Energy 31 (2006) 1643–1655

www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Review

Oxy-co-gasification of coal and biomass in an integrated gasification

combined cycle (IGCC) power plant
Antonio Valero, Sergio Usón *
Centre for Research of Energy Resources and Consumptions (CIRCE), University of Zaragoza, Marı́a de Luna 3, 50018 Zaragoza, Spain
Received 1 April 2005

Abstract
Oxy-gasification, or oxygen-blown gasification, enables a clean and efficient use of coal and opens a promising way to CO2
capture. Moreover, oxy-co-gasification with biomass implies the use of a renewable resource and additional CO2 reduction. Proper
gasifier operation is a key issue in both techniques. A model of an entrained flow gasifier, validated with nearby 3000 actual steady-
state operation data (4800 h), is used to study co-gasification of coal, petroleum coke and up to 10% of several types of biomass. As
a result, influence of fuel variation in gasifier efficiency and modifications in operation that should be made in oxy-co-gasification
are obtained. The model is also used to build reference operation maps (graphs where the main gasification parameters are related
to the degrees of freedom that the operator has). A general method for building experimental operation maps only from plant data
has also been applied to the gasifier. Tendencies of the maps are the same of those of the model-made maps.
In conclusion, oxy-co-gasification is possible providing that operation is adapted. A validated model can be very useful to
predict operation points for new fuel mixtures. Operation maps are practical tools that help to operate and diagnose a system (e.g. a
gasifier). They allow to understand how it works, to optimise its operation and to avoid wrong operation that may cause plant shut
off.
q 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Oxy-gasification; Oxy-co-gasification; Biomass; IGCC; Operation map; Optimisation

1. Introduction

Concerning CO2 capture, gasification will play a key role in the future. Within this context, we mean oxy-
gasification as the gasification of coal by using oxygen and steam as gasifying agents.
Since nitrogen has been previously removed, oxy-gasification, and subsequent gas cleaning processes, produce a
gas stream mainly composed of CO and H2, which opens a promising way to CO2 capture. Moreover, when biomass is
gasified with coal, and then CO2 is captured, the emission balance of this component can reduce substantially and
even could become negative. Thus, we define oxy-co-gasification as the gasification of coal and biomass by using
oxygen and steam as gasifying agents. This technique appears as a very promising way not only to reduce CO2
emissions but also to increase the biomass contribution to electricity generation.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: C34 976 76 25 82; fax: C34 976 73 20 78.
E-mail address: suson@unizar.es (S. Usón).

0360-5442/$ - see front matter q 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2006.01.005
1644 A. Valero, S. Usón / Energy 31 (2006) 1643–1655

Nomenclature
ac O2 coefficient in combustion equation
bc CO coefficient in combustion equation
cc CO2 coefficient in combustion equation
CGE cold gas efficiency
d distance
daf dry and ash free
d.b. dry basis
dc H2O coefficient in combustion equation
ec H2S coefficient in combustion equation
fc N2 coefficient in combustion equation
h hydrogen subscript in char formula
hf hydrogen subscript in fuel formula
HRSG heat recovery steam generator
i real operation point
j point in an iso-line
k point in a four-point group
LHV low heating value
max maximum
min minimum
n nitrogen subscript in char formula
nf nitrogen subscript in fuel formula
o oxygen subscript in char formula
of oxygen subscript in fuel formula
p parameter
s sulphur subscript in char formula
sf sulphur subscript in fuel formula
w moisture subscript in fuel formula
w.b. wet basis
wt weight
x independent variable
y independent variable
z dependent variable
0 coordinate of point in a iso-line
d increment

1.1. From gasification to oxy-co-gasification

Gasification (with air) is usually used in small plants of several megawatts. These plants are suitable for using
biomass because this is usually a disperse resource and transport can increase its cost. They are composed of a
gasifier, a quite simple gas cleaning system and an internal combustion engine [1,2]. Another interesting option that
can achieve higher efficiency is the use of biomass-fired air blown gasification combined cycle (ABGCC) power
plants like the Värnamo, Arable Biomass Renewable Energy (ARBRE) and Thermie Energy Farm demonstration
projects [1,3–5]. The first plant provided 6 and 9 MW to a district heating system, while the others generate 8 and
14 MW, respectively.
Due to the complexity and cost of an air separation unit, oxy-gasification is used in large coal-fired IGCC power
plants, and for the production of H2 and chemicals [6–8]. The composition of the cleaned gas (mainly CO and H2)
opens the way to CO2 capture by using several techniques (although this possibility is not yet used). For example, a
 A. Valero, S. Usón / Energy 31 (2006) 1643–1655 1645

shift reactor can displace the equilibrium to produce CO2 and H2, and then chemical absorption or membranes [9] can
be used to separate the CO2. Another option consists on burning separately H2 and CO by using oxygen [10]. Finally,
the gas could be burnt with O2 plus CO2 recycled from the same combustion process in the gas turbine.
Oxy-co-gasification is similar to oxy-gasification but replacing part of the coal by biomass, which implies an
additional CO2 emissions reduction. Oxy-co-gasification of coal with straw or sewage sludge in an IGCC has
been studied by British Coal. The University of Essen researched the use of coal/biomass combinations for
IGCC applications, concluding that up to 10% biomass in an oxygen-blown entrained blown gasifier is
technically feasible although net electrical efficiencies would be slightly lower due to energy needed for biomass
pre-treatment [11]. Oxy-co-gasification of coal and biomass in Buggenum IGCC Power Plant has also been
proposed in a study that consists of two parts: preliminary desk study [12] and exploratory experimental
work [13].
It should be noted that the combined use of biomass and coal in the same power plant allows to use biomass
without the main problems of small biomass-fired power plants (high specific cost, low efficiency and shut-off risk if
there is a biomass shortage). One way to do this is by burning coal and biomass (co-firing) [14]. Another option
consists on gasifying biomass and burning the gaseous fuel in a coal boiler [2]. Finally, co-gasification, mainly oxy-
co-gasification, allows increased efficiency and reduced environmental impact.

1.2. Gasifier operation in oxy-gasification and oxy-co-gasification

A key issue in oxy-gasification and oxy-co-gasification is the operation of an oxygen-blown gasifier.

Proper gasifier operation is more critical than boiler operation, because it does not consist in just maximising
efficiency but other issues, that in turn requires keeping several output variables (gas composition and gasification
temperature) in correct ranges and maximising fuel/gas conversion by adjusting two input variables (oxygen and
steam that are introduced in the gasifier). Gasification temperature is a variable that cannot be measured but has to be
kept in a right range because it determines not only efficiency but also safe operation. An error in oxygen
measurement could cause either very high temperatures that can damage the equipment or (in slagging gasifiers) low
temperatures that can stop slag flow and blocking. Besides, although output variables could be considered separately,
a modification in an input variable implies changes in all output variables, so that all dependencies should be
understood and integrated.
In oxy-co-gasification, fuel modification is an additional difficulty. In this work, the problem of gasifier operation
in oxy-gasification and oxy-co-gasification is tackled. First, a validated model of the gasifier of an IGCC power plant
is applied to simulate the oxy-co-gasification of coal, coke and up to 10% of several types of biomass, in order to
obtain the operation strategies depending on the fuel mixture. Second, the operation maps are applied as a tool for
improving gasifier operation. These maps constitute a graphic tool that helps to operate the gasifier in a safe and
efficient way. They can be built by using a model or directly from plant data.
The case of study is Elcogas IGCC Power Plant in Puertollano (Spain). This is a demonstration project where
several European companies have worked together (it was selected as a target project of the THERMIE program of
the European Union).

2. The model of the gasifier

2.1. Description of the gasifier

Puertollano IGCC power plant furnishes an efficient pressurised entrained flow (PRENFLO) gasifier built by
Krupp-Koppers. The fuel is a mixture of high-ash local coal and high-sulphur petroleum coke at 50% in weight. A
small amount of limestone (2%) is added to favour ash fluidisation. The gasifying agents are oxygen (85% purity) and
steam. Fuel, oxygen and steam are introduced in the reaction chamber by using four burners. They react very quickly
(residence time around few seconds) at high temperatures generating a combustible gas mainly composed of CO and
H2 that leaves the reaction chamber by its upper part. Due to the high temperatures, the ash of the fuel becomes slag
that flows to the bottom. Walls of the reaction chamber are cooled by boiling water (Fig. 1). Gas leaving the reaction
chamber is quenched with a cold gas stream in order to stop gas phase reactions and enter the evaporators with
adequate operation conditions.
1646 A. Valero, S. Usón / Energy 31 (2006) 1643–1655

Raw Gas + Fly Ash 4 Methane formation

3 Gasification

N2
1750 °C O2 + H2O Secondary
25 bar
Fuel
O2 + H2O Primary
Flame detector
Boiling Burner
Water
Burners

Formation and
2 combustion of part of
1 the char.
Pirolisis and volatiles
combustion
T ~ 2000°C
Slag

Fig. 1. Reaction chamber. Source: Elcogas.

The gas is then cooled in a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) to produce a temperature at which it can be
cleaned. The HRSG consists of two boilers. The first one generates high-pressure steam and is included inside the
same pressurised vessel as the reaction chamber. The second one generates medium pressure steam. Both have a
special design in order to reduce fouling (Fig. 2). The gas used for quenching is taken from the cold gas flow that
leaves the HRSG. Since the amount of fuel is fixed by the synthesis gas that the turbine demands, operators can
control gasification reactions by adjusting the flows of oxygen and steam (actually oxygen/fuel and steam/fuel ratios).
Quench gas flow is also modified but this parameter is used to control temperature distributions and fouling in the
HRSG and it is not considered here.

2.2. Gasifier modelling

Several models have been proposed to simulate the reaction chamber of an entrained flow gasifier. Van der Burgt
uses a simple model based on constant fuel conversion ratio (that avoids the simulation of the gasification process)
and gas phase equilibrium [15]. Wen proposes a model based on the division of the gasification process into three
stages (volatilisation and volatiles combustion, char combustion and char gasification) and in the simulation of gas-
particle interactions by using an unreacted-core-shrinking model [16].
Since the gasifier has been built, a CFD model that provides the value of properties in all the gasifier is not mostly
needed. However, dependence of fuel conversion ratio with operation conditions should be considered. To do so, a
model has been developed that simulates the gasification process suffered by a fuel particle. This model uses the
process division proposed by Wen but have some differences. First of all, it takes sulphur into account (which is a very
important issue due the high sulphur content of the fuel used by Elcogas IGCC power plant). Second, it considers two
isothermal zones, one for the first and second and the other for the third stage.
Volatilisation is the decomposition of coal into volatiles and a carbon residue called char. This process can be
represented by the following equation
CHhf Oof Nnf Ssf ðH2 OÞw Z/ CHh Oo Nn Ss Z C V C w,H2 O (1)
 A. Valero, S. Usón / Energy 31 (2006) 1643–1655 1647

Gasifier

Raw Gas

High Pressure
Convective-Type Boiler

Transfer Line

Quench Gas
Intermediate Pressure
Convective-Type Boiler

Cooled Raw Gas

Fig. 2. Gasifier and HRSG. Source: Elcogas.

where CHhfOofNnfSsf(H2O)wZ is the molecular formula of the fuel, CHhOoNnSsZ is the molecular formula of the char
and V are the volatiles. As volatiles are released, they are burned. Loison [17] provides correlations for volatiles
composition and Badzioch [18] provides expressions for the amount of volatiles and for kinetics.
In the combustion and gasification stages, char particles react with the gas. To represent this interaction, an
unreacted-core-shrinking model is used. This model assumes that chemical reactions take place in a spherical surface
that separate the core that has not reacted of the ash cover where non-mineral matter has already been consumed.
During the combustion stage, the particle reacts with O2 (combustion), CO2 (Boudouard reaction) and H2O (steam
gasification), which had flown through the ash layer from the gas to the core surface.
CHAR C ac ,O2 / bc ,CO C cc ,CO2 C dc ,H2 O C ec ,H2 S C fc ,N2 (2)


o h n
CHAR C CO2 / 2,CO C ,H2 O C KsKo ,H2 C s,H2 S C ,N2 (3)
2 2 2


h n
CHAR C ð1KoÞ,H2 O/ CO C 1Ko C Ks ,H2 C s,H2 S C ,N2 (4)
2 2
1648 A. Valero, S. Usón / Energy 31 (2006) 1643–1655

Table 1
Relative average errors of the model

Variable Experimental discrepancy (%)

Temperature 2.4
CGE 0.8
CO 0.56
H2 0.43
CO2 4.9
H2O 5.3
H2S 7.9
COS 8.5

The products of these three reactions flow from the core surface to the gas where combustible species are burned.
The end of oxygen determines the end of the combustion stage and the beginning of gasification. In this third stage,
the particle also reacts with CO2 and H2O. Since there is no O2, there is no combustion but H2 reaction (when there
was O2, H2 reacted with it in the gas phase and did not flow to the core surface).


h n
CHAR C 2 C o C sK ,H2 / CH4 C o,H2 O C s,H2 S C ,N2 (5)
2 2
At the same time, in the gas phase, the composition of the gas leaving the reaction chamber is determined by the
shift reaction, COS formation and CH4 formation equilibriums.
CO C H2 O4 CO2 C H2 (6)

H2 S C CO2 4 COS C H2 O (7)

CO C 3H2 4 CH4 C H2 O (8)

In each one of the three stages, products are calculated by matter balances and kinetic is studied. In order to obtain
the final gas composition, a fourth stage that simulates the equilibrium locking during the quench has been simulated.
To tune and validate the model, the information of 2874 real operation periods (which means 4812 h) has been
used. Relative average experimental discrepancy (taking into account this historian) is calculated for gasification
temperature, main gas composition and cold gas efficiency (CGE, or a quotient between chemical energy of the gas
and chemical energy of the fuel). Results are shown in Table 1. As it can be seen, errors of CGE and most abundant
species are very small. Relative errors of the other gas components are higher because the concentrations of these
species are low. More details on the model and the validation can be seen in [19].
This model can be used as off-design simulator for the gasifier. It reproduces a large amount of plant data and, since
it simulates all the gasification process, it can take into account the dependence of the fuel conversion ratio with
operation conditions. So that, as will be seen later, when CGE is plotted versus oxygen and steam ratios, the graph
shows a maximum.

3. Study of oxy-co-gasification of biomass, coal and coke

In this part, the model previously presented and validated is used to study oxy-co-gasification. However, the model
has been validated by the usual fuel (coal and coke at 50% in weight), and might not be suitable for mixtures including
biomass. There are several reasons to consider that the model is accurate enough to study oxy-co-gasification. One
reason is the small amount of biomass (up to 10% of the total fuel energy). However, the most important reason is that
the model (and gasification itself) could be divided into two parts: firstly, most non-mineral matter of the fuel converts
into gas (fuel conversion) and, second, gas phase equilibrium determines the distribution of the gasified matter into
the different species. Since gas phase equilibrium does not depend on the origin of the gas (due to high temperatures
tars and oils are not formed), the only difference can appear in the fuel conversion. The gasifier works with a high
quite constant fuel conversion ratio (around 98–99%), so that influence of fuel conversion is less important than
differences in fuel composition and LHV. Besides, biomass has a high volatiles content that can provide higher
 A. Valero, S. Usón / Energy 31 (2006) 1643–1655 1649

Table 2
Fuel analysis

Coal Coke Wheat straw Barley straw Pine wood Olive tree Wine tree Cynara
Moisture (wt%) 2 2 12.1 13.8 8 15 15 8
Proximate analysis (wt%, d.b.)
Volatile 22.1 12.4 73.6 75 76.3 78.1 76.6 76.5
matter
Fixed carbon 31.4 87.0 18.5 19.3 18.1 18.9 20.7 17.7
Ash 46.5 0.58 7.9 5.7 5.6 3.0 2.7 5.8
Ultimate analysis (wt%, d.b.)
C 40.6 87.7 45.6 45.6 47.2 49.8 49 46.8
H 2.8 3.8 5.7 5.6 5.7 6.0 5.7 5.8
O 8.4 0.19 40 42.5 39.2 40.4 41.8 40.7
N 0.82 1.5 0.7 0.5 2.2 0.7 0.7 0.7
S 0.88 6.2 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.13
Ash 46.5 0.58 7.9 5.7 5.6 3.0 2.7 5.9
LHV (kJ/kg, w.b.)
LHV 15,109 33,228 14,472 14,403 16,365 15,784 15,189 16,041

conversion ratios than coal and coke. Synergistic effects in oxy-co-gasification of coal and biomass described in the
literature [20,21] could also improve fuel conversion ratio. In conclusion, biomass of high volatile content and
reduced biomass amount will make carbon and coke control fuel conversion, so that the model can be used.

3.1. Comparison of fuel characteristics

Prior to analysing simulation results, it can be very useful to compare the characteristics of the possible fuels: coal,
coke and different types of biomass. This comparison can explain, at least qualitatively, results provided by the model.
Information of coal and coke corresponds to the average of plant analysis in May 2001, while biomass data are
provided from Circe (Cynara Cardunculus) and VTT [22]. Maximum moisture content has been fixed in 15% because
this is the upper limit for a right mill operation.
As it can be seen, all biomass types are quite similar and have some differences with the other fuels. Biomass has
more moisture and volatiles than coal or coke. Its LHV is roughly the same as that of the coal and half of that of the
coke. The same can be said about carbon content. The difference between biomass and coal is that the first has high
oxygen content and the second high ash content. Biomass has about twice the hydrogen content than the other fuels.
Last, biomass has low sulphur content, especially if compared with coke (Table 2).

3.2. Tuning of the gasification operation parameters

To simulate oxy-co-gasification, actual operation conditions are considered. Then, the fuel mixture is modified by
changing the amounts of coal and coke and including up to 10% of biomass, but keeping constant the total chemical
energy of the fuel. Two experiments have been carried out. In the first one, fuel composition is varied while keeping
oxygen and steam flows constant. In the second, fuel composition is also modified but oxygen and steam are varied to
optimise CGE.
When part of the fuel is replaced by biomass keeping oxygen and steam constant, fuel and gas mass flows increase
because biomass has lower LHV and less ash than the coal/coke mix. Due to biomass high oxygen content, CO2 and
H2O concentrations increase and CO concentration decreases, which implies a reduction of gas LHV. Gasification
temperature slightly decreases and CGE remain roughly constant. Finally, sulphur decreases and ash mass flow
usually decreases, although they can increase, depending on if the biomass replaces coal, coke or a mixture of them.
As an example, in Fig. 3, CO evolution versus biomass is shown by using three lines. These lines are plotted by
considering a basis coal/coke mixture (30/70% in energy, which means about 50/50% in weight) and substituting by
wheat straw only coke (30% coal), coal (70% coke) or the mixture. As it can be seen, the effect of biomass is higher
when coke is replaced. In conclusion, when fuel is modified, gas composition and efficiency varies substantially, so
that, operation should be modified.
1650 A. Valero, S. Usón / Energy 31 (2006) 1643–1655

CO
58

57 30% Coal
70% Coke
56

CO (%)
Mixture

55

54

53
0 2 4 6 8 10
% Wheat straw

Fig. 3. CO versus wheat straw percentage.

One possibility to adapt operation is to determine oxygen and steam flows to maximise CGE. If that is simulated,
temperature, gas composition, CGE and oxygen flow remain almost constant, reducing steam flow at the same time
(Fig. 4). This implies that oxy-co-gasification is possible and more steam could be expanded in the turbine obtaining
more electrical power (between 1 and 2 MW in this case). It should be noted that maximisation of CGE only can be
done by using a non-linear model with variable conversion ratio like that one proposed here. Besides, not only 50/50%
in weight of coal and coke (usual fuel mixture), but other combinations have been explored in order to analyse a wide
range of fuel mixtures.
Although steam mass flow has been plotted, in operation oxygen and steam ratios (obtained by dividing these mass
flows into the mass flow fuel without ashes and moisture) are used. Here, absolute mass flow has been used to separate
the effects of steam mass flow and fuel mass flow variation. Since biomass LHV in dry and ash free basis is lower than
that of coal or coke, if ratios were used lines would have dropped more quickly.

4. Operation maps for improving gasifier operation

The concept of operation map is applied to a two-dimensional graph, which axes correspond to the input variables
(oxygen/fuel ratio in x and steam/fuel ratio in y) where the main output variables evolution (temperature, efficiency
and concentration of the main components of the gas) is plotted by using constant value lines.
Maximum and minimum values of the output variables determine the region or the window where the gasifier
should be operated. Since there are two degrees of freedom, there are several ways to modify the value of an output
variable and the choice of the best one depends on the other output variables. So that, a graph which shows all
important variables is very useful to operate the gasifier in a safe and efficient way. In Fig. 5, an operation map built by
using the model is shown. This map has been plotted by using information from a real operation period and by
modifying oxygen and steam ratios. As it can be seen, when oxygen or steam increases, CO2 increases and CO

Optimum steam mass flow

4

30% Coal
3 70% Coke
Steam (kg/s)

Mixture

0
0 2 4 6 8 10

% Wheat straw

Fig. 4. Steam mass flow to maximise CGE.

 A. Valero, S. Usón / Energy 31 (2006) 1643–1655 1651

CGE = 75,5%
0.18 CGE = 76%
CGE = 76,5%

Steam ratio (kg steam/kg fuel daf)

CGE = 77%
0.16 CGE = 77,5%
T = 1700 °C
T = 1800 °C
0.14 T = 1900 °C
58% CO
60% CO
62% CO
0.12
20% H2
21% H2
22% H2
0.1 23% H2
2% CO2
3% CO2
0.08 4%CO2
5% CO2
0.69 0.71 0.73 0.75
Oxygen ratio (Nm3 pure O2/kg fuel daf)

Fig. 5. Operation map.

decreases. When oxygen increases or steam decreases, temperature increases and H2 decreases. In a variable
conversion model, when temperature decreases, fuel conversion decreases. As a result, CGE reaches a maximum and
the other lines are curved.
This model-built map can be very useful to explore new operation zones and to understand how all the variables
are related. However, to analyse and improve actual operation, it is better to take advantage of expertise by building
operation maps from plant data without a model and to use model-built maps as reference to provide theoretical
support. Since, unfortunately, there were no methodologies to build operation maps from plant data, a new general
method has been developed and applied.

4.1. Operation maps from plant data

A method to get a family of points that corresponds to an iso-line (line of constant value of a dependent variable) in
a map (constant value of a parameter) is proposed. This process can be repeated for the other iso-lines, for the other
values of the parameter and for the other dependent variables until getting all the maps built.
A dependent variable z that depends on two independent variables (x and y) and a parameter (p) is considered:

z Z zðx; y; pÞ (9)

In the example of the gasifier, x is the oxygen ratio, y the steam ratio and p the load. The dependent variable z can
be temperature, CGE or one concentration. Graphically, the iso-line is the intersection of the surface pZp0 and the
plane zZz0 (Fig. 6). A group of operation points characterised by the values of the four variables (x, y, p, z)i is
available (e.g. the 2874 actual operation points used to tune the models) and we want to transform it into another
group of points (x0, y0, p0, z0)j where p0 and z0 are given by the map and the iso-line, respectively, and x0 and y0 are the
unknown quantities.
The procedure for doing this transformation consists of two stages. The first one is building groups of four points.
To do so, some conditions have been imposed in order to get groups of points very closed one to each other [23]. The
second step consist in generate the pairs (x0, y0) (one pair from each group). To obtain these pairs, the dependent
variable is expressed in each one of the four points with a first order Taylor series around the point (x0, y0, p0).

zk Z z0 C zx ðxk Kx0 Þ C zy ðyk Ky0 Þ C zp ðpk Kp0 Þ k Z 1;.;4 (10)

As there are four equations and five unknown quantities (zx, zy, zp, x0 and y0) an additional condition should be
added. This condition is that the following expression (distance from the new point to the old ones) should be
minimum:
1652 A. Valero, S. Usón / Energy 31 (2006) 1643–1655

P = P0

P3
Z = Z0
P1
P0 ISO-LINE
P4
Y

P2

Fig. 6. Methodology scheme.

X4

ðxk Kx0 Þ2 ðyk Ky0 Þ2
d2 Z C (11)
kZ1
ðxmax Kxmin Þ2 ðymax Kymin Þ2

By solving the system for each four-point group, a family of points is obtained. These points, when plotted, form
the iso-line. Since this linear system is solved for each four-point group, this methodology can be used for any curve
shape although it is based on first order Taylor series.
This methodology has been applied to build an operation map of the gasifier for a 90% load. Plant data are the same
that were used to validate the model. Since the iso-lines are now groups of points, it is more convenient to use one
graph for each dependent variable. The graph that can be seen more clearly is the concentration of CO2 (Fig. 7).
Operation maps show the same tendency as model-built map but they are limited to a more reduced zone. The graphs
of the other dependent variables are not as clear as the graph of CO2 but, except the graph of H2, the tendency can be
appreciated.
To improve the resolution of the graphs of compositions, information about the fuel should be included. One way
to do this is by applying the method to build the maps not to the oxygen and steam ratios but to a ratios O/C and H/O
that are calculated by dividing the total amount of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen (taking into account the carbon,
oxygen and hydrogen contained in fuel, the steam and the oxygen). Then, the coordinates of the points should be

CO2
0.18
Steam ratio (kg/kg fuel daf)

0.16 CO2 = 2,75%

CO2 = 3%
0.14 CO2 = 3,25%
CO2 = 3,5%
0.12 CO2 = 3,75%
CO2 = 4%
0.1 CO2 = 4,25%

0.08
0.69 0.71 0.73 0.75
O2 ratio (Nm3 pure O2/kg fuel daf)

Fig. 7. CO2 operation map.

 A. Valero, S. Usón / Energy 31 (2006) 1643–1655 1653

CO2
0.18

Steam ratio (kg/kg fuel daf)

0.16 CO2 = 2,75%
CO2 = 3%
0.14 CO2 = 3,25%
CO2 = 3,5%
0.12 CO2 = 3,75%
CO2 = 4%
0.1 CO2 = 4,25%

0.08
0.69 0.71 0.73 0.75
O2 ratio (Nm3 pure O2/kg fuel daf)

Fig. 8. CO2 operation map, using ratio transformation and average fuel composition.

transformed from O/C and H/O to oxygen/fuel and steam/fuel ratios by using an average fuel composition [23]
(Fig. 8). This idea is based on the fact that, since the fuel conversion and final equilibrium constants are roughly
constant and the influence of nitrogen and sulphur can be neglected, the final gas composition only depends on the
relations between carbon, oxygen and hydrogen.
Although the use of O/C and H/O ratios improves the clarity of composition maps, this transformation is not
suitable for energy related variables (temperature and CGE) because it mixes all sources of carbon, oxygen and
hydrogen without taking into account the variation of LHV that a modification of fuel composition implies. One way
to introduce fuel LHV and to use O/C and H/O ratios in the CGE map is by representing not CGE but a relative CGE
[21]. In Fig. 9, an operation map of CGErel built by using O/C and H/O ratios is shown. The iso-lines show that the
gasifier is operated in the high fuel conversion zone, by using oxygen ratios above the maximum CGE point. It should
be noted that gasifier efficiency vary as much as 3%.
Plant data operation maps presented in this section show the same tendencies as model-built operation maps but
the iso-lines are slightly displaced. This aspect demonstrates that it has been useful to build these maps from plant data
in order to get a fine-tuning of the operation parameters. More details about these maps can be seen in [23].

Fig. 9. Relative CGE operation map, using ratio transformation and average fuel composition.
1654 A. Valero, S. Usón / Energy 31 (2006) 1643–1655

5. Discusion

Due to high temperatures, which avoid tar and oils formation, and the efficient gas cleaning section, oxy-co-
gasification at a large IGCC power plant is an interesting way to use a wide range of fuels (not only biomass but also
solid waste, used tyres.) with high efficiency and negligible environmental impact.
Simulations of oxy-co-gasification of coal, coke and several types of biomass show that operation strategies should
be modified as fuel mixture varies, so that, operation set points for a wide range of coke/coal/biomass combinations
have been obtained. When a new fuel mixture is proposed, first of all, fuel, ashes and sulphur mass flows should be
below limits determined by fuel feeding, ash removing and gas cleaning systems. If biomass is used, sulphur and
ashes decrease, so that coal/coke relation could vary in a wider range. Second, the model should be used to determine
the correct operation set point (by building graphs for coke/coal/biomass mixtures). A small amount of biomass (up to
10%) implies that the steam amount can be decreased substantially. Additionally, although properties of most types of
biomass are quite similar, moisture content variations can modify the optimal steam and oxygen ratios. Last but not
least, there are other fuel composition aspects that do not affect the operation set point but should be taken into
account. First, some types of biomass, such as straw, contain chlorine that could produce corrosion. Second, biomass
contains elements like calcium that reduce ashes melting point, which implies that limestone ratio should be reduced.
The optimum working condition of an oxygen blown gasifier is only obtained through the control of the reactive
agents taking place in the reaction chamber (concentration, pressure and temperature), in opposition to combustion,
which is a reaction totally developed. Operation maps are very useful to solve this issue. Accordingly, the problem of
obtaining operation maps is a universal problem that every existing or planned oxy-gasification plant will have to face
to. This problem cannot be solved by using only a pure theoretical analysis but an empirical feedback helping to solve
the fine-tuning of a gasifier is also needed. Therefore, the methodology applied (simulation and experimental maps)
can be of use for new IGCC plants provided that the experience gained from an already existing plant is considered.
Operation maps shown in this paper are currently being used in Elcogas power plant daily operation. Thanks to this
work, operators have a graph in which the consequences of their actions are clearly plotted, which can avoid errors
and plant failures.

6. Conclusions

Oxy-gasification in an IGCC power plant is an efficient and environmentally friendly way to use coal to produce
electricity, which opens the way to CO2 capture before combustion. Oxy-co-gasification with biomass entails an
additional CO2 reduction and the use of a renewable resource.
A key issue of these techniques is gasifier operation, which has been studied in this paper for an existing IGCC
power plant. Simulations with a validated model have demonstrated that oxy-co-gasification with several types of
biomass is possible with negligible gas quality variation. However, gasifier operation should be modified.
Operation maps are graphic and effective tools for enabling a safe and efficient gasifier operation. They can be built
by using either a model or directly from plant data. Experimental operation maps have shown that, in usual operation,
gasifier efficiency can vary as much as 3%, which means 5 MW.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the management of Elcogas power plant for their permission to publish
this paper and their faithful collaboration at every moment, specially to engineers: Ignacio Méndez-Vigo,
Francisco Garcı́a-Peña, Alejandro Muñoz, Pedro Casero, Silvia Burgos and Francisco Puente. The authors would
also like to acknowledge the Regional Government of Aragón and European Social Found for the grant for Usón
(Ref. 120/2003).

References

[1] Overend R. Biomass gasification: the enabling technology. Renew Energy World 2003;3(5). Avaliable from: http://www.jxj.com/magsandj/
rew/2000_05/biomass_gasification.html
 A. Valero, S. Usón / Energy 31 (2006) 1643–1655 1655

[2] VTT, Technical Research Centre of Finland. Review of biomass gasification technologies, report no. 4. Espoo, Finland; 2002. Available from:
http://www0.gastechnology.org/pub/iea/OPET_Report4_gasification.pdf
[3] Stahl K, Neergaard M. IGCC power plant for biomass utilisation, Värnamo, Sweden. Biomass Bioenerg 1998;15(3):205–11.
[4] Pitcher K. Turning willow into megawatts. Renew Energy World 2000;3(6). Avaliable from: http://www.jxj.com/magsandj/rew/2000_06/
turning_willow.html
[5] De Lange HJ, Barbucci P. The thermie energy farm project. Biomass Bioenergy 1998;15(3):219–24.
[6] Stiegel GJ, Maxwell RC. Gasification technologies: the path to a clean, affordable energy in the 21st century. Fuel Process Technol 2001;
71(1–3):79–97.
[7] Hoffman EJ. Coal gasifiers. Energon 1981.
[8] Yamashita K, Barreto L. Energyplexes for the 21st century: coal gasification for co-producing hydrogen, electricity and liquid fuels. Energy
2005;30:2453–73.
[9] Kaldis SP, Skodras G, Sakellaropoulos GP. Energy and capital cost analysis of CO2 capture in coal IGCC processes via gas separation
membranes. Fuel Process Technol 2004;85:337–46.
[10] Duan L, Lin R, Deng S, Jin H, Cai R. A novel IGCC system with steam injected H2/O2 cycle and CO2 recovery. Energy Convers Manage
2004;45:797–809.
[11] Minchener AJ. Syngas Europa Mech Eng. 1999;July. Avaliable from: http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/july99/features/syngas/syngas.
html
[12] Ree R van. Co-gasification of coal and biomass waste in entrained-flow gasifiers: phase 1: preliminary study. Report ECN-C-97-021. ECN
Brandstoffen, Conversie & Milieu; 1997.
[13] Korbee R, Eenkhoorn S, Heere PGT, Kiel JHA. Co-gasification of coal and biomass waste in entrained-flow gasifiers: phase 2: exploratory
lab-scale experimentation. Report ECN-C-98-056. ECN Brandstoffen, Conversie & Milieu; 1998.
[14] Hein KRG, Bemtgen JM. EU clean coal technology–co-combustion of coal and biomass. Fuel Process Technol 1998;54:159–69.
[15] Van der Burgt MJ. Techno-historical aspects of coal gasification in relation to IGCC plants. Private communication; 1998.
[16] Wen CY. Entraintment coal gasification modelling. Ind Eng Chem Proc Des Dev 1979;18(4):684–95.
[17] Loison R, Chauvin R. Pyrolise rapide du charbon. Chimie et Industrie 2004;91.
[18] Badzioch S, Hawksley PBW. Kinetics of thermal decomposition of pulverized coal particles. Ind Eng Chem Fund 1970;18(2):521.
[19] Usón S, Valero A, Correas L, Martı́nez A. Co-gasification of coal and biomass in an IGCC power plant; gasifier modelling. Int J Thermodyn
2004;7(4):165–72.
[20] Sjöström K, Chen G, Yu Q, Brage C, Rosén C. Promoted reactivity of char in co-gasification of biomass and coal: synergies in the
thermochemical process. Fuel 1999;78:1189–94.
[21] Jong Wde, Andries J, Hein KRG. Coal/biomass co-gasification in a pressurised fluidised bed reactor. Renew Energy 1999;16:1110–3.
[22] Kurkela E, Simell P, Stahlberg P, Berna G, Barbagli F, Haavisto I. Development of nobel fixed-bed gasification for biomass residues and
agrobiofuels VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland; 2000. Avaliable from: http://www.inf.vtt.fi/pdf/tiedotteet/2000/
T2059.pdf
[23] Usón S, Valero A, Rangel V. Building operation maps: an effective tool for improving gasifier operation in IGCC power plants. Int
J Thermodyn 2004;7(4):157–64.