi Mechanical Engineering Department Shiraz University

IRAQ, Dr. N. Al-Hamdani Director General of Solar Energy Research Center, Council of Science

IRELAND, Mr. J. Owen Lewis School of Architecture University of College Dublin

JAMAICA, Mr. H.I.C. Lowe Energy Division Ministry of Mining and Natural Resources

JAPAN, Dr. T. Noguchi Chief, Solar Research Laboratory Government Industrial Research Institute

JORDAN, Dr. A. Butros Director General Royal Scientific Society

KENYA, Prof. F.N. Onyango Dept. of Physics, University of Nairobi

KUWAIT, Dr. A. Bishara Deputy Director General/Research Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research

LESOTHO, Mr. T. Motsopa Deputy Permanent Secretary Ministry of Water, Energy and Mining

LIBYA, Dr. M.M. Ramadan El Fateh University

LIBERIA, Dr. Miedi-Himie Neufville Director of the Bureau of Hydrocarbons Ministry of Lands and Mines

MALAYSIA, Mr. N.J. Monerasinghe Faculty of Housing, Building and Planning, University of Science Malaysia

MALI, Dr. M.C. Traore Director, Solar Energy Laboratory

MAURITIUS, Mr. H.C. Rughooputh School of Industrial Technology University of Mauritius

MEXICO, Dr. L. Enrique Sansores Jefe del Departamento de Energia Solar Instituto de Investigaciones en Materiales

MOROCCO, Mr. Ahmed Bouhouli Directeur de l’Energie au Ministere de l’Energie et des Mines

NEPAL, Dr. K.L. Shrestha Executive Direcotr Tribhavan University

NETHERLANDS, Dr. K. Joon Netherlands Energy Research Foundation

NEW CALEDONIA, Mr. G.L. Chan Saipan Northern Mavano Islands

NEW ZEALAND, Dr. T. Haskell Department of Scientific and Industrial Research

NIGERIA, Dr. N.I. Ngoka Thermal and Passive Energy Laboratory

PAKISTAN, Dr. I.H. Shah Director Research N.W.F.P. University of Engineering and Technology

PANAMA, Mr. J.E. Monge Director, Energy Division Ministry Mines and Energy

PARAGUAY, Mr. J. Martino Director, Instituto Nacional de Technologia y Normalizacion

PERU, Mr. A. Pons Muzzo Chairman, Corporation de Ingenieria Civil

PHILIPPINES, Mr. F.L. Santos Jr. Development Coordinator San Miquel Corporation

POLAND, Mr. J. Mozer Chief Specialist Ministry of Mining and Energy

PORTUGAL, Dr. M. Collares Pereira Departamento De Energias Reovaveis

PUERTO RICO, Mr. J.A. Bonnet Jr. Director, Centre for Energy and Environment Research

SAMOA, Dr. F.S. Wendt Dean of Campus University of the South Pacific

SAUDI ARABIA, Dr. R.M.S. Obaid Executive Director and Chairman of the Board, Saudi Arabian National Centre for Science and Technology

SCOTLAND, Dr. J.K. Jacques Department of Management Science University of Stirling

SEYCHELLES, Mr. S. Gendron Chief Research & Development Officer for Principal Secretary (Planning)

SIERRA LEONE, Dr. M. Whitfield University of Sierra Leone

SINGAPORE, Dr. B.B.P. Lim Dean, Faculty of Architecture and Building, University of Singapore

SOUTH KOREA, Dr. P. Chungmoo Auh Korea Institute of Energy and Resources

SRI LANKA, Dr. S. Gnanalingam Head, Section of Applied Physics and Electronics, Ceylon Institute of Scientific and Industrial Research

ST. LUCIA, Mr. H.H. Lubin Ministry of Agriculture, Lands, Fisheries and Co-operatives

SUDAN, Dr. A.A.R. El Agib Head, Sundanese Research Centre

SURINAME, Mr. W. Kong Tse Lam Buro of Hydropower, Ministry of Development of Suriname

SWAZILAND, Mr. P.K. Lukhele Chief Project Co-ordinator Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives

SWEDEN, Mr. E. Gabrielsson Erik Gabrielsson Ingenjorsbyra

SWITZERLAND, Prof. M. Gratzel Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne

SYRIA, Eng. H. Safadi Ministry of Electricity

TANZANIA, Mr. A.A. Sissya Ministry of Water and Energy

THAILAND, Mr. T. Sirivadhanakul Regulatory Division National Energy Administration

TOGO, Mr. A.B. Baba-Moussa President de la Banque Quest Africanne de Developpement Mr. Abdoa Gafaron Osseni Directeur de l’Hydraulique et de l’Energie

TRINIDAD, Dr. S. Satcunanathan Head, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of the West Indies

TUNIS, Mr. M. Maleij Faculty of Sciences of Tunis

TURKEY, Mr. A.G. Maddogan Enerji Dairesi Baskani Enerji ve Tabii Kaynaklar

URUGUAY, Mr. Ponciano, J. Torrado Secretario Academico, Facultad de Ingenieria, Universidad de la Republica

U.S.A., Mr. T. Williams Chief, Integrated Energy Systems Branch, Office of Industrial Programs

U.S.S.R., Mr. M.A. Styikovich Member, Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R.

YUGOSLAVIA, Dr. P. Novak, Univerza Edvarda Kardelja v Ljubljani

ZAMBIA, Dr. F.D. Yamba The University of Zambia

NEW FORMS OF ENERGY

Outline

Chapter 1: A MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR COMBUSTION AT THE CAVITY WALL DURING UNDERGROUND COAL GASIFICATION

Chapter 2: THE FEASIBILITY OF COAL GASIFICATION

Chapter 3: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS OF THE LSE PROCESS FOR PRODUCING GASOLINE FROM COAL AND LIGNITE

Chapter 4: APPROACH TO DIRECT LIQUEFACTION OF HIGH ASH LOW RANK COALS

Chapter 5: METHANE GAS FROM UNDERGROUND COAL MINES: A CLEAN SOURCE OF ENERGY

Chapter 6: RESIDUAL OIL IN RESERVOIRS PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS

Chapter 7: ALTERNATIVES FOR HEAVY OIL UTILIZATION THROUGH FULLER INTEGRATION OF UPGRADING AND REFINING

Chapter 8: DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF SUCKER ROD PUMPING

Chapter 9: SMALL SCALE HEAVY OIL UPGRADERS ON SASKATCHEWAN HEAVY OIL FIELDS

Chapter 10: COMPARISON OF ENRICHED AIR AND NORMAL AIR IN SITU COMBUSTION

Chapter 11: MONTE CARLO SIMULATION OF HEAVY OIL RECOVERY ECONOMICS

Chapter 12: MAJOR TAR SAND AND HEAVY OIL DEPOSITS OF THE UNITED STATES

Chapter 13: U. S. TAR SAND OIL RECOVERY PROJECTS – 1984

Chapter 14: ADVANCES IN IN-SITU OIL SANDS AND HEAVY OIL RECOVERY IN WESTERN CANADA

Chapter 15: THE IMPACT OF OIL SANDS DERIVED SYNTHETIC CRUDE ON CONVENTIONAL REFINERIES

Chapter 16: USE OF CRITICAL SURFACE TENSION OF WETTING IN THE BENEFICIATION OF OIL SHALES

Chapter 17: OIL SHALES OF NOVA SCOTIA

Chapter 18: TIDAL POWER ON DEMAND

Chapter 19: ECONOMICS OF TIDAL PLANTS CALLS FOR INNOVATION IN TECHNICAL FIELDS

Chapter 20: THE SEA-CLAM WAVE ENERGY CONVERTER

Chapter 21: ELECTRIC POWER FROM SALINITY GRADIENTS BY REVERSE ELECTRODIALYSIS

Chapter 22: THE CANADIAN VERTICAL AXIS HYDRO TURBINE PROGRAM TIDAL APPLICATION

COAL GASIFICATION AND LIQUEFACTION

A MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR COMBUSTION AT THE CAVITY WALL DURING UNDERGROUND COAL GASIFICATION

Dr. J.G.M. Massaquoi,     Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Fourah Bay College, Freetown, Sierra Leone

ABSTRACT

One of the main obstacles to the Commercialisation of Underground Coal Gasification is the inability to predict its operational performance from the physico-chemical characteristics of the seam. To overcome the problem several mathematical models have been developed to describe the various aspects of the process. This paper describes one such model for the combustion at the wall of the cavity formed during Underground Coal Gasification. The model takes into account all the physico-chemical processes occuring in the seam, the ash and the gas boundary layer.The model is capable of predicting the flame position the combustion rate, the temperature at the coal face and on the edge of the ash, and the flame temperature.The performance of the model is compared with the data obtained from laboratory experiments reported in the literature. Agreement between the computed results and the observed data is good.

NOMENCLATURE

A* Antoine equation constant (N/m²)

aj Stoichiometric coefficient for H2O released in the combustion of volatile species, ‘i’.

Ak ‘k’ represents O2, H2O, and CO2

B Permeability of dry coal (m²)

Bo Permeability of wet coal (m²)

B* Antoine equation constant (oK)

bj Stoichiometric coefficient for CO2 in the combustion of volatile species ‘i’

Bk ‘k’ represents O2, H2O, and CO2

Ci Molar concentration of component ‘i’ (kg mole/m³)

C Total concentration of gas (kg moles/m³)

CW Compressibility of water (N/m²)−1

CPo Specific heat of wet coal (KJ/kgm K)

CPc Specific heat of dry coal (KJ/kgm K)

Cpi Molar heat capacity of species (KJ/kg mole K)

C* Antoine equation constant (°K)

Specific heat of water vapor (KJ/kg K)

CPa Specific heat of ash (KJ/kg K)

Dkm Binary diffusivity of kth species(m²/hr)

Dkme, Dij, eff} Effective binary diffusivity of kth species (M²/hr)

dj Stoichiometric coefficient for O2 in the combustion of volatile species ‘i’

DiK Knudsen diffusion coefficient (m²/hr)

Ej Activation energy for jth reaction (KJ/kg mole K)

hfg Enthalpy of vaporization of water (KJ/kgm)

-ΔHp Heat absorbed in pyrolysis (KJ/kg mole)

-ΔH10′ Heat absorbed in C/CO2 reaction

-ΔHs2 (KJ/kg mole)

-ΔH9′ Heat absorbed in C/H2O reaction

-ΔHs1 (KJ/kg mole)

-ΔHci Heat of combustion of volatile gases (KJ/kg mole)

-ΔHc Heat of combustion of char (KJ/kg mole)

hm Film mass transfer coefficient (kg mole/m² hr K)

hco Heat transfer coefficient corrected for bulk flow (KJ/m² hr K)

hmo Mass transfer coefficient corrected for bulk flow (k moles/m² hr)

ka Thermal conductivity of ash (KJ/m hr K)

ko Thermal conductivity of wet coal (KJ/m hr K)

koj Frequency factor for jth reaction (hr−1)

k Thermal conductivity of dry coal (KJ/m hr K)

ki Rate constant for the ith reaction (hr−1)

K(To) (ke−E/RTp) for C/H2O reaction

K¹(To) (ke−E/RTp) for C/O2 reaction

Mj Molecular weight of species j (-)

mi* Initial mass fraction of species in the dry coal (-)

mi Mass fraction of species released (-)

mc* Mass fraction of fixed carbon in coal (-)

mash* Mass fraction of ash in coal (-)

Ni* Molar flux of species ‘i’ inside the coal (k mols/m² hr)

Nio Molar flux of species in the zone ahead of flame front (k mols/m² hr)

Ni Molar flux of species in the zone between coal face and flame front (k mols/m² hr)

P Pressure (N/m²)

PW Pressure at evaporation front (N/m²)

Po Pressure at the burn front (N/m²)

PH Hydrostatic pressure (N/m²)

Pi Partial pressure (N/m²)

qcond Conduction heat flux (KJ/m² hr)

qs Conduction heat flux (KJ/m² hr)

q′s

q′s

qD Energy carried away in flaking ash (kg/m² hr)

Rj Volumetric reaction rate (k moles/m³hr)

r1s Surface reaction rate for C/H2O (k moles/m² hr)

r2s Surface reaction rate for C/CO2

R Gas law constant (KJ/kg moles K)

t Time (hr)

T Temperature (K)

TR Reference temperature = 398K (K)

To Temperature at coal surface (K)

To* Temperature at which the char/gas reactions begin inside the coal (K)

Temperature at coal surface (K)

T∞ Virgin coal temperature (K)

TW Temperature at evaporation front (K)

Tg Bulk gas temperature (K)

Ta Ash surface temperature (K)

TF Flame temperature (K)

Flame zone temperature (K)

V Burn rate (m/hr)

Wi Mass fraction of pyrolysis gas remaining in coal (-)

Xk Mole fraction of ‘k’ (-)

Xka Mole fraction of ‘k’ on the edge of the ash (-)

XkB Mole fraction of ‘k’ in bulk gas (-)

Xks Mole fraction of ‘k’ at the surface of the coal (-)

XW Weight fraction of moisture in virgin coal (-)

XC Fraction of coal converted by C/gas reaction

XkF Mole fraction of ‘k’ at the flame front (-)

XO2EX Limiting oxygen mole fraction (-)

Z′ Fixed distance coordinate (m)

(ZF-Zo) Distance between flame and coal surface (m)

(Za-Zo) Thickness of the ash zone (m)

Z Moving coordinate (m)

Zo Thickness of dry zone (m)

Greek Symbols

αo Thermal diffusivity of wet coal

β

βo

γT

γ

c Porosity of dry coal (-)

co Porosity of wet coal (-)

Ca Porosity of ash (-)

ρo Density of virgin coal (kg/m³)

ρco Initial density of dry coal (kg/m³)

ρa Mass of ash/unit volume of coal (kg/m³)

ρc Density of dry coal (variable) (kg/m³)

ρc* Density of char at the burn front (kg/m³)

νij Stoichiometric coefficient of ith species in jth reaction

μ Viscosity of bulk gas

μw Viscosity of water

θK Mass transfer correction factor for bulk flow

θT Heat transfer correction factor for bulk flow

Emissivity of ash

σ Stefan-Boltzman constant

INTRODUCTION

There are presently many coal reserves in the world which are not recoverable by conventional mining techniques because the seams are either two thin or lie too deep below ground level. Also a large fraction of those that can be mined exhibit a high sulphur or mineral content which severely limits the end use of the coal. Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) offers a potentially economic means of extracting the energy content from such coals while at the same time eliminating many of the health, safety and environmental problems associated with deep mining.

The Design and economic analysis of UCG require the estimation of considerable number of variables such as depth and thickness of the coal seam, well spacing, gas heating value, production rate, air injection requirements, percentage coal recovery, thermal efficiency of the process and the rate of advance of the gasification zone. There will never be sufficient experimental data available to determine all these variables with confidence. Mathematical models could be used to establish relationships between variables such as the gas heating value and the thermal efficiency, and also provide theoretical explanation for the shape and sensitivity of the experimental results. Model calculations also allow more confident interpolation of experimental data.

In addition to global models which are used to simulate the overall field performance of UCG, there have been several models describing the individual processes that occur in the field. These include models by Tsang and Edgar (1) and Massaquoi and Riggs (2, 3) to describe heat and Mass transfer in the coal seam surrounding the gasification zone; several others for radiation in the cavity, water influx into the cavity and the hydrodynamics in the cavity. However there has not been a detailed treatment of the combustion at the cavity wall. In UCG combustion occurs near the injection wall where a large cavity exists. In this zone, the chemical energy of the coal is converted to the thermal energy further down stream the thermal energy is used to reduce the hot gases to H2 and CO through the Char/gas reactions. The combustion at the cavity wall is unlike most others for coal, because the drying, pyrolysis and combustion occur simultaneously. In other gasification/or combustion processes, all three operations occur separately with each stage being completed before the other begins. Although there is a proliferation of studies on the combustion and gasification of coal and char no one has yet undertaken work on combustion at the cavity wall. This paper presents a model for such combustion. It assumes that the entire cavity can be modelled as compartment-in-series, with each compartment surrounded by a large coal slab (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Thus it is assumed that the combustion at the cavity wall is that of wet coal slab. The paper takes into account most of the physico-chemical processes occuring inside and outside the coal surface. Theoretical studies involving coal particle combustion usually lump all intra-particle processes on the surface of the shrinking reacting core. However for wet coal slab, Massaquoi and Riggs (2, 3) have shown that the reaction occuring within the coal between the moisture vapour and the char is very significant and likely to affect the combustion process. This paper builds on the author’s previous work relating to heat and mass transfer inside a burning wet coal slab (2, 3) and extends it to include the processes occuring in the ash and gas film.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

The objective of the model is to predict the combustion parameters (viz. burn rate, flame temperature, coal surface temperature etc.) for a given hydro dynamics of the cavity (viz. bulk gas temperature mass and heat transfer coefficient, oxygen concentration etc.) and physico-chemical characteristics of the coal (viz. permeability, reactivity, thermal conductivity etc.)

The Mechanism of Combustion at the Cavity Wall

It has already be mentioned that the cavity can be modelled as a compartment in series, with each compartment been surrounded by coal. Since the thickness of the reaction zones in the coal is very small compared to the diameter of the cavity (4) the surrounding coal can be treated as a slab with very little error. Thus the first assumption in the proposed mechanism is that the combustion at the cavity wall can be modelled as that of a semi-infinite virgin coal slab.

At the front of this semi-infinite slab, combustion reactions occur resulting in the evolution of heat. Some of this heat is transfered into the coal and is used to evaporate the moisture and aquifer seepage water. However analytical studies carried out by (Schwartz 5) showed that the seepage flux is quite small in comparison with the moisture evaporated.

Therefore only the Coal Moisture vapour is considered in this work. It is assumed in the proposed mechanism, that the evaporation zone is of infinitely small thickness (i.e. a sharp front exists) which moves back as the combustion front recedes.

From Fig.2 it can be seen that the evaporation front divides the coal into two distinct zones: The wet zone and dry zone. In the wet zone only heat transfer by conduction is assumed to occur. In the dry zone, the temperature rises from the evaporation from temperature TW, to the burn front temperature To. Above 500°C, pyrolysis gases are released and above 700°C, the steam and pyrolytic CO2 react with the hot char. It has been shown by Massaquoi and Riggs (3) that the physico-chemical processes occuring within the coal makes it possible for the complete conversion of the steam and CO2 before escaping from the coal. Thus the gases reaching the flame front are mainly H2 and CO and some hydro-carbons. The flame front is located at the point where the oxygen flux from the cavity and the flux of combustible gases are in stoichiometric equilibrium. It is assumed that the large flux of combustible gases to the flame front will push it away from the coal surface and thereby making the combustion homogenous. Outside the flame front two mass transfer zones can be identified. The zone ahead of the flame front (Z >Zf) and the zone behind the flame front (Z < Zf). The mass transfer and reactions in the latter is such that the gas in that zone is homogenous. Mass transfer in the zone ahead of the flame front is by multi-component diffusion and no reaction occurs there.

Figure 2

A sketch depicting the mechanism of combustion is given in Figure 2.

THE MODEL ASSUMPTIONS

Figure 2 is a sketch of the slab showing the various processes that occur in the model. The model is divided into two submodels: The coal sub-model which describes the physico-chemical processes that occur inside the coal and the Gas phase sub-model which describes the gaseous reactions and Mass transfer outside the coal surface.

The Coal Sub-Model

This Sub-model describes the processes occuring inside the coal. The assumptions made in this work is the same as those of Massaquoi and (Riggs 3). The following additional assumption and considerations are made in the model:

* Flow of the gaseous species is described by Darcys Law

* Steady state conditions (i.e. Constant burn velocity) is assumed.

* Temperature of solid and interstitial fluid phase are the same at any point.

* Physical properties of the char and the dried coal are considered to be functions of temperature.

Sub-Model for Ash and gas film

Outside the coal slab, three zones can be identified: The ash, the gas film and the bulk gas (see Figure 2). The latter is composed of water vapour, CO2, Oxygen and some Inerts. The following assumptions are made in this sub-model:

* The gas film is assumed to have heat and mass transfer coefficients hc and hm, respectively. The bulk gas composition, hc and hm are parameters in this study

* The reactions indicated on Figure 2 are assumed to occur at the points indicated.

* The gaseous phase combustion reactions are assumed to be instantaneous. Hence the combustion of hydrocarbons, H2 and CO occur in a plane (the flame front) located at the point where the gases are in stoiciometric concentration. This assumption is a special application of the two film theory developed by Burke and Shuchman 6 and used extensively in droplet combustion and ignition flame theory for coal particles.

* Radiation heat exchange is assumed to be between the edge of the ash and the bulk gas.

* Mass transfer is assumed to occur by multi-component diffusion.

GOVERNING EQUATIONS

The Coal Model

The equations presented here are based on an earlier work by Massaquoi and Riggs (2, 3). All Equations are expressed in terms of the moving coordinates. There are two separate sets of equation describing the dry coal and the wet coal.

(i) wet zone

Energy

(1)

    Boundary Conditions

    The solution of the above results in

(2)

(ii) Dry zone

The following reactions occur in the dry zone:

Gas Species Balance

(3)

Solid Balance

(4)

Volatile Matter Remaining Coal

(5)

Energy Equation

(6)

Pressure Drop

(7)

Boundary Conditions

BC (vii) will be used to find the thickness of the dry zone. The net flux at the burn front is given as

(8)

Conduction heat loss is into seam

Heat and Mass Transfer in the Ash and Gas Film

Material Balance:

(i) Ash Zone behind the flame front

In the zone behind the flame front (i.e., Zo 8) and (Cwilinski et al 9) for the case of char particles. They modelled the mass transfer in the zone using the Stefan-Maxwell diffusion equation and compared it with the result for the homogeneous model and found that there was little difference. In fact, the assumption of the homogeneous model has a mathematical justification for both H2 and CO. Because of the high molecular diffusion coefficient, the Stefan-Maxwell equation reduces to:

(9)

= 0 everywhere and, because of the equilibrium water gas shift reaction, XCO= 0 everywhere. Hence the concentration of the components at the coal face is:

No reaction occurs in this zone; the flux of gases will remain constant. Only concentration changes will occur as follows:

(10)

is the effective binary diffusivity. Since the diffusion coefficients for O2, CO2, and H2O are approximately equal, the effective binary diffusivity is:

(11)

Substitute (11) into (10) and the following is obtained:

(12)

Although Dkm is a function of temperature, CDkm is not a strong function of temperature and is assumed constant in this work.

The boundary condition for Equation (12) is Xk = Xka at Z = Za. The solution of (12) is

(13)

(iii) Gas Film

The mass transfer in the gas film is by multi-component diffusion and hence can be represent by the following equation:

(14)

where hm,k is mass transfer coefficient for a binary mixture and

(15)

and

(16)

Assume hm,k is the same for all species, i.e., hm,k = hm and θk = θ.

(17)

Substituting (17) into (13) gives the following expression for concentration distribution in the ash:

(18)

The mole fraction of the ‘k’ species at the flame front is given as:

(19)

At the flame front the oxygen concentration is zero. Hence the location of the flame front is:

(20)

(iv) Flux of Gases Ahead of the Flame,

The flux of the gases in the ash zone ahead of the flame front can be determined by an overall material balance over the zone between the evaporation front and the flame front. As the burn front moves a distance, V, the total water flux ahead of the flame is equal to the moisture and pyrolysis water released because of the movement of the dry zone plus the water from the combustion of the other hydrocarbon gases released in pyrolysis.

(21)

where aj is the stoichiometric coefficient for H2O released in the combustion of one mole of the jth volatile material in the coal. Similarly, for the other species:

(22)

(23)

(24)

(v) Coal Consumption Rate (linear velocity)

Since all char gas reactions are assumed to be first order at low pressure, the following equation gives the linear burn velocity:

(25)

where XCO2s and XH2Os are defined by Equation (19) and K(To) = ke−E/RTP for C/H2O reactions or C/CO2 reaction.

Energy Balance

(i) Ash Zone Behind the Flame Front,

Boundary conditions are:

Solution of the above gives the flame temperature as:

(26)

where

and

    Defining the flame zone as the zone lying between the coal face and the flame front, one can find the temperature at the center of the zone as:

(27)

is important since the experimental data with which the model is compared does not give the flame temperature but instead measures the flame zone temperature.

(ii) Ash Zone Ahead of Flame Front,

ZF26) above applies if Ni is replaced by Nio, and boundary conditions for the equation are

The solution of the equation gives the temperature on the edge of the ash as:

(28)

where

and

(iii) Gas Film

(29)

where θT is the correction factor for bulk flow.

SOLUTION PROCEDURE

The equations derived so far, including those describing the heat and mass transfer within the seam, have two unknowns, To and V. Once these two are known, the differential equations describing the processes inside the coal can be solved readily and the analytical solution developed for the heat and mass transfer in the ash and gas phase can be evaluated. Thus, the problem involves a two-dimensional univariant search. The search is stopped when for particular values of To and V, the energy and mass conservation equations described earlier are satisfied simultaneously.

To test a given set of values of To and V, the coal model, which describes the regions from the coal surface into the virgin coal, must be solved. The coal model using To and V calculates the amount and composition of gas emanating from the coal. This information is provided to the models for the ash layer and the gas boundary layer. The flux of gas and the composition of the gas will affect the location of the flame. In this manner, a univariant search is conducted until the values of To and V are found that simultaneously solve the conservation equations.

In order for the coal model to calculate the flow rate and composition of the gas emanating from the coal, a set of non-linear coupled differential equations (equations 1 through 7) must be solved simultaneously. Although only the gas flux and composition are required from the coal model, the temperature, pressure and porosity distribution in the coal must be determined in order to calculate the gas flux and its composition. The coal model uses the following solution procedure:

(i) First assume a value for pressure at Z = 0 (i.e., a value for Pw).

(ii) Calculate Tw using the Antoine equation for water Pw = A* exp (-B*/Tw + C*)

(iii) Then equation (2) is used to determine BC (iv). Equations (3) through (7) become an initial value problem. However, these equations become very stiff at high temperatures. Accordingly, a special technique developed by Gear (10) for the solution of stiff initial value problems is used.

(iv) Integrate equations (3) through (7) starting at Z = 0 proceeding in small steps to the point where T = To. At the point where T = To, P should equal Po. If not, a new guess for Pw is made and the procedure returns to step (ii).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Experimental results and observations on cylindrical coal cores are used in this paper to verify the model. The experiments were carried out on Texas liginite by (Wellborn et al 11, 12, 13). The cores used in the experiment had an average diameter of 1.0 cm and an average length of 5.08 cm although some cores were as long as 12.7 cm. The core was ignited at the top so that it burned in a candle-like mode. There was not a significant flux of combustible gases radially out of the core since the entire flame was observed to be contained in the ash layer. Therefore, the region from the char surface and into the virgin coal reasonably approaches one-dimensional behavior.

Comparison Between Assumed and Observed Mechanism

(Wellborn et al 11, 12, 13) reported that the combustion of the core quickly attained steady state and remained in this state until close to the end of the experiment. This confirms the steady state assumption made in the development of the mechanism. Also, during the experiments distinct zones for wet coal, dry coal and char were observed. The zones were distinguished from the appearance: wet coal is moist, dry coal shines and char is dull. This observation again is in agreement with the proposed mechanism for Combustion. It was also observed that the flame was always resident in the ash layer and thus confirming the assumption of homogeneous Combustion Mechanism.

Comparison between Predicted and Measured Combustion Parameters

In a previous paper by (Massaquoi and Riggs 3) the Model for the heat and mass transfer within the coal was verified by comparing the model predictions for the thicknesses of the dried coal and char zones with the experimental results. This paper is therefore restricted to verifying the predictions for such parameters as flame zone temperature and linear burn rate.

Figure 3 shows a comparison between the model and experiment for the relationship between the bulk oxygen concentration in the gas and the linear burn velocity. Figure 4 compares the model results with Wellborn’s data for the flame zone temperature. The flame zone temperature was measured mid way between the flame front and the char surface. The model calculates the flame zone temperature as the average of the char surface and flame temperatures (i.e. it assumes linear temperature profile in the flame zone).

Figure 3

Figure 4

It is observed from Figure 3 that there is a reasonable linear relationship between the burn rate and the oxygen concentration in the bulk gas. This results because the oxygen flux to the flame front sets the burn rate and the oxygen flux is determined from the boundary layer mass transfer resistance and the diffusion resistance through the ash layer to the flame front.

Figure 3 also shows that the predicted results, although in reasonable agreement, are slightly less than the measured values. The discrepancy is particularly serious at higher oxygen mole fractions. This is probably due to the fact that at higher oxygen concentration the temperature in the ash during combustion exceeds that for the fusion of ash and therefore one of the fundamental assumptions of the model (namely; that ash is a porous solid) breaks down.

As the oxygen concentration in the bulk gas is reduced, it is observed that there is a minimum bulk oxygen mole fraction below which combustion with a diffusion flame is not possible. Thus in the case of the conditions simulated in Figure 3, (i.e. cavity temperature of 400K) it is observed that if the bulk gas oxygen mole fraction falls below 0.17 the flame is extinguished.

In , thus indicating that the model may not have accurately modelled at heat losses such as radiation.

CONCLUSIONS

A rigorous one-dimensional model has been developed for the simultaneous drying and combustion at the cavity wall during underground coal gasification. This model, which has been verified with experimental results, considers most of the relevant physico-chemical aspects of the combustion system inorder to determine the temperature profile of the system and the linear burn rate. Moreover, the model has the capability of determining the bulk gas oxygen concentration below which combustion will not occur. The value of this limiting oxygen mole fraction depends on the temperature of the cavity. If the bulk gas temperature inside the cavity is 400K, then Figure 4 has shown that the extinction limit is 0.17 (mole fraction of oxygen in bulk gas). This figure decreases as cavity temperature increases and at about Tg = 1200K, the limiting oxygen mole fraction in the bulk gas is zero i.e. combustion will occur whenever oxygen is present in whatever concentration. This has some practical significance. At the start of UCG, it is usually very difficult to sustain the flame when air is injected. This probably is due to the fact that the mole fraction of oxygen in air is below the limiting oxygen concentration at the prevailing cavity temperature. On the other hand when the cavity attains a high temperature even small amounts of air can sustain the flame. This explains why it is so difficult to extinguish wild underground fires. Once the underground cavity attains a temperature 1000K it could be sustained with the presence of even a small fraction of oxygen.

REFERENCES

1. Tsang, T. H., Edgar, T. F.Simulation studies of cavity growth during Underground Coal Gasification. Steamboat Spring, Co., 1978. Fourth UCC Symposium, July

2. Massaquoi J.G.M. and Riggs J.B. Heat and Mass Transfer in a Burning Coal Seam Proc. of the 7th UCC symposium. Fallen Leaf Lake, Sept (1981).

3. Massaquoi J.G.M. and Riggs J.B. One dimensional Model of the Physico-chemical processes occuring in a burning coal surface AICHE Journal (In Press).

4. Gregg, D. W., Edgar, T. F. Underground Coal Gasification. AICHE J.. 1978; 24:753.

5. Schwartz, S.II. A preliminary model for predicting water intrusion into a cavity formed during UCG process. Proc. of 5th UCC Symposium, Alexandria, V pg. 341 (1979)

6. Burke, S.P. and Schuman T.E.W., The Mechanism of Combustion of Solid Fuel, Proc. 3rd Intem: Conf. Bituminous Coal, 2, 485, (1931)

7. Bird, R. B., Stewart, N. E., Lightfoot, E. N.Transport Phenomenon. John wiley & Sons Inc. Publ., 1980.

8. Arri, L. E., Amundson, N. R. AICHE J. 1979; 24

9. Cwiklinski, R. R., Vayenas, C. G., Georgakis, C., Wei, J. Chem Eng. Science. 1981;Vol.36(No.12)

10. Gear, C. W.Numerical Initial Value Problems in Ordinary Differential Equations. Englewood Cliffs N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1971.

11. Wellborn "Linear Burning Rates of Texas 11 cont. lignite", MSCE Thesis, Univ. of Texes August (1981).

12. Tseng H.P., Wellborn, T.A. and Edgar, T.F. Combustion Properties of Texas Lignite Proc. of 7th UCC Symp., Fallen Leaf Lake CA. Sept. 8 (1981)

13. Hsia, S.J., Wellborn, T.A., and Edgar, T.F., Measurement of Combustion Rates of Texas Lignite with Application to Underground Coal Gasification" Proc. of 4th UCC Symposium, Steamboat Springs, Co. (1978).

THE FEASIBILITY OF COAL GASIFICATION

Peter R. Schwarze,     Environmental & Energy Consultant, 705 Luella Dr., Kutztown, PA U.S.A., 19530

ABSTRACT

Coal gasification is virtually an unused process. The reasons for this are obscure, but the ramifications are quite clear. The rising gas prices have certainly shown that there is little economic reason for avoiding this process.The procedure for coal gasification is relatively waste free. By mixing coal with steam and oxygen, in a high-temperature and pressure gasifier, a gas will result. A scrubbing and purification process will then refine the organic matter into high BTU gas and by-products. It is the use of these by-products, as well as the gas, that insures a waste free and feasible process.The feasibility of this process is based on a number of factors. Economics and environmental controls are the most significant factors which must be considered. When these factors are properly addressed, the synthane process will prove to be a viable answer when considering the energy problem.

INTRODUCTION

The energy problem is obviously one of a shortage. The shortage has been addressed in many ways. Some have claimed the energy problem to be a shortage of technology. Other individuals believe the energy crisis to be due to lack of political and social understanding. There is also evidence of economic problems posing a shortage of funding for solutions.

The most devastating shortage in this crisis has been that of decisions. Indecision has caused an inability to utilize alternatives towards a final solution. The true solution to the energy problem will have to lie in the energy alternatives.

The energy alternatives can be divided into six catagories, Conservation, nuclear, solar and solar orientened solutions, renewable resources, and coal variations. Conservation does not work on obtaining new resources, but minimizing the use of existing resources. Nuclear energy of course utilizes atomic power, while solar energy and solar oriented energy utilizes the wind, tide and sun for power. Renewable energy sources involves wood and refuse burning for energy. Coal variations would involve coal gasification and liquefaction.

With so many alternatives, it is easy to see why part of the energy crisis is a decision problem. Which one is the best? In this question lies the solution to the energy crisis, because there is no one best solution. Rather a combination of most or all of these alternatives is necessary. As a believer in solar is the answer, but it is not the answer everywhere, nor for everyone. Solar energy is a viable alternative.

Even with the use of nuclear power, solar energy and renewable resources there is a need for petroleum distillates (gasoline, kerosene, etc.) and natural gas. If both oil and natural gas are in short supply, or at least unable to be supplied effectively, then a means to supply both of these sources must be used. Liquified coal can be used as a petroleum substitute an example of synthetic oil is ’Mobil One’ motor oil. The use of synthetic gas from coal is practically non-existant, and that is an unfortunate fact considering the potential for gasified coal.

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the potential and effectiveness of gasified coal as an energy alternative.

The use of coal as a cure-all in the energy shortage would be a drastic error. Coal may be in abundant supply now, but as the sole supporter of the world’s energy supply, existing coal surpluses could diminish rapidly. Coal as a significant energy source is beyond question. We must remember, however, that while we can extend coals’ usability, dependence on coal must still be limited. For this reason I stress that while coal gasification is beneficial, its use is not proposed by this writer to completely supply the global energy demands, nor even the global gas demand. It’s use should be limited to as significant a contribution as is necessary to alleviate the existing energy burden in the natural gas industry.

The aspect of gasified coal being used as a partial energy supplier is only one aspect of the theory of a successful supply. Profitability must still be preserved, while attention is given to environmental protection. To do this, the refining and marketing of waste or by-products is crucial. Instead of polluting with by-products, either they should be used or marketed. This theory is not difficult or costly to employ because of the efficiency of the mechanism and process for coal gasification.

MECHANISM AND PROCESS

The coal gasification process(synthane) involves the use of a gasifier for gasification. Once gasification is complete the process continues through dewatering, tar and dust removal, removal of pollutant gases and methanation. To accomplish these steps a spray tower, shaft converter, hot carbonate scrubber, and methanator are used in addition to the gasifier.

One of the best gasifiers in existance is the Lurgi gasifier, which has been used in South Africa and Europe. Experimentation has shown the Lurgi gasifier to operate at 980°C and 70kg/cmg. A commercial plant of this type would use 500 megawatts of power to produce 7 million cubic meters of gas per day. While this may seem uneconomical, the efficiency of this system remains high because the residue from the process is burned for steam power to supply the necessary energy for this process.

Essentially what the gasifier does is act as a huge pressure cooker. Coal is mixed with tar, steam and oxygen. This mixture is driven through a grinding grate and distribution propeller. This refined mixture is heated to 980°C and subjected to 70kg/cmg. Ash then precipitates out of the gasification chamber through a cooling grate. The remaining mixture is run through a scrubbing cooler, which is essentially a cooling filter and then pipelined to the dewatering section.

Once the gas passes through the dewatering process, it is cooled down. Water condenses out from the steam and the gaseous mixture as it is sprayed through a spray tower. In the spray tower tar and dust precipitates out so that only gaseous material remains. This gas is then pipelined to a shift converter where a centrifuging process separates the gases.

After the different gases are separated the mixture then passes to a hot carbonate scrubber where hydrogen sulfide, carbonated sulfer and carbon idoxied are removed. It should be noted that this process works best when the coal has been pre-treated with a ferric sulfate, oxygen and vaporization treatment to remove the pyritic sulfer. The hot carbonate scrubber is then capable of removing the remaining organic sulfer.

You may also notice the lack of carbon monoxide in the scrubber separation. This is because in the shift converter the carbon monoxide and water combine to form hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The carbon is then removed. After the carbonate scrubber, the hydrogen to carbon monoxide ratio is 3.6 to 1. This ratio is important when considering the methanation process which is the next step.

Before the gas actually reaches methanation however, it is cooled down in the pipeline. As the gas cools the hydrocarbon oils, solid particles, ammonia, nitrogen and phenols will settle out of the gas. when the substitute natural gas reaches methanation the only impurities left are hydrogen and a slight trace of carbon monoxide.

In the methanation process the three parts hydrogen and one part carbon monoxide combine to form methane and water. The excess hydrogen precipitated out earlier with the hydrocarbons.

The water can then be discarded. All that remains is a substitute natural gas that is high in BTU’s and high in methane.

The thermal efficiency of the resulting gas is a respectable 74.8%. While this efficiency is acceptable there may be some Individuals who cannot see profit potential in 74.8% thermal efficiency. The previously useless by-products, however now are very useful.

Some of the by-products are carbon dioxide, sulfur, hydrogen sulfide, liquified coal (oil), tar, ash, solvent refined coal, phenols, cresols and xylenols. Sulfur and hydrogen sulfur are used in drugs and fertilizer. Carbon dioxide have a wide variety of uses in industry. Tar and ash have obvious uses in construction and agriculture. Liquified coal oil has numerous energy uses. Phenols, creols and xylenols have a number of heavy industrial uses and the solvent refined coal can supply much of the energy for the gasifier. Any excess solvent refined coal can be burned to produce electricity. The remarkable fact about all of these by-products as well as the synthane is that when properly used there is little or no pollution from any of the products. Furthermore, as long as all of these products are used there is an excellent profit potential from the entire process.

BENEFITS AND GAINS

I have claimed before that the synthane process can show benefits in every aspect of an energy process. While those exact words were not used, that is still a drastic claim to make. The only way I can back such a statement up is to breakdown the different aspects of the consequences of energy production and try to describe the improvements. Energy production affects us all in three areas. There is the economic aspect from a consumer’s point of view, or in other words, the need for low cost energy in plentiful supply. The consumer’s view of energy cost is much different from the producer’s view. The economic aspect from a producre’s point of view would involve profits and the return on investment. This directly affects the consumer because it affects the ability to supply energy. Profits also affect the environment. If there are no profits, then there can be no environmental protection. For how can a company protect the environment when it can not afford the needed equipment. Just as important is the environmental aspect of energy production because environmental hazards do cost both producers and consumers. They cost in terms of fines, insurance premiums and deteriorating equipment of the producer. These hazards cost in similar ways to the consumer only the consumer has the health hazards and property devaluation to contend with as well. All three major aspects are inter-connected, but each has different ways to examine the benefits from synthane.

Environmental Gains

From an environmental point of view, there really is one goal with respect to any utility or industrial operation; decrease the pollution output. In all fairness synthane must be compared here to coal, oil and natural gas, because it really is completing with all three.

Coal has many environmental problems, the soft coal is plaqued with sulfur which produces sulfur dioxide. Hard coal produces carbon monoxide, when burned, as well as other hazardous hydrocarbons. In both cases the pollutants are hazardous and can produce even more dangerous compounds in the atmosphere. Acid rain from sulfur dioxide is a perfect example.

These problems are drastically reduced with the gas created from coal. The sulfur content of the product is low, approximately .7%. Compare this figure to 3.6% of washed coal and .3% to 2% of petroleum. Clearly the sulfur has been removed, in this process, to safe levels.

The principal problems with oil and natural gas, however involved carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and nitro-oxide. In the gasification process, however the ash is removed from the coal, thus making carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons minimal. Methanation and scrubbing removes the remaining amounts of carbon monoxide. In these respects, the synthetic gas is better than the natural gas. The only remaining problem that needs to be addressed, environmentally, is the nitro-oxide pollution problem.

The problem of nitro-oxide pollution is the drawback of this process. The process does not remove the nitro-oxide. Coal, however, has fewer amounts of nitro-oxide than oil or natural gas. So there is less of the nitro-oxides before the process starts. Furthermore, nitro-oxides do pose less of a threat to the environment than sulfur, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. So while the problems of pollution are answered with benefits of cleanliness, we must not limit ourselves Because of the theories and strategies applied to this process, for every pollutant we remove, we have a new product to sell.

Economic Gains

The product output of the gasification of coal has a product breakdown of the products are:carbon dioxide, sulfur, pipeline gas, liquified petroleum gas, light refinery liquids, solvent refined coal(product), phenols, cresols, xylenols, tar ash, and nitro-Oxide compounds. Clearly there are industrial uses for every one of these items, as was mentioned earlier.

With the environmental hazards supplying commercial and industrial needs, and an overall thermal efficiency of 74.8%, we can see a solid economic foundation formed. The ultimate goal is the return on investment. Investigation has shown that an average return on investment to be 14.8%. The range of annual return as compared to total investment ranges from 12.8% to 17.4%. A breakdown of the costs and income will demonstrate the feasibility of this return on investment.

Economic Analysis

Any new idea requires realism, and economics usually supplies realism. We have seen how valuable this process is. This process can have environmental benefits and be a viable energy resource. If coal gasification can not make a profit, however then this process can not benefit anyone. I have also stated that coal gasification plants could earn 14.8% return on investment

To demonstrate just how such a claim could be made, please refer to the model table below.

SIMPLIFIED ANNUAL RATE OF RETURN CALCUATION FOR REFINERY AND COAL MINE.

You will note that the only reason the gasification process can earn a 14.8% return on investment is because the other by-products or pollutants are solid. By discounting those extra substances we can calculate a much different picture. By just producing oil and gas this system would give an 8.89% return on investment. If pipeline gas only were used, this system would not work, as it would lose 10.2% of investment per year! Clearly, coal gasification can be very profitable economically but, only if every pollutant is solid. With these appropriate economic steps, a reasonable conclusion should be self evident only when all the facts are used.

Operations

The mechanism which creates this profitable operation is actually a series of operations. The coal is prewashed and then gasified in a Lurgi Gasifier. The product is then sent through a spray tower, and then a shift converter. These two mechanisms set up the proper chemical environment for methanation. Before methanation the product passes through a hot carbonate scrubbing.

The products of this operation are tar, dust, petroleum products, hydrogen sulfide, carbonated sulfer, sulfer, carbon dioxied, methane and substitute natural gas as well as solvent refined coal. This product breakdown makes certain energy, environmental and economic benefits possible.

By removing the impurities the entire system creates high efficiency energy producers. The thermal efficiency of the gas is 74.8%. The solvent refined coal has had the sulfur removed, and the light refinery liquids are very high in BTU’s. All of the high efficiency products are thus, higher in value, mainly because of the energy content and because they are environmentally safer.

The environmentally hazardous sulfur and hydrocarbon by-products are removed. This means that the results of the products’ use are far safer and more encouraging than any existing alternatives. Another benefit is that even the use of high sulfur coal is now safe. This alone would create economic possibilities for this process. There are other economic benefits as well.

Because the product is broken down and refined the pollutants have value as other chemical products. Without the use and marketing of all factions of the gasification products, the system would not be economically feasible. By marketing all the by-products, the entire process can be very profitable. The entire result can be a crucial step in solving our energy problems.

CONCLUSIONS

We must remember that the energy problem exists because of a dependency on one source of energy and the desire for one energy source. By having a number of sources for our energy supply, there is no crucial energy source that is not expendable. Through technology we can have many sources of energy, but we also have many choices in which we desire one source. That is why so many solutions haven’t worked up until now.

The solution outlined as coal gasification will work because it is not being used as a cure all solution. Coal gasification can be used as one source of energy, among many sources. As a result the large demands placed on other potential energy alternatives do not apply to coal gasification. Another reason why coal gasification will work is because the losses are minimized through efficient use of waste.

In order to use this process as a viable alternative, economic and environmental control procedures had to be addressed. Use of every chemical faction, of the coal is the answer to the economic and environmental problems of coal. Because of this new procedure, the effectiveness of this program lies in its use.

While use of this program has at least been talked about and considered overseas, it is ignored in North America. What I have attemped to do in this study is to demonstrate that this process can work. There is nothing new about coal gasification. In recent years, however there have been many claims that coal gasification is not feasible for economic, environmental and energy efficiency reasons. As a result what I have gone further in proposing is the use of the waste products of the process. While the roots of this idea are old, the proposal of such an idea, in an industrial process is relatively new. Such a proposal when carried out will answer the critics of coal gasification but more importantly will enable the process of coal gasification to be feasible one.

Until coal gasification is used commercially no one can be certain of its full potential. This process will never be a cure all for the energy crisis. Coal gasification does have the potential to be a viable source for energy supply in one particular form. What coal gasification has the potential to be, is a commercially prosperous, environmentally safe, means of providing energy of one medium from one source, where it has not been supplied in such a way until now.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS OF THE LSE PROCESS FOR PRODUCING GASOLINE FROM COAL AND LIGNITE

G.G. Thurlow, Ph.D. Assistant Director,     National Coal Board, Coal Research Establishment, Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, England

D.F. Williams, Ph.D.,     Head of Coal Refining, National Coal Board, Coal Research Establishment, Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, England

ABSTRACT

It remains certain, in spite of the present world situation, that a demand will grow within the next 20–40 years for transport fuels made from coal or lignites, and that Canada is well placed to use some of its massive solid fuel reserves for this purpose. The LSE process is a 2-stage direct liquefaction process developed in the UK to maximise the yield of transport fuels from coals and lignites. Various studies have evaluated the process as it might be applied to processing coals and lignites across Canada, generally with encouraging conclusions, and Canadian participation in the future development of the process has been considered.The paper reports the work carried out over the last few years on consolidating, extending and proving the process technology. Aspects of filtration technology, process parameters and the upgrading of the primary product to marketable gasoline, diesel and other fuels are discussed. The properties of these coal–derived fuels are discussed in relation to the way in which they are likely to be introduced into the market and their effect on the environment.

INTRODUCTION

The liquefaction of coal by hydrogenation has a long history in the UK. In 1927 ICI began work leading to a 10 t/d pilot plant constructed in 1930. This in turn led to the construction of a commercial plant at Billingham, commissioned in 1935 with an output of 100 000 t/a of liquid fuels, later increased by adding facilities to produce 10 000 t/a from coal tar and 40 000 t/a from creosote. In 1938, 52 000 t/a of petrol were produced at Billingham by coal hydrogenation, but the use of coal in the plant ceased on the outbreak of hostilities in 1939. Instead, middle oil from creosote was converted to aviation fuel.

The liquefaction process now being developed by the NCB and its collaborators in the UK has its origins, however, in work by the UK coal industry, starting in the mid-1950s. Work on the extraction of coal with anthracene oil and other tar oils at the British Coal Utilisation Research Association (BCURA) aimed initially at the production of smokeless fuels, was seen