scholarly journals Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) as a remediation for EHR reduction

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
O. Barra ◽  
A. Barra ◽  
F. Buono ◽  
A. Cuiuli ◽  
P. Ionta
Keyword(s):  
Combined Cycle ◽  
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle ◽  
Integrated Gasification

Exergoeconomic analysis of renewable multi-generation system

2020 ◽  
pp. 99-111
Author(s):  
Vontas Alfenny Nahan ◽  
Audrius Bagdanavicius ◽  
Andrew McMullan
Keyword(s):  
Capital Investment ◽  
Combined Cycle ◽  
Asian Countries ◽  
Generation System ◽  
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle ◽  
Heating And Cooling ◽  
Integrated Gasification ◽  
Exergoeconomic Analysis ◽  
Main Components ◽  
The Cost

In this study a new multi-generation system which generates power (electricity), thermal energy (heating and cooling) and ash for agricultural needs has been developed and analysed. The system consists of a Biomass Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (BIGCC) and an absorption chiller system. The system generates about 3.4 MW electricity, 4.9 MW of heat, 88 kW of cooling and 90 kg/h of ash. The multi-generation system has been modelled using Cycle Tempo and EES. Energy, exergy and exergoeconomic analysis of this system had been conducted and exergy costs have been calculated. The exergoeconomic study shows that gasifier, combustor, and Heat Recovery Steam Generator are the main components where the total cost rates are the highest. Exergoeconomic variables such as relative cost difference (r) and exergoeconomic factor (f) have also been calculated. Exergoeconomic factor of evaporator, combustor and condenser are 1.3%, 0.7% and 0.9%, respectively, which is considered very low, indicates that the capital cost rates are much lower than the exergy destruction cost rates. It implies that the improvement of these components could be achieved by increasing the capital investment. The exergy cost of electricity produced in the gas turbine and steam turbine is 0.1050 £/kWh and 0.1627 £/kWh, respectively. The cost of ash is 0.0031 £/kg. In some Asian countries, such as Indonesia, ash could be used as fertilizer for agriculture. Heat exergy cost is 0.0619 £/kWh for gasifier and 0.3972 £/kWh for condenser in the BIGCC system. In the AC system, the exergy cost of the heat in the condenser and absorber is about 0.2956 £/kWh and 0.5636 £/kWh, respectively. The exergy cost of cooling in the AC system is 0.4706 £/kWh. This study shows that exergoeconomic analysis is powerful tool for assessing the costs of products.

Effect of supplementary firing on the performance of an integrated gasification combined cycle power plant

2000 ◽  
Vol 214 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
S De ◽  
P K Nag
Keyword(s):  
Power Plant ◽  
Heat Recovery ◽  
Combined Cycle ◽  
Exergy Loss ◽  
Temperature Ratio ◽  
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle ◽  
Specific Heats ◽  
Second Law Analysis ◽  
Integrated Gasification ◽  
Igcc Power Plant

The effect of supplementary firing on the performance of an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant is studied. The results are presented with respect to a simple ‘unfired’ IGCC power plant with single pressure power generation for both the gas and the steam cycles as reference. The gases are assumed as real with variable specific heats. It is found that the most favourable benefit of supplementary firing can be obtained for a low temperature ratio R T only. For higher R T, only a gain in work output is possible with a reverse effect on the overall efficiency of the plant. The second law analysis reveals that the exergy loss in the heat-recovery steam generator is most significant as the amount of supplementary firing increases. It is also noteworthy that, although the total exergy loss of the plant decreases with higher supplementary firing for a low R T (= 3.0), the reverse is the case for a higher R T (= 6.0).

Dynamic modeling of Shell entrained flow gasifier in an integrated gasification combined cycle process

2014 ◽  
Vol 131 ◽  
pp. 425-440 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyeon-Hui Lee ◽  
Jae-Chul Lee ◽  
Yong-Jin Joo ◽  
Min Oh ◽  
Chang-Ha Lee
Keyword(s):  
Dynamic Modeling ◽  
Combined Cycle ◽  
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle ◽  
Entrained Flow ◽  
Entrained Flow Gasifier ◽  
Integrated Gasification

Comparison of Preanode and Postanode Carbon Dioxide Separation for IGFC Systems

2010 ◽  
Vol 132 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Liese
Keyword(s):  
Fuel Cell ◽  
Power Density ◽  
Co2 Capture ◽  
Coal Gasification ◽  
Combined Cycle ◽  
Energy Technology ◽  
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle ◽  
Lower Efficiency ◽  
Integrated Gasification ◽  
Cold Gas

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

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document