Combining gasification with fuel-cell technology could boost efficiency of coal-powered plants

From MIT:
CAMBRIDGE, MA — Most of the world’s nations have agreed to make substantial reductions in their greenhouse gas emissions, but achieving these goals is still a considerable technological, economic, and political challenge. The International Energy Agency has projected that, even with the new agreements in place, global coal-fired power generation will increase over the next few decades. Finding a cleaner way of using that coal could be a significant step toward achieving carbon-emissions reductions while meeting the needs of a growing and increasingly industrialized world population.
Now, researchers at MIT have come up with a plan that could contribute to that effort by making it possible to generate electricity from coal with much greater efficiency — possibly reaching as much as twice the fuel-to-electricity efficiency of today’s conventional coal plants. This would mean, all things being equal, a 50 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions for a given amount of power produced.
The concept, proposed by MIT doctoral student Katherine Ong and Ronald C. Crane (1972) Professor Ahmed Ghoniem, is described in their paper in the Journal of Power Sources. The key is combining into a single system two well-known technologies: coal gasification and fuel cells.
Coal gasification is a way of extracting burnable gaseous fuel from pulverized coal, rather than burning the coal itself. The technique is widely used in chemical processing plants as a way of producing hydrogen gas. Fuel cells produce electricity from a gaseous fuel by passing it through a battery-like system where the fuel reacts electrochemically with oxygen from the air.
The attraction of combining these two systems, Ong explains, is that both processes operate at similarly high temperatures of 800 degrees Celsius or more. Combining them in a single plant would thus allow the two components to exchange heat with minimal energy losses. In fact, the fuel cell would generate enough heat to sustain the gasification part of the process, she says, eliminating the need for a separate heating system, which is usually provided by burning a portion of the coal.
Coal gasification, by itself, works at a lower temperature than combustion and “is more efficient than burning,” Ong says. First, the coal is pulverized to a powder, which is then heated in a flow of hot steam, somewhat like popcorn kernels heated in an air-popper. The heat leads to chemical reactions that release gases from the coal particles — mainly carbon monoxide and hydrogen, both of which can produce electricity in a solid oxide fuel cell.
In the combined system, these gases would then be piped from the gasifier to a separate fuel cell stack, or ultimately, the fuel cell system could be installed in the same chamber as the gasifier so that the hot gas flows straight into the cell. In the fuel cell, a membrane separates the carbon monoxide and hydrogen from the oxygen, promoting an electrochemical reaction that generates electricity without burning the fuel.
Because there is no burning involved, the system produces less ash and other air pollutants than would be generated by combustion. It does produce carbon dioxide, but this is in a pure, uncontaminated stream and not mixed with air as in a conventional coal-burning plant. That would make it much easier to carry out carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) — that is, capturing the output gas and burying it underground or disposing of it some other way — to eliminate or drastically reduce the greenhouse gas emissions. In conventional plants, nitrogen from the air must be removed from the stream of gas in order to carry out CCS.
One of the big questions answered by this new research, which used simulations rather than lab experiments, was whether the process would work more efficiently using steam or carbon dioxide to react with the particles of coal. Both methods have been widely used, but most previous attempts to study gasification in combination with fuel cells chose the carbon dioxide option. This new study demonstrates that the system produces two to three times as much power output when steam is used instead.
Conventional coal-burning power plants typically have very low efficiency; only 30 percent of the energy contained in the fuel is actually converted to electricity. In comparison, the proposed combined gasification and fuel cell system could achieve efficiencies as high as 55 to 60 percent, Ong says, according to the simulations.
The next step would be to build a small, pilot-scale plant to measure the performance of the hybrid system in real-world conditions, Ong says. Because the individual component technologies are all well developed, a full-scale operational system could plausibly be built within a few years, she says. “This system requires no new technologies” that need more time to develop, she says. “It’s just a matter of coupling these existing technologies together well.”
The system would be more expensive than existing plants, she says, but the initial capital investment could be paid off within several years due to the system’s state-of-the-art efficiency. And given the importance of reducing emissions, that initial capital expense may be easy to justify, especially if new fees are attached to the carbon dioxide emitted by fossil fuels.
“If we’re going to cut down on carbon dioxide emissions in the near term, the only way to realistically do that is to increase the efficiency of our fossil fuel plants,” she says.
###
To produce power comparable to a moderate-sized US power plant (500 MW) from hydrogen-oxygen fuel cells with individual voltage outputs of 1.23 volts will require enough cells to generate 400,000,000 no-load amps. Under load, the output of such a fuel cell drops to between 0.5 and 0.8 volts, so the actual capacity of the plant would have to be 1 billion amps. That’s the equivalent of several THOUSAND lightning bolts of current – continuously.
That’s also a LOT of metal-oxide catalyst for the operation of the fuel cells, the mining of which has its own negative environmental impacts. http://www.news.com.au/travel/world-travel/asia/baotou-is-the-worlds-biggest-supplier-of-rare-earth-minerals-and-its-hell-on-earth/news-story/371376b9893492cfc77d23744ca12bc5
Furthermore, the direct current (DC) would have to be converted to alternating current (AC) for transmission. This ‘inversion’ of DC to AC loses about 10% of the power.
And don’t forget the cost and energy to produce pure oxygen for the input.
Maybe the could pump that deadly dangerous CO2 into something like, oh I don’t know a greenhouse for plant food because CO2 IS NOT A HAZARDOUS MATERIAL.
And don’t fuel cells generate DC? So all we then need is place for the CO2, a place to put the ash, a ginormous inverter, and we are back to coyote and road runner status. Is this Powerplant going to made by ACME?
If the process can be demonstrated, it will work scaled up. It may require more experimentation and problem solving, but it will work. I’ve always been a believer in R&D. In a talk about 30 years ago, I supported this by noting that IBM had a bigger research budget at the time than the entire country of Canada’s combined R&D. My thought was companies like that didn’t do stuff that didn’t have a reasonable probability of becoming profitable. Detractors on gasification/fuel cell experience notwithstanding, if it can be shown to work on the bench, it will work eventually at full scale. They’ve already demonstrated gasification long ago – it will be done.
I was a chokerman in B.C. logging camps in 1957-58 and listened to arguments about going to the moon and the like – all but me believing it could not be done. I remarked that the hard part was counteracting gravity to get into orbit but it had been done for Sputnik which was only the beginning. I was branded a bit of a nut, but I recall being deadly certain it would be done.
I have no experience in logging camps, but I worked on the design of two coal gasification plants. It is absolutely false that every process can be scaled up from lab size to industrial size. And all this is to reduce CO2 “emissions.” Fuel cell input with coal gasifier output? It’s ridiculous and will only happen if the price of petroleum is forced up by carbon taxes and similar Fascist nonsense. Remember, this kludge comes from MIT, home of the Climate Roulette Wheel:
http://news.mit.edu/sites/mit.edu.newsoffice/files/styles/news_article_image_top_slideshow/public/images/2009/200908311113506360_0.jpg?itok=OiSXfou7
A simple question. How is the steam produced?
From the waste heat of the fuel cell (800C)
Effective coal gasification requires temperatures of about 800C. Since there could never be 100% conduction of heat between the fuel cell to the gasifer, the losses would mean there isn’t enough heat from the fuel cell reaching the coal to effectively gasify it. This leads to less gas to react in the fuel cell which in turn means a lower temperature in the fuel cell. Repeat cycle a few times and the entire process grinds to a halt. That is unless you have an external source for the high temperature steam. But then if you had that, you wouldn’t need to gasify coal.
RACookPE1978 says:
April 6, 2016 at 9:37 am
So most coal-burning gas turbine plans require gasifying the coal first (before burning) to prevent all particles from being burned and hitting the turbine blades and to clean those gasses (to meet poluttion spec’s and prevent slag deposits.) There are several proposals including ceramic-lined high-pressure fluidized reactors, re-circulating burners and condensors of the coal-air-dust mix, etc.)
I am just an ol’ texas boy, but how do the particles from the fired system transfer through the tubes to the steam portion to hit the blades? Please clarify. thank you
Tom in Texas:
You ask
The particulates need to be removed from the gas or they will damage the gas turbine. This can be achieved by use of Foseco candle filters which I invented for cleaning combustion product gas prior to its use in the gas tubines of PFBC power statioins.
Richard
The problem with candles, correct me if I’m wrong, is that they tend to break.
If I’m wrong, please point me to some data… as I’d be interested.
Dave Kelly:
You say
Yes, solid but porous ceramic candles are brittle and if a single candle in a bank breaks then most (yes, most) of the gas flows through the broken candle so bypasses the filtration. The brittleness results in candle failures because a flaw in the material propagates as a crack through the structure of a candle when reverse pulsing is applied to remove filter cake.
It was to overcome this problem that I developed the Foseco candle filters which we at the UK’s Coal Research Establishment (CRE) repeatedly tested at full scale in attempts to induce damage to them. The developed Foseco candle filters sacrifice strength to provide toughness.
They consist of ceramic fibers with an addition of high temperature cement as a binder. Extra cement is concentrated at the outer surface by filtering cement particles from suspension in a fluid. The structure is then fired to become a candle filter. Flaws don’t propagate as cracks through this structure: a flaw results in a joint between two fibers failing.
The main problem in developing these candle filters was that there is no clear demarcation of a candle’s filtration surface and, therefore, reverse pulsing blasted zones of the candle material away with filter cake. This was overcome by increasing the concentration of the binder cement in the surface zone.
The performance of these filters is known to Foseco and to UK government. I don’t know if this information was ever published in the public domain but I suppose Foseco would provide it to potential purchasers. As an ex-employee of CRE I am not at liberty to provide it (I need to keep my pension), but I know we didn’t manage to fail the developed Foseco candle filters exposed to real conditions and we demonstrated that flaws would not propagate as cracks through their structure.
Richard
Interesting they note that assessing additional fees on the CO2 produced would be necessary to make it cost competitive with other means for producing energy.
I like the idea of combining gasification with fuel-cell technology which could could boost the efficiency of coal-powered plants. It is always worthwhile working on increased efficiency and reduced costs. The only downside could be that the reduction in emission of CO2 could adversely impact on future plant growth and crop yields.
Why do you like the idea again? Inexperienced grad students have an idea. Experienced engineers explain that it is not worth while.
I have some land in Florida that you may think is a good idea. How about some solar panels for your roof..
For those interested in coal gasification for electricity generation I would recommend a visit to the Powerhouse Museum in the Queensland outback town of Longreach. For 65 years from 1922 it provided power. Coal was burned to heat larger quantities of coal, thus driving off gas to power modified marine diesel engines which turned the generators. Why not use boilers? The local bore water is so hard that scaling is not controllable. The museum is staffed by volunteers.
A lot of engineers have commented on this thread. The intellectual focus on WUWT is astounding.
Me? I’m just absorbing it all.
“Thorium LFTR’s are cheap.”
The verb ‘are’ infers that such plants have been built as commercial reactors. Sorry your paper reactor is a figment of your imagination.
Of course all steam plants are expensive to build. Going on the cheap is a good way to have a pile of scrap metal in a few years.
“The design is rubbish…”
Really! So JohnMarshall is an expert on reactor design and has worked on the EPR.
Oh wait I am an expert on the EPR as well as other designs of PWRs and BWRs. I have yet to find a bad design. I think of several examples of where the one group of people took the same design and executed the construction well and another group had an epic failure. From personal experience, the former is a source of great job satisfaction and the latter is a source of great frustration.
“If we’re going to cut down on carbon dioxide emissions in the near term, the only way to realistically do that is to increase the efficiency of our fossil fuel plants.” –MIT doctoral student Katherine Ong
Right on the money! And it comes from a student at MIT, of all places. I just wish more college students could think well enough to draw similar conclusions instead of just accepting and regurgitating the propaganda they have been taught.
That assumes existing plants are not already efficient.