Energy and Exergy Analysis of

Gasifier-Based Coal-to-Fuel
Yunhua Zhu1
e-mail: yunhua.zhu@pnl.gov
Sriram Somasundaram
James W. Kemp
Energy and Environment Directorate,
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
Richland, Washington 99352
Systems
National energy security concerns related to liquid transportation fuels have revived
interests in alternative liquid fuel sources. Coal-to-fuel technologies feature high effi-
ciency energy conversion and environmental advantages. While a number of factors are
driving coal-to-fuel projects forward, there are several barriers to wide commercializa-
tion of these technologies such as financial, construction, operation, and technical risks.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the performance features of coal-to-fuel sys-
tems based on different gasification technologies. The target products are the Fischer
Tropsch synthetic crude and synthetic natural gas. Two types of entrained-flow gasifier-
based coal-to-fuel systems are simulated and their performance features are discussed.
One is a single-stage water quench cooling entrained-flow gasifier, and another one is a
two-stage syngas cooling entrained-flow gasifier. The conservation of energy (first law of
thermodynamics) and the quality of energy (second law of thermodynamics) for the
systems are both investigated. The results of exergy analysis provide insights about the
potential targets for technology improvement. The features of different gasifier-based
coal-to-fuel systems are discussed. The results provide information about the research
and development priorities in future. DOI: 10.1115/1.4001572

1 Introduction free 3. Therefore, from a revenue standpoint, FT diesel is a

As a major technology option for alternative liquid transporta-
tion fuel sources, coal to liquid CTL oil production has emerged
in many states. In 1985, oil prices fell suddenly and remained low
until recently. Interests in coal liquefaction for the production of
transportation fuels declined accordingly. However, this interest
has grown in the last couple of years with concerns about energy
security and sustainability. While a number of factors are driving
CTL projects, there are also several barriers to wide commercial-
ization. The prospect of CTL technologies is alluring, yet deploy-
ment of such pioneering technologies brings with it financial, con-
struction, operating, and technical risks.
Typical coal combustion produces carbon dioxide and nitrogen
oxides, along with varying amounts of sulfur dioxide depending
on where the coal was mined. Gasification based coal conversions
to fuels processes make the generated carbon dioxide easier to
capture than conventional pulverized coal combustion processes.
A coal-to-fuel, i.e., CTL process, when compared with other effi-
cient forms of coal utilization such as in integrated gasification
combined-cycle IGCC or fluidized bed combustion techniques,
has additional environmental advantages, as described for the Gil-
berton coal-to-power and clean fuels plant 1. Furthermore, the
FischerTropsch FT diesel fuels converted from coal are fully
compatible with existing fuels, and emissions from diesel engines
fueled with FT diesel are even lower than Californias stringent
diesel performance. Sasol data indicate that the production cost of
CTL is generally estimated at 3540 USD per barrel
220 250 USD/ m3 2. The FT process requires total sulfur re-
moval from syngas, and therefore, the FT oil is essentially sulfur
1
Corresponding author.
Contributed by the Advanced Energy Systems Division of ASME for publication
in the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received February 27,
2009; final manuscript received March 29, 2010; published online June 11, 2010.
Assoc. Editor: B. G. Shiva Prasad.
The United States Government retains, and by accepting the article for publica-
tion, the publisher acknowledges that the United States Government retains, a non-
exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the pub-
lished form of this work, or allow others to do so, for United States Government
purposes.
low-sulfur content fuel, and hence, a premium product, and can be
competitive with current crude oil prices.
In energy transformation processes such as combustion, gasifi-
cation, and reforming of fossil and renewable fuels, the conserva-
tion of energy first law of thermodynamics, as well as the quality
of energy second law of thermodynamics, is important. The
most common energy system performance assessment criteria are
energy based first law. They are useful for assessing the qual-
ity of energy flow and the efficiency of energy use. Because such
energy-based criteria do not account for the quality of energy,
exergy-based criteria are better at accounting for the use of energy
resources and providing guidance for system improvement 4,5.
These are sometimes called second law-based criteria. Exergy
analysis was applied in coal-based electric power or thermal sys-
tems analysis 68. In an analysis of the exergetic efficiency of
producing FT fuels from biomass, Prins et al. 9 found that the
main exergy losses occur during gasification, which accounted
over 50% of the total losses. To reduce these losses, process im-
provements such as using oxygen or enriched air should be con-
sidered for the gasification process. In a comparison of exergy
efficiencies of different gasifier-based biofuels systems, modifying
the properties of the biomass feedstocks prior to gasification
might also be considered as an effective way to reduce exergy
losses 9. Although performance criteria are most often applied to
the entire system, such as a power plant or an energy conversion
system, they can be applied at any level, such as to different
components, inside spatial and temporal processes, and down to
the smallest particle interactions when there is an interest in that
kind of exploration.
This study investigated the performance features of coal-to-fuel
systems. In these systems, different gasification technologies and
FT/methanation synthesis are assumed to be used to produce FT
oil or synthetic natural gas SNG from low-sulfur, sub-
bituminous coal. The scope of this study includes conceptual de-
sign and simulation, energy, and exergy analysis to determine the
relative efficiencies and features of alternative technologies. Use
of specific trade names or brands is for research purpose only and
does not constitute an endorsement of these products.

Journal of Energy Resources Technology Copyright 2010 by ASME JUNE 2010, Vol. 132 / 021008-1

Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/13/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Fig. 1 Conceptual diagram for coal-to-FT oil/SNG systems
2 Technical Background and Design Basis
As shown in Fig. 1, main processes in a gasifier-based coal-to-
fuels system include gasification process, gas cooling, water-gas
shift reactor, sulfur removal, fuel synthesis FT synthesis/
methanation, and steam cycle. In a gasifier-based coal-to-fuel
system, the coal and oxidant react in the gasifier to produce syn-
gas rich in hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The raw syngas leav-
ing the gasifier contains a small portion of unburned carbon and
the molten ash. The gas is cooled by water quench or syngas
cooler. The cooled syngas flows through a particulate scrubbing
unit to remove particles and other impurities. Then, part of the
syngas combined with high temperature steam is sent to a water-
gas shift WGS process to adjust the H2 : CO ratio to meet the
requirement of the FT or methanation reaction. Most of the CO is
converted to CO2 in the shift reaction. The syngas from the WGS
reactors is first cooled by the inlet syngas and then cooled by the
boiler feed water to generate steam. The cooled shifted syngas is
further cooled by cooling air. The syngas is then sent to an acid
removal unit, in which most of H2S and a portion of COS are
removed by using a physical solvent. Most of the CO2 in syngas is
also removed in this process and ready for sequestration. The
removed H2S is then recovered to elemental sulfur in a sulfur
recovery unit. The clean syngas with most of the H2 and CO is
then sent to a synthesis process to produce FT oil or SNG. The
offgas from the synthesis process is sent to a boiler or a gas-fired
superheater to generate high temperature and high pressure steam
for electricity generation in a steam turbine.
In the following sections, the design bases for the main pro-
cesses are described in detail. These include gasification, air sepa-
ration unit ASU, syngas conditioning and purification, sulfur
recovery, FT process, SNG synthesis, and steam cycle.
2.1 Gasification Unit. Gasification is a process that produces
syngas rich in H2 and CO from coal or other carbonaceous feed-
stocks. High-purity oxidant or air is fed into a gasifier to partially
oxidize the feedstocks. Water or steam is used as a source of
hydrolysis in gasification reactions. There are three major types of
gasifiers: entrained-flow, moving-bed, and fluidized bed 10. An
entrained-flow gasifier features a plug type reactor and is suitable
for gasification of fine fuel particles. An advantage of this type of
gasifier is minimum methane production in raw syngas, which
makes it suitable for being used in gasification based liquid fuels
synthesis systems 1113. In this study, two types of slurry feed
entrained-flow gasifiers are simulated and analyzed, including a
021008-2 / Vol. 132, JUNE 2010
Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/13/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
single-stage entrained-flow gasifier with water quench cooling de-
sign and a two-stage entrained-flow gasifier with syngas cooler
design.
2.1.1 Single-Stage Entrained-Flow Gasifier. Typically, slurry
feed single-stage entrained-flow gasifiers have a higher operating
pressure than other types of entrained-flow gasifiers, which leads
to the higher syngas production capacity of gasifiers with given
size. This type of gasifier has been used for conversion of heavy
oils, petroleum coke, biomass, and wastes to produce power,
steam, hydrogen, ammonia, or other chemicals 14. In this study,
a slurry feed single-stage entrained-flow gasifier with water
quench WQ cooling design is assumed. The gasification unit
mainly consists of two parts: a reaction chamber and a quench
cooling chamber. The feed coal slurry is pumped into the gasifier
together with the oxidant. The coal is partially oxidized and con-
verted primarily to H2, CO, CO2, and a little CH4. Then the syn-
gas rich in H2 and CO with molten ash and some unreacted carbon
flows into a water quench chamber. The molten ash is cooled to
form a glass-like slag and is collected via a lock-hopper for dis-
posal. The quenched warm syngas is then sent to a scrubber to
further remove particles and impurities including ammonia and
chloride. The design of this process is based on Frey and co-
workers 1517.
2.1.2 Two-Stage Entrained-Flow Gasifier. In this study, a two-
stage entrained-flow gasifier with syngas cooler SC is also in-
vestigated. The design for this process is based on Wimer et al.
18 and NETL 19. In this process, coal/water slurry is injected
into the gasifier with a split to the primary and secondary stages,
respectively. All the high-purity oxygen is sent to the primary
stage and reacts with coal slurry fed to this stage. The gasification
temperature is maintained by controlling the oxygen feed rate.
The molten ash drops into a water bath and is removed in a con-
tinuous dewatering system. The gaseous product from the primary
stage flows to the secondary stage and mixes with the remaining
slurry feed. In the secondary stage, hot syngas from the primary
stage provides the thermal energy required to heat and gasify the
remaining slurry. The endothermic gasification reactions consider-
ably decrease the heat content of the hot syngas from the primary
stage. As a result, the exit temperature of the secondary stage is
lower than the primary stage temperature. The syngas out of the
gasifier is cooled in a syngas cooler boiler by heating high pres-
Transactions of the ASME
 sure boiler feed water to generate steam. Char produced in the
secondary stage is captured and returned to the primary stage of
the gasifier for further conversion.
2.2 Air Separation Unit. In this study, a cryogenic ASU is
assumed for oxygen production. A cryogenic ASU mainly consists
of an air compression system, cryogenic separation units, and an
oxygen compression system. The air and oxygen compressors are
multiple-stage air-intercooled compressors. Air is compressed and
then cooled against the cold products in the main heat exchanger.
The cooled air is then separated into oxygen, nitrogen, and option-
ally, argon-rich streams in the cryogenic unit 20. In this study,
oxygen at 99% purity is assumed to be produced and compressed
to a pressure level, which is decided by the gasification condition.
A small amount of nitrogen product is compressed for use in the
acid gas removal process. The simulation of the ASU unit is de-
veloped based on Hornick and McDaniel 21 and Frey and Zhu
22.
2.3 Syngas Conditioning and Purification. The WGS reac-
tor is assumed to be used to adjust the syngas molar H2 / CO ratio
to meet the requirement of the downstream synthesis processes. A
portion of the scrubbed syngas is sent to a high temperature WGS
reactor and a large part of CO is shifted to CO2. The shifted
syngas is then combined with the bypassed syngas. The amount of
syngas sent to the WGS is decided by the required H2 / CO ratio
for FT or SNG synthesis. The shift reaction releases heat and
generates high temperature shifted syngas. The high temperature
exit syngas is sent to the effluent coolers to heat boiler feed waters
and generate high and low pressure steam. High pressure steam is
used in the steam cycle for power generation. Low pressure steam
is used for process heating. Water is condensed from the shifted
gas and reused as scrubber water in the gasifier water scrubbing
unit.
The combined unshifted and shifted syngas is sent to a mercury
absorber and then to an acid gas removal unit to remove almost all
the sulfur compounds and most of the CO2. A physical solvent
based process is assumed to be used to separate acid gases such as
hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide from feed gas. In this pro-
cess, sulfur compounds and CO2 are absorbed by cold methanol
23. The acid gas removal process produces the following
streams: 1 dry syngas free of sulfur and CO2 for the FT or SNG
synthesis units, 2 acid gas stream sent to a Claus plant for sulfur
recovery, 3 high-purity CO2 stream available to carbon seques-
tration, 4 small vent/fuel gas from the nitrogen stripper, and 5
wastewater stream containing a small amount of methanol.
2.4 Sulfur Recovery Unit. A Claus plant is assumed to be
used for sulfur recovery in this study. In the Claus unit, the acid
gas composed mainly of H2S, COS, and CO2 is combusted in a
furnace with oxygen from the ASU. The combustion products are
cooled in a waste heat boiler to produce steam. Then the gases are
further converted to produce elemental sulfur. The sulfur is con-
densed and low pressure steam is generated. The condensed sulfur
is collected as a molten liquid byproduct. The off-gas from the
condensers goes to several catalytic conversion stages to convert
the remaining sulfur. A small slip stream of clean syngas from the
acid gas removal process is used as fuel in the tail gas treatment
unit. The simulation of this process is based on Polasek and
Bullen 24.
2.5 FT Synthesis. The FT synthesis is a nonselective process
that produces a wide range of compounds containing from 1 car-
bon atom to 100 carbon atoms. A generalized equation describ-
ing the FT synthesis is
2n + 1H2 + nCO CnH2n+2 + nH2O 1 gas removal process. The split fraction is adjusted to reach the
The FT synthesis step involves competing chemical reactions that
lead to a suite of desirable and undesirable products. Selectivity
can be high for high molecular mass wax 25. The catalysts used
in the FT process are mainly iron-based catalysts promoted with
Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/13/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
Table 1 FT products distribution
Carbon product wt %
CO2 0.9
C1 4.5
C2C4 5.2
C5C11 21.2
C12C20 27.4
C21+ 40.7
potassium, copper, and supported cobalt catalysts. The FT synthe-
sis can produce multiple products such as a light synthetic crude
oil and light olefins or heavy, waxy hydrocarbons. The synthetic
crude can be refined to gasoline and diesel, by hydrocracking the
waxy materials.
In this study, a low-temperature FT reactor with a cobalt cata-
lyst is assumed. The FT reactor is modeled as a stoichiometric
reactor, and an AndersonSchultzFlory ASF chain growth fac-
tor of 0.9 is assumed based on Ref. 26. The standard ASF dis-
tribution was adjusted to account for the expected methane pro-
duction and a small amount of CO2 production. The FT crude
product distribution is shown in Table 1. All FT hydrocarbons are
assumed to be saturated.
The FT off-gas is split with the large portion recycled to the FT
synthesis reactor and the remaining to the boiler for power gen-
eration. The off-gas split and the coal rate to the gasifier are ad-
justed to meet the following requirements: 1 22,000 bbl/day FT
crude production, and 2 plant power needs met with no excess
power excludes coal mining, transport and grinding. Steam de-
rived from FT reactor cooling is used to generate power in the
steam turbine.
2.6 SNG Synthesis. In the SNG process, the primary conver-
sion is described by the following reaction:
CO + 3H2 CH4 + H2O 2
A two-stage reactor system with internal cooling by steam genera-
tion and recycling cooled reactor effluent is assumed in this study
for SNG synthesis. The recycle ratio is determined by limiting the
reactor outlet temperature less than 465 C. The SNG product is
cooled to condense water and then dried before being compressed
to meet the pipeline pressure requirement. The product purity tar-
get is assumed to be above 95 vol %.
For a given gasifier, the coal rate for the SNG case is specified
to be the same as that for the FT case. Sufficient clean syngas is
diverted from the SNG reactors to the steam generation system to
achieve power neutrality.
2.7 Steam Cycle and Power Generation. A steam turbine
with superheated conditions of 124 bars/ 538 C is assumed in
this study 27. This steam condition is chosen based on the power
consumption level of the overall system of about 200 MW and the
power neutrality goal of the design. The power neutrality assump-
tion is that the power needs for the system is balanced by the
power generation from the steam turbine and no net power is
generated. The steam cycle uses a fuel gas-fueled boiler and a
superheater to generate steam for the turbine. High- and medium-
pressure saturated steams from process cooling mainly the WGS
and FT/SNG synthesis processes are sent to the steam cycle. For
FT cases, the recycle ratio of the FT process is adjusted to provide
enough off-gas for power generation. For the SNG cases, the fuel
gas for power generation is split from the clean gas from the acid
power neutrality goal.
Compared with the single-stage WQ gasifier, the two-stage SC
gasifier generates a large amount of steam by raw syngas cooling.
This steam is used to generate power in the steam cycle. For the
two-stage SC gasifier-based systems, the power neutrality goal
JUNE 2010, Vol. 132 / 021008-3
 Table 2 major inputs and assumptions for two different gasifi-
ers based coal-to-fuel systems
Single-stage Two-stage
Gasifier type entrained-flow entrained-flow
Cooling method WQ SC
Gasifier pressure bars 41 34
Gasifier temperature C 1315 1038
Carbon conversion wt % 98 98
FT synthesis process
Reactor pressure bars 33 25
Reactor temperature C 230 230
SNG synthesis process
Reactor I P/T bars/ C 34/465 27/470
Reactor II P/T bars/ C 33/310 26/315
Power generation
Steam turbine bars/ C / C 124/538/538 124/538/538
cannot be reached, even if the maximum recycle ratio is used in
the fuel synthesis process. Therefore, the net power outputs for the
two-stage SC gasifier systems are positive.
3 Process Simulation Using Aspen Plus
Process simulation enables the behavior of a process to be es-
timated by using basic mass and energy balances, thermodynamic
models, and chemical equilibrium. In this study, the different
gasifier-based coal-to-fuel systems process models are developed
in Advanced System for Process Engineering Plus Aspen Plus.
Aspen Plus is an upgraded simulator based on Aspen, a determin-
istic steady state chemical process simulator. Aspen Plus includes
an extensive thermodynamic database to support energy balance
and chemical equilibrium calculations 28. To simulate a process
technology in Aspen Plus, the technology is described using unit
operations that are connected via material, heat, or work streams.
Unit operations are simulated by blocks, which essentially are
computer subroutines in the simulator library that perform mass
and energy balance calculations for specific unit operations such
as heat exchangers, compressors, pumps, reactors, and others. As-
pen Plus often uses a sequential-modular approach to compute
block and outlet stream results for individual unit operations that
comprise a flowsheet. In a large complicated system model, the
outputs of some blocks are often the inputs for some other blocks
that have been calculated previously in the sequence. Such
streams are often referred to as recycle or tear streams. In such
cases, the simulator starts with initial values for the streams and
iterates on the flowsheet solution until the simulation values for
the inlet of an upstream block and outlet of a downstream block
converge 28.
4 Process Modeling and Major Assumptions
The process models based on two types of entrained-flow gas-
ifiers and two fuel products were developed in this study. The
major inputs and assumptions of the models are listed in Table 2.
For the single-stage WQ gasifier design, the hot raw gas exiting
the gasifier is water-quenched. For the two-stage gasifier design,
syngas coolers are used to recover sensible heat from the hot
syngas by generating high pressure saturated steam. The pressures
for FT and SNG synthesis are decided by gasification pressures.
Coal with a lower heating value LHV of 27.6 MJ/kg at dry
basis is assumed to be used in the systems for fuel production. The
capacity of the FT cases is assumed to be 145 m3 / h FT crude
capacity. The feed coal flow rate was adjusted to meet the capacity
goal and power neutrality. For the two-stage SC gasifier-based
021008-4 / Vol. 132, JUNE 2010
Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/13/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
systems, the net power generation is minimized. The SNG cases
used the same coal flow rate as the FT cases with the same gasifier
process.
4.1 Gasification Process Modeling. For the single-stage WQ
gasifier, the coal slurry with 60 wt % dry coal flows through a
slurry pump and the pressure is raised to 48 bars. The dry coal
content in the slurry is specified in a calculator block in Aspen
Plus. The coal slurry and oxygen are injected into the gasifier
where partial oxidation of the coal takes place. The operation
conditions of the gasifier have been listed in Table 2. The major
gasification reactions are simulated by using a reactor unit opera-
tion block based on Gibbs free energy minimization in Aspen
Plus. In this reactor, major gasification reactions and the approach
temperatures are specified. The hot gas from the gasifier is
quenched by part of the recycled gray water. Molten slag en-
trained in the raw gas dropped into a water quench pool and is
collected. The gas leaves the water quench cooler at a temperature
of approximately 200 C and then enters the water scrubbing unit,
where it is washed with water to further remove fine particles and
other impurities. The particle-laden water is assumed to be sent to
water treatment and the soot is separated. The gray water after
treatment is cooled and recycled for raw syngas water quenching
and coal slurring. The scrubbed gas is split and part of it is sent to
a WGS to convert CO to H2. The split fraction is decided by the
required H2 : CO ratio by the FT or SNG process.
For the two-stage SC gasifier, the coal slurry with the same dry
coal content as the single-stage WQ gasifier cases is pumped to 37
bars. The coal slurry is split and about 78% is injected to the first
stage, and the remaining to the second one of the gasifier. All the
oxygen is sent to the first stage. The molten ash in the raw gas
from the first stage drops to a water bath and is removed in a
continuous dewatering system. The raw syngas at 1570 C from
the first stage flows to the second stage, where it reacts with the
remaining slurry feed. The two-stage SC gasifier is simulated by
two reactors unit operation blocks based on Gibbs free energy
minimization in Aspen Plus. The raw syngas at 1038 C rich in
CO and H2 from the secondary stage is sent to a syngas cooler,
and the sensible heat of the hot gas is recovered by generating
high pressure saturated steam, which is sent to the steam cycle for
power generation purposes. The hot raw gas is cooled to 355 C
and the unreacted char in the syngas is captured and recycled to
the first stage. The syngas is then sent to a scrubbing unit to
remove the remaining particulates and other impurities. The fol-
lowing processes are similar to the single-stage WQ gasifier sys-
tem.
4.2 FT Synthesis Process Modeling. The clean syngas from
the gas purification unit is combined with the recycled off-gas and
then heated to 204 C by the effluent from the FT reactor. The
heated gas is sent to the FT reactor, which is assumed to be a
tubular fixed bed reactor. The FT reactor is simulated by a stoi-
chiometric reactor unit operation model in Aspen Plus. Synthesis
gas is assumed to make a once through pass through the FT reac-
tor with a CO conversion efficiency of 70% 29. The major op-
erating conditions of this reactor have been listed in Table 2. The
FT synthesis reaction temperature is controlled by generating
saturated steam at 25 bars. The raw outlet stream from the FT
reactor is first separated to gaseous components and heavy waxy
oil. The gas phase is cooled by the inlet clean syngas and then
cooled by air and cooling water. The cooled raw product is sent to
a high pressure HP flash tank and it is separated to three phases:
water, condensate liquid oil, and gas. The gas product is further
cooled to 4 C by a chiller and sent to a low pressure flash tank at
1.7 bars, where it is also separated to three phases. About 80% of
the gaseous stream from the flash tanks is recycled to the FT
reactor to increase the conversion efficiency. The remaining fuel
gas is sent to the boiler for combustion to generate steam for
power generation. The water streams are assumed to be sent to the
wastewater treatment. The liquid oil streams are combined and
Transactions of the ASME
 sent to a distillation column to produce FT crude oil. The gas
stream from the distillation tower is also sent to the boiler as fuel
gas.
4.3 SNG Synthesis Process Modeling. A two-stage SNG
synthesis process is assumed to be used for SNG production in
this study. The cleaned syngas is first heated by the reactor efflu-
ent to 260 C. The heated gas is then mixed with steam at 352 C
and 38 bars and recycled off-gas. The mixture is sent to the pri-
mary reactor of the SNG synthesis process, which is assumed to
be an adiabatic fixed bed catalytic reactor. The reactor is simulated
by an equilibrium reactor unit operation block in Aspen Plus. The
major reaction conditions of the SNG process have been listed in
Table 2. The effluent from the primary reactor is first cooled to
447 C by the inlet syngas. Then about 90% of the effluent is
cooled to 288 C by generating saturated steam at 39 bars and
then recycled to the primary reactor. The remaining effluent is first
cooled at 260 C by generating steam and then sent to the second-
ary reactor to convert the remaining CO and H2 to methane. The
secondary reactor is also assumed to be an adiabatic reactor. The
effluent from the secondary stage is first cooled to 176 C by
boiler feed water BFW. The heated high pressure BFW is then
further heated by the effluents from the primary reactor to gener-
ate saturated steam. The product stream is then cooled by air and
cooling water to 43 C. The water in the product stream is con-
densed. The SNG product is assumed to be dried before being
compressed to the pipeline requirement of 76 bars.
5 Exergy Analysis
Exergy analysis is a secondary calculation typically conducted
after a traditional first law system analysis is complete. Because
exergy analysis is based on the total available energy of a system,
including incoming fuel streams and exhaust streams, it is most
useful for quantifying the environmental performance and com-
prehensive energy efficiency of a system. It also provides a
mechanism to easily identify optimization targets and system syn-
ergies.
In energy conversion systems such as a coal-to-fuel plant, the
exergy analysis is most useful for identifying areas of the system
that have priority for enhancements. For example, if the exergy
analysis identifies a specific turbine or heat exchanger, the system
designer may choose to invest in a higher-cost turbine or addi-
tional piping to change design temperatures that will improve the
second law performance of the whole plant. From the viewpoint
of exergy, maximum efficiency is attained for a process in which
exergy is conserved. Efficiencies determined using ratios of ex-
ergy provide a measure of an approach to an ideal, as well as
reveal the maximum potential efficiency of the process. Efficien-
cies determined by only using energy are often less complete pic-
tures because, in general, they are not measures of an approach to
an ideal state 4.
5.1 General Exergy Balance Equations. The second law of
thermodynamics provides a way to quantify the maximum theo-
retical work that could be done by a system. Exergy is destroyed
by irreversibility of a process. A general exergy balance equation
for a control volume is 30
Exergy Destruction = Exergy Input Exergy Output 3 that of single-stage WQ gasifier-based systems. Although the
Exergy is determined by comparing the state of a system to the
dead state of the environment around the system. The transfer of
exergy across a control volume with mass flow is important to
account for in an open system. For this reason, it is important to
calculate the specific exergy for each mass flow that crosses the
control volume. Once the specific exergy for the flow components
is known, it is possible to calculate the exergy destruction and loss
of the system.
Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/13/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
5.2 Applications to Large Control Volumes. For a steady
state system, the time rate change of exergy is zero. For a control
volume, the exergy destruction is calculated as 5,30
Q 1 T W
T0
Exdestruction = r net + Exstream,in Exstream,out
r r
4
The exergy flow of a stream is the sum of its physical exergy
and chemical exergy. The total exergy flow is calculated as 6
Exstream = Exph + Exch 5
The physical exergy is calculated based on the property data pro-
vided by Aspen Plus. The dead state specified in Aspen Plus is
T0 = 298.15 K and P0 = 1 atm. The chemical exergy for coal is
estimated based on the correlation equation developed by Govin
et al. 31.
For the purpose of evaluating the exergy destruction and effi-
ciency of the large control volumes, the coal-to-fuel systems are
divided into five control columns, including ASU, gasification
gasifier, gas cooling and scrubbing, WGS and gas cleaning, fuel
synthesis, and steam cycle. The following are the steps used for
exergy analysis.
The sum of the work in and out of a control volume is
calculated.
The heat that crosses a control volume and the average tem-
perature related to the heat streams are calculated.
Conservation of mass is verified to confirm that the system
is operating at steady state.
The flow rates that cross a control volume are identified and
calculated.
The specific exergy of each flow crossing a control volume
is calculated.
The energy efficiency for the overall system is calculated as
Efuel + Wnet
= 6
Ecoal
The overall system exergy efficiency is calculated as
Exfuel + Wnet
= 7
Excoal
Based on the above equations, the energy and exergy efficiencies
for each system are calculated.
6 Results and Analysis
The main simulation results are listed in Table 3. Comparing
the single-stage WQ gasifier-based and two-stage SC gasifier-
based systems, for either FT or SNG products, the two-stage SC
gasifier-based systems have higher energy and exergy efficiencies.
The two-stage SC gasifier systems generate a large amount of
high pressure steam by using syngas cooler design to recover the
heat from hot raw syngas. The generated steam is used to generate
more power in the steam turbine. Therefore, as a result of using a
syngas cooler design, the two-stage SC gasifier-based systems
have more power to balance the system power consumption than
single-stage WQ gasifier systems have less high pressure steam
generation, by using the water quench design, it adds moisture
into raw syngas and reduces the high pressure steam extraction
from the steam cycle used for WGS reaction. From a cost perspec-
tive, syngas cooling design generally has higher cost than that of
water quench design because of the cost increase from adding the
boiler. A detailed cost analysis will be conducted in future work.
The water consumption for single-stage WQ gasifier systems for
either FT oil or SNG production is lower than that of two-stage
JUNE 2010, Vol. 132 / 021008-5
 Table 3 Major simulation results for two different gasifiers based coal-to-fuel systems

Coal-to-FT Oil Coal-to-SNG

Single-Stage Two-Stage Single-Stage Two-Stage
WQ Gasifier SC Gasifier WQ Gasifier SC Gasifier

Consumables
Coal feed, as received tons/d 11,400 10,800 11,400 10,800
O2 feed tons/d 8800 7560 8800 7560
Water consumptiona gpm 1890 2230 2100 2780

Power
Steam turbines MW 210 266 182 202
Total parasitic loads MW 210 236 181 187
ASU MW 139 124 139 124
Acid removal MW 8 8 9 8
Other power consumption MW 63 104 34 55
Net power output MW 0 30 0 15

Products
FT oil m3 / h 146 146
SNG m3 / h 164,000 164,000
Energy efficiency LHV; % 43 47 48 52
Exergy efficiency % 41 44 44 48
a
The assumption for water consumption is that no process waste liquid is recovered and reused.

SC gasifier systems. Water quench design reduces the steam needs
by of the WGS process and thus reduces the makeup water con-
sumption.
Comparing the FT oil and SNG cases, the SNG cases for both
of the single-stage WG gasifier and two-stage SC gasifier have
higher energy and exergy efficiencies compared with the FT cases
with the same gasifier. The overall conversion efficiency of SNG
synthesis process in this study is about 99%, which is higher than
that of FT cases, which is only about 90% with the recycle design
in this study. In addition, the pump and compressor power con-
sumption in SNG cases is much lower than that of FT cases. The
main reason is that the process pressure loss in the FT synthesis is
much bigger than that in the SNG synthesis, which leads to higher
power consumption for recycle gas compression of FT cases than
that of SNG cases. Therefore, the SNG cases have higher energy
and exergy efficiency compared with the FT cases.
The exergy analysis was implemented by post-processing the
first law thermodynamic analysis results to assess the performance
of the systems and calculate the exergy efficiency. The purpose of
the exergy analysis is also to identify the key control volumes
with significant exergy destruction and exergy loss in a system.
The two-stage SC gasifier-based coal-to-FT oil system was taken
as an example for the detailed exergy destruction and losses
analysis. The results are depicted in Fig. 2. The component with
the largest exergy destruction across the control volume is the FT
oil synthesis process. The exergy destruction is caused by the
irreversibility of the chemical reactions of FT synthesis. In addi-
tion, the big pressure drop in the product purification of FT oil
also contributes to the exergy decrease in the streams. This part of
exergy destruction would be reduced by developing high pressure
purification processes or optimizing the recycle process design.
The WGS and gas cleaning process is another process with big
exergy destruction, which is caused by the chemical reactions in
the WGS process, in which CO reacts with H2O to produce CO2
and H2, and then the available energy decreases. The exergy de-
struction of this process could possibly be reduced by modifying
the syngas compositions prior to the WGS. For example, if the

Fig. 2 Exergy analysis results of a two-stage SC gasifier-based coal-to-FT

oil system

021008-6 / Vol. 132, JUNE 2010 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/13/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 H2 : CO ratio in raw syngas is closer to the ratio required by the
fuel synthesis, then less syngas would be shifted in WGS, and thus
less exergy will be destructed in this process. The syngas compo-
sition modification can be done by adjusting gasification operation
conditions or using alternative gasification technologies.
Comparing the exergy losses for each control volume, the
steam cycle has the biggest exergy loss, which can be reduced by
optimizing the design of this process, i.e., decreasing the final
stage outlet temperature. The WGS and gas cleaning process has
the second biggest exergy loss. The exergy loss of WGS is caused
by the heat loss in gas cooling, in which syngas from WGS is
cooled to a very low-temperature required by the acid removal
process, and the available energy decreases. This exergy loss
would be probably improved by reducing the temperature drop
between the WGS and acid removal process.
7 Conclusions
The energy and exergy analysis for different gasifier-based
coal-to-FT oil and coal-to-SNG systems provide information of
the performance for gasification based coal-to-fuel systems. This
study also provides insights for decision making about the re-
search and development priorities of the technical improvements
for these technologies. The specific conclusions are as follows.
1. Entrained-flow gasification technologies are effective for the
coal gasification based FT oil and SNG production.
2. The two-stage SC gasifier-based system has the lower coal
feed rate compared with the single-stage WQ gasifier-based
system for the same FT oil yield. In other words, for the
same coal feed rate, the two-stage SC gasifier-based system
would have a higher FT oil production rate. The energy and
exergy analysis results show an advantage for the two-stage
SC gasifier-based systems compared with single-stage WQ
gasifier-based systems in terms of the overall system energy
and exergy efficiencies.
3. Single-stage WQ gasifier-based systems have lower water
consumption than two-stage SC gasifier systems. Comparing
to the WQ design, the SC design increases the consumption
of the boiler feed water for steam generation and thus in-
creases the makeup water consumption of the steam cycle.
4. The SNG system has higher energy and exergy efficiencies
than the FT oil system because of higher conversion effi-
ciency of SNG synthesis, lower power consumption, and
less heat loss for product cooling.
5. Exergy destruction and losses analyses for two-stage SC
gasifier-based coal-to-FT oil system identified that FT syn-
thesis has the biggest exergy destruction, and that the WGS
and gas cleaning processes also contributed significantly to
exergy destruction.
6. Exergy losses analysis showed steam cycle and WGS, and
gas cleaning processes have larger exergy losses than other
processes.
The exergy analysis provides significant insights about which
elements of the system might be good targets for improvement.
The exergy analysis results, combined with energy analysis re-
sults, can be used in support of the conceptual design of coal-to-
fuel plants, and it provides insights about the research and devel-
opment priority for these technologies. To identify the key areas
contributing exergy advantages of different fuel production op-
tions, the exergy analysis should also be implemented to other fuel
production systems. The exergy destruction and exergy loss re-
sults of other coal-to-fuel systems can be compared with those of
the coal-to-FT oil systems to investigate the impacts of different
fuel synthesis processes. Enhancements can also be made by per-
forming the second law analysis to a finer level of details, which
can further clarify the results by identifying key operation units in
a process. The future work also includes combining cost and ex-
Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/13/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
ergy analysis to evaluate the feasibility of technology improve-
ments and determine the advantages of alternative fuel production
options.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial assistance
provided for this study by the Hydrocarbon Initiative program
initiated by Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio. Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory operated for the U.S. Department
of Energy by Battelle Memorial Institute under Contract No. DE-
AC05-76RL01830.
Nomenclature
Exdestruction exergy destruction of a control volume
Exi,j exergy flow of stream i, i = fuel, coal, or
stream, and j = in or out
Ei energy flow of stream i, i = fuel or coal
In inlet
Out outlet
ph physical
ch chemical
Qr heat transfer rate from an energy reservoir r
T0 environment temperature
Tr temperature of heat source r
Wnet net work produced by a control volume
energy efficiency
exergy efficiency
References
1 Rich, J. W., Hoppe, R., Choi, G. N., Hennekes, R. J., Heydenrich, R., Hooper,
M., and Radtke, K., 2003, WMPIWaste Coal to Clean Liquid Fuels, Pro-
ceedings of the Gasification Technologies Conference 2003, San Francisco,
CA, Oct. 1215.
2 Research Reports International, 2006, Commercialization of Coal-to-Liquids
Technology, Research Reports International, Evergreen, CO, p. 41.
3 NETL, 2007, Baseline Technical and Economic Assessment of a Commercial
Scale Fischer-Tropsch Liquids Facility, DOE/NETL-2007/1260, National En-
ergy Technology Laboratory, Morgantown, West Virginia.
4 Rosen, M. A., and Dincer, I., 2003, ExergyCost-Energy-Mass Analysis of
Thermal Systems and Processes, Energy Convers. Manage., 4410, pp.
16331651.
5 Jones, J. B., and Hawkins, G. A., 1986, Engineering Thermodynamics, 2nd
ed., Wiley, New York.
6 Bram, S., and de Ruyck, J., 1997, Exergy Analysis Tools for Aspen Applied
to Evaporative Cycle Design, Energy Convers. Manage., 381517, pp.
16131624.
7 Sengupta, S., Datta, A., and Duttaguta, S., 2007, Exergy Analysis of a Coal-
Based 210 MW Thermal Power Plant, Int. J. Energy Res., 31, pp. 1428.
8 Balli, O., and Aras, H., 2007, Energetic and Exergetic Performance Evalua-
tion of a Combined Heat and Power System With the Micro Gas Turbine
MGTCHP, Int. J. Energy Res., 31, pp. 14251440.
9 Prins, M. J., Ptasinski, K. J., and Janssen, F. J. J. G., 2007, From Coal to
Biomass Gasification: Comparison of Thermodynamic Efficiency, Energy,
32, pp. 12481259.
10 Ola, M., 2005, An Overview of Coal Based Integrated Gasification Combined
Cycle (IGCC) Technology, MIT LFEE 2005-002 WP, September 2005, Mas-
sachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
11 Simbeck, D. R., Dickenson, R. L., and Oliver, E. D., 1983, Coal Gasification
Systems: A Guide to Status, Applications and Economics, Paper No. AP-
3109.
12 Higman, C., and van der Burgt, M., 2003, Gasification, Gulf Professional
Publishing, Amsterdam.
13 Holt, N., 2004, Gasification Process Selection-Trade-Offs and Ironies, Pro-
ceedings of the Gasification Technologies Conference 2004, Washington, DC,
Oct. 36.
14 EPA, 1995, Texaco Gasification Process, EPA 540/R-94/514a, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Research Information,
Cincinnati, OH.
15 Frey, H. C., and Akunuri, N. V., 2001, Probabilistic Modeling and Evaluation
of the Performance, Emissions, and Cost of Texaco Gasifier-Based Integrated
Gasification Combined Cycle Systems Using ASPEN, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC and U.S. Department of Energy, Pittsburgh, PA.
16 NETL, 2000, Texaco Gasifier IGCC Base Cases, PED-IGCC-98-001, National
Energy Technology Laboratory, Process Engineering Division, Morgantown,
West Virginia.
17 Zhu, Y., 2004, Evaluation of Gas Turbine and Gasifier-Based Power Genera-
tion System, Ph.D. thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
JUNE 2010, Vol. 132 / 021008-7
 18 Wimer, J. G., Rutkowski, M. D., Klett, M. G., Schoff, R. L., and Vaysman, V.,
2005, Assessment of Alternative FutureGen Plant Designs, National Energy
Technology Laboratory, Morgantown, West Virginia.
19 NETL, 1998, Destec Gasifier IGCC Base Cases, PED-IGCC-98-003, National
Energy Technology Laboratory, Process Engineering Division, Morgantown,
West Virginia.
20 Allam, R. J., Castle-Smith, H., Smith, A. R., Sorensen, J. C., and Stein, V. E.,
2000, Air Separation Units, Design and Future Development, Proceedings of
the ECOS 2000 Gasification of Coal, Biomass, and Oil, Enschede, The Neth-
erlands, July 57.
21 Hornick, M. J., and McDaniel, J. E., 2002, Tampa Electric Polk Power Station
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle ProjectFinal Technical Report, Of-
fice of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Morgantown,
West Virginia.
22 Frey, H. C., and Zhu, Y., 2006, Improved System Integration for Integrated
Gasification Combined Cycle IGCC Systems, Environ. Sci. Technol.,
405, pp. 16931699.
23 Weiss, H., 1988, Rectisol Wash for Purification of Partial Oxidation Gases,
Gas Sep. Purif., 2, pp. 171176.
24 Polasek, J. C., and Bullen, J. A., 1993, Effect of Sulfur Recovery Require-
ments on Optimization of Integrated Sweetening, Sulfur Recovery and Tailgas
Cleanup Units, Proceedings of the 72nd GPA Annual Convention, Gas Pro-
021008-8 / Vol. 132, JUNE 2010
Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/13/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
cessors Association, Bryan Research and Engineering Research Papers.
25 Kaneko, T., Derbyshire, F., Makino, E., Gray, D., and Tamura, M., 2005, Coal
Liquefaction, Ullmanns Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, 7th ed., Wiley,
New York, Vol. 8.
26 Bechtel, Inc., 1998, Baseline Design/Economics for Advanced Fischer-Tropsch
Technology, Report No. DE-AC2291PC90027, Federal Energy Technology
Center, Pittsburgh, PA.
27 Drbal, L. F., Boston, P. G., Westra, K. L., and Erickson, R. B., 1996, Power
Plant Engineering, Kluwer, Norwell, MA.
28 Aspen Technology, Inc., 2004, Aspen Plus 2004 User Manual, Aspen Technol-
ogy, Inc., Cambridge, MA.
29 Tijmensen, M., Faaija, A., Hamelinck, C., and van Hardeveld, M., 2002, Ex-
ploration of the Possibilities for Production of Fischer Tropsch Liquids and
Power via Biomass Gasification, Biomass Bioenergy, 23, pp. 129152.
30 Shukuya, M., and Hammache, A., 2002, Introduction to the Concept of
ExergyFor a Better Understanding of Low-Temperature-Heating and High-
Temperature-Cooling Systems, http://www.lowex.net/downloads/
Introduction%20to%e0t%20of%20exergy.pdf
31 Govin, O. V., Diky, V. V., Kabo, G. J., and Blokhin, A. V., 2000, Evaluation
of the Chemical Exergy of Fuels and Petroleum Fractions, J. Therm Anal.
Calorim., 62, pp. 123133.
Transactions of the ASME