319

8
Exergetic Process Assessment

8.1
Exergy Calculations

In the logical next step of gasication process evaluation, attention is shifted from
the chemical efciency parameters to assessing the thermochemical efciency by
means of an exergetic analysis. Hence, different raw gas cooling methods, gasify-
ing agent consumption, and auxiliary consumptions will determine the results.
An exergetic analysis combines the chemical properties of the streams with their
thermomechanical state (e.g., temperature, pressure, moisture), which will be
described in detail in Section 8.1. Because the gas cooling method applied will
alter the thermomechanical state and can sometimes even change the chemical
properties (e.g., chemical quench), there is obviously a high impact on gasier
efciency. Consequently, it is instructive to understand stream changes during
gas cooling before judging the overall system.

8.1.1
Exergy and Reference Environment

Detailed information on exergy calculations is provided in the literature [1]. In

the present investigation, simplied expressions and environmental conditions
are used to evaluate the gasication systems on a solid engineering basis. There-
fore, the state of the environment is set to 0 25 C and 1013.25 hPa. All water
is assumed to be in the liquid state, neglecting the partial pressure at 25 C. The
dry atmosphere is set to 78.1 vol% N2, 21.0 vol% O2, and 0.9 vol% Ar to deter-
mine the minimum reversible separation energy. All chemical exergies of sub-
stances containing carbon, sulfur, and nitrogen are assumed to be in inhibited
equilibrium with the environment in their oxidized state (CO2, SO2, NO). The
exergetic analysis is carried out in order to assess the following:

 The efciency of the reaction chamber

 The efciency of the whole gasication system
 Losses during the gas cooling

Industrial Coal Gasication Technologies Covering Baseline and High-Ash Coal, First Edition.
Martin Grbner.
2015 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. Published 2015 by Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA.
320 8 Exergetic Process Assessment

Hence, the exergetic process efciency ex in percent, which is interpreted in the

sense of a degree of quality, is calculated from the sum of the exergy ows (E i in
MW) passing the boundary of the system that are assigned to be an effort or
benet:
P
E_ benefit
ex P  100%: (8.1)
E_ effort

Exergy ows are identical to power in the case of the change of potential, kinetic,
or electric energies. To evaluate the ow i of a uid mixture, specic exergies ei
in kJ/kg for every mass ow m _ i in kg/s must be calculated.

E_ i ei ? m
_ i: (8.2)

A distinction can be made between thermomechanical exergy ei;tm due to tem-

perature and pressure, chemical exergy ei;chem due to the reaction potential com-
pared to the pure environmental components, and concentration exergy ei;conc
due to composition differences with the environment [1].

ei ei;tm ei;chem ei;conc : (8.3)

The last term in Equation (8.3) is not applied for most of the evaluated streams,
as the concentration potential is not usable. However, the concentration exergy
represents the minimal necessary reversible separation energy for the concen-
trated oxygen (in gasifying agents) and nitrogen ows (e.g., for dry feeding) from
the air separation unit. Therefore, it is included in these streams.

8.1.2
Exergy of Gaseous and Liquid Streams

The specic exergy of gaseous and liquid streams is calculated on a molar basis
taking the molar ow ni in kmol/s into account:
 
E_ i ei;n;tm ei;n;chem ei;n;conc ? n_ i : (8.4)

Using the molar fraction of water xH2 O , the thermomechanical exergy is split
into the dry gas exergy ei;n;tm;dry and moisture exergy ei;n;tm;H2 O both in kJ/kmol,
the latter referring to the condensed state of water.
 
ei;n;tm 1 xH2 O ? ei;n;tm;dry xH2 O ? ei;n;tm;H2 O : (8.5)

As shown in Equation (8.6), the dry exergy is calculated with regard to the mean
T
specic molar heat capacity of the dry gas mix cpm;i jT i0 in kJ/(kmol
K) for the
enthalpy calculation and temperature T i in K. In the entropy expression, the dry
partial pressure pdry;i 1 xH2 O ? pi and reference pressure p0 , both in the
 8.1 Exergy Calculations 321

same unit, are used, where R represents the universal gas constant (8.314462 kJ/
(kmol
K)).
    
T T Ti pdry;i
ei;n;tm;dry cpm;i jT i0 ? T i T 0 T 0 ? cpm;i jT i0 ? ln R ? ln :
T0 p0
|{z}
enthalpy term
|{z}
entropy term

(8.6)

T
The mean specic molar heat capacity of the dry gas mix cpm;i jT i0 can be easily
calculated or extracted as a stream property from a process simulator, for exam-
ple, Aspen Plus [2]. The moisture exergy ei;n;tm;H2 O must include the complete
condensation of any water vapor. Although the specic enthalpy h0 1890:3 kJ/
kmol and entropy s0 6:616 kJ/(kmol
K) of the reference water are xed, the
enthalpy hi in kJ/kmol and entropy si in kJ/(kmol
K) are computed applying the
IAPWS-IF97 formulation for the gas temperature and partial H2O pressure.

ei;n;tm;H2 O hi h0 T 0 ? si s0 : (8.7)

Equation (8.7) is also used to determine the exergy of all boiler feed water or
steam ows.
As already indicated, the thermomechanical and the concentration exergy are
computed for oxygen- and nitrogen-enriched ows, reecting the separation
effort, which is suitable to compare oxygen-blown gasiers. The combined cal-
culation of ei;n;tm and ei;n;conc is shown in Equation (8.8) [1]. In the following
equation, xj and pi;j are the molar fraction and the partial pressure of the compo-
nent j and pj;air;0 stands for the partial pressure for the same component in air
referring to the reference environment.
  !!
Ti Ti Ti X pi;j
ei;n;tmconc cpm;i jT 0 ? T i T 0 T 0 ? cpm;i jT 0 ? ln R? xj ln :
T0 j
pj;air;0
(8.8)

The chemical exergy of the gas mixture is calculated using a simplied equation
neglecting mixing exergies occurring during the reactions. Because this portion
is very small in comparison to the reaction exergy (0.10.7%), an approxima-
tion using the mean value of the reaction exergies ej;R in kJ/mol is justied.
X
ei;n;chem  xj ? ej;R : (8.9)
j

The specic molar reaction exergies are calculated for the pure components j
according to the reference environment as described earlier (see Section 8.1.1)
assuming that energy is released through stoichiometric oxidation with air at
reference conditions, see Equation (8.10). The molar higher heating value
322 8 Exergetic Process Assessment

Table 8.1 Molar standard entropies in kJ/(kmol
K) at T 0 298:15 K and p0 1013:25hPa [3].

j sj j sj j sj j sj

CO 197.552 H2 130.571 NH3 192.669 C6H6 173.259

CO2 213.661 H2O 69.950 HCN 201.711 SO2 248.112
CH4 186.105 H2S 205.644 N2 191.500 Ar 154.736
COS 231.472 O2 205.038 NO 210.652 Air 198.694

HHVn;j in kJ/kmol and the molar standard entropies of the component sj , of the
dry reference air sair;0 , and of the reaction products sk (all in kJ/(kmol
K)) are
necessary for the calculation.
!
X
ej;R HHVn;j T0 ? sj l1 ? sair;0 
vk ? sk : (8.10)
k

All necessary molar entropies, which are presented in Table 8.1, were taken from
the literature [3] and all gaseous components must be corrected to match the
reference pressure. The specic molar production of a reaction product pertain-
ing to the pure gas component is represented by vk (e.g., kmol(CO2)/kmol(j)).
The molar stoichiometric air demand l1 in kmol(air)/kmol(j) is multiplied with
the dry reference air sair;0 entropy, which is calculated by the following equation,
where i N2 ; O2 ; Ar:
X X  
1
sair;0 xi ? si R ? xi ? ln : (8.11)
i i
x i

The results of the evaluation and reactions investigated to convert the pure com-
ponents into the reference components are shown in Table 8.2.

Table 8.2 Reactions, molar heating values, and molar reaction exergies of the pure compo-
nents j in kJ/kmol.

j Reaction HHVj (kJ/mol) ej;R (kJ/mol)

CO CO 0:5O2 ! CO2 282 980 253 893.1

H2 H2 0:5O2 ! H2 O 285 830 233 866.2
CH4 CH4 2O2 ! 2H2 O CO2 890 630 804 997.7
H2S H2 S 1:5O2 ! H2 O SO2 562 010 493 858.0
COS COS 1:5O2 ! CO2 SO2 548 230 515 224.6
NH3 NH3 1:25O2 ! 1:5H2 O N 382 810 334 730.5
HCN HCN 1:75O2 ! 0:5H2 O CO2 NO 671 500 629 682.1
C6H6 C6 H6 7:5O2 ! 3H2 O 6CO2 3 301 430 3 186 209.6
C C O2 ! CO2 393 961 388 172.7
 8.1 Exergy Calculations 323

8.1.3
Exergy of Solid Streams

To determine the exergy of a solid, it is reasonable to use a mass basis because

streams such as coal or ash might not have any clearly dened molar structure.
Hence, Equations (8.2) and (8.3) can be applied. The thermomechanical exergy is
determined only depending on the temperature, as shown in Equation (8.12).
 
Ti Ti Ti
ei;tm cm;i jT 0 ? T i T 0 T 0 ? cm;i jT 0 ? ln : (8.12)
T0

For all dry solid ows, the mean specic heat capacity cm;i in kJ/(kg
K) is calcu-
lated based on coal enthalpy model HCOALGEN as implemented, for exam-
ple, in Aspen Plus [2], which features a linear dependency from temperature i
(in C):
T
cm;i jT i0 cm;0 i ? cm ;
kJ
cm;0 0:76095 ; (8.13)
kg ? K
kJ
cm 2:9308  10 4
:
kg ? K2

The exact chemical exergy can only be determined for pure carbon (graphite), as
shown in Table 8.2. For the coal-feed streams, an approximation equation was
used in line with literature [4], Equation (8.14), where HHVi is to be provided in
MJ/kg, yielding the same unit for the chemical exergy.

ei;chem 1:007 ? HHVi 0:155: (8.14)

8.1.4
Denition of Efforts and Benets

Exergy is balanced in the three zones (gasier balance, cooling balance, overall
balance) indicated in Figure 8.1. The benet is always dened as the thermome-
chanical and chemical exergy ow of the product gas plus additional exergy
ows due to steam production (E_ steam E_ BFW ). All recycled streams were sub-
tracted from the benet. All other streams were put by denition in the denomi-
nator (effort) of Equation (8.1). Every preheated stream is treated in the hot
state. The electric energy demand for coal milling and transporting it is
assumed further drying is not necessary is given by the literature [5] as
26 kWh/t coal for an average grain size of 90 m and 13 kWh/t for an average
grain size of 1 mm. In the gas cooling section, only the recycle gas compressor
for the Shell cold gas quench consumes noticeable electricity.
324 8 Exergetic Process Assessment

Figure 8.1 Scheme of exergy balancing (BFWboiler feed water).

8.2
Exergetic Analysis

8.2.1
Impact of Gas Cooling Methods

Because the gas cooling method applied alters the exergy of the product gas sig-
nicantly, there is obviously a high impact on gasier efciency. Consequently, it
is instructive to understand changes during gas cooling before looking at the
overall system balance. Figure 8.2ae presents ve different gas cooling methods
as applied in the gasication systems analyzed. The following explanation refers
to the parts of Figure 8.2:

a) Gas cooling by water evaporating into the gas, the so-called full water
quench, is applied in the Siemens system and causes the highest exergy
losses ( 5.1 % total, 37.7% thermomechanical) but saturates the raw gas
with steam, which might be useful for downstream processes. The change
in chemical exergy ow ( 0.16 %) due to the quench conversion is
negligible.
b) If the hot gas comes into contact with carbon given the presence of H2O
and/or CO2 endothermic reactions such as the Boudouard reaction (4.6)
or the heterogeneous water-gas shift (4.7) allow thermomechanical exergy
to be converted into chemical exergy. A chemical quench of this type, fol-
lowed by a convective syngas cooler, is applied in the standard E-Gas gasi-
er. Coal serves as a source of carbon and additional chemical exergy, and
is fed into the hot raw gas ow according to the slurry split (approximately
25%). The residual thermomechanical exergy is recovered by generating
steam in a convective syngas cooler limited by the gas dew point.
 8.2 Exergetic Analysis 325

500 500
Sticky ash zone +79 MW chemical exergy

Exergy flow (MW)

Exergy flow (MW)

23 MW quench loss 27 MW
400 recovered 400

Full water quench

300 300
ChQ CSC

200 200
1500 1250 1000 750 500 250 1500 1250 1000 750 500 250
(a) (b)
500 500

Exergy flow (MW)

Exergy flow (MW)

34 MW
29 MW +23 MW Recyle
400 recovered 400
recovered gas & com-
pressor exergy

300 300
1)
RSC PWQ CGQ CSC

200 200
1500 1250 1000 750 500 250 1500 1250 1000 750 500 250
(c) (d) Temperature (C)

500
Thermomechanical exergy
34 + 12 MW Chemical exergy
Exergy flow (MW)

recovered Additional effort for cooling (compression,

400 pumping, quench water preheating, etc.)
Steam cycle exergy extraction

300 2)
RSC CSC

200
1500 1250 1000 750 500 250
Temperature (C)
(e)

Figure 8.2 Exergetic analysis of different gas
cooling methods for 500 MW Pittsburgh No. 8
(Pitt#8) coal entrained-ow gasiers: (a) full
water quench (Siemens), (b) chemical quench
(E-Gas), (c) radiant cooler followed by partial
water quench (GE-R), (d) cold gas quench
(Shell), (e) radiant and convective syngas
cooler (GE-RC) (CGQ Cold gas quench,
ChQ Chemical quench, PWQ Partial water
quench, CSC Convective syngas cooler,
RSC Radiant syngas cooler, 1) cooling to
810 C, 2) cooling to 700 C) (with permission
from Ref. [9]. Copyright 2014, Elsevier).

c) A radiant syngas cooler followed by a partial water quench is identical to

the GE-R design and facilitates partial heat recovery by means of steam
production. Because heat exchanger surface fouling occurs, the tempera-
ture at the entrance of the water quench should not fall below 810 C [6]
and 32.5% of the thermomechanical exergy ow is recovered.
d) A cold gas quench features the recycling of cooled syngas, which is mixed
into the hot raw gas. An additional thermomechanical exergy ow for recy-
cling and mixing is fed via gas compression. The exergy loss due to gas
mixing is 1.3% ( 7.2 % thermomechanical). Downstream, a convective
326 8 Exergetic Process Assessment

syngas cooler recovers 41.1% of the thermomechanical exergy ow at two

pressure levels.
e) If the partial water quench from (c) is replaced by a convective syngas
cooler, 51.6% of the thermomechanical exergy ow can be recovered. At
integrated gasication combined cycle (IGCC) power plants, radiant syngas
cooler outlet temperatures of 700 C have been applied [7]. The cold gas
exit temperature is limited by the dew point, which is high due to the water
from the slurry feeding.

Except in the case of chemical quenching (E-Gas), the gas cooling inuences
the chemical exergy only marginally, for example, by quench conversion. The
residual thermomechanical exergy ow is mainly a result of the latent heat due
to gas moisture and, secondarily due to elevated pressure and temperature,
which is determined by the gas dew point. However, in practice, all convective
syngas coolers display fouling problems that reduce plant availability [8].
Whether or not the efciency gain and steam production (e.g., as moderator)
can offset the reliability problems is an economic decision.

8.2.2
Comparison of Gasication Systems

8.2.2.1 Exergy Flow Analysis

The exergetic analysis allows both gasication products (gas, steam) and specic
consumption numbers of very different types (coal, oxygen, moderator steam,
auxiliary) to be combined on one unied scale. Because the effort and the bene-
ts of the different processes vary independently, the exergy ows in MW are
shown in Figure 8.3 before the efciencies are calculated. Hence, a comprehen-
sive comparison of all systems and coals is possible. Figure 8.3 shows the exer-
getic benet (upper bar) and effort (lower bar) for each gasier; the two bars end
at different graduation. A distinction between the types of exergy is only made
for the product gas (chemical vs. thermomechanical). For all other streams, one
exergy type is always predominant, so that distinguishing is not necessary.
When Figure 8.3 is analyzed, the following ndings can be made:

 The coal exergy ow, calculated on an higher heating value (HHV) basis, is
constant (525.7 MW) and clearly dominates the input stream. Most of the
exergy is conserved in the gas phase, as can be seen from the respective val-
ues of gas chemical exergy ow, which reect the cold gas efciency to a
certain extent.
 The oxygen consumption is the highest for slurry-feed GE gasication and
the lowest for the uid-bed systems. Dry-feed entrained-ow systems and
the E-Gas gasier achieve values between these extremes. The oxygen con-
sumption level for South African (SAf) coal is elevated compared to Pitts-
burgh No. 8 (Pitt#8) coal.
 8.2 Exergetic Analysis 327

Exergy flow (MW) Exergy flow (MW)

250 300 350 400 450 520 530 540 550 560 250 300 350 400 450 520 530 540 550 560

GE-RC GE-RC

Pitt#8 standard systems

SAf standard systems

GE-R GE-R

GE-Q GE-Q

HTW HTW

E-Gas E-Gas

Shell Shell

Siemens Siemens

GE-RC GE-RC
Pitt#8 new concepts
GE-R GE-R

SAf new concepts

GE-Q GE-Q

INCI INCI

E-Gas E-Gas

Shell Shell

Siemens Siemens

250 300 350 400 450 520 530 540 550 560 250 300 350 400 450 520 530 540 550 560
Exergy flow (MW) Exergy flow (MW)
Exergy benefits: Gas chemical & thermomechanical Steam
Exergy efforts: Coal Oxygen Steam Auxiliaries

Figure 8.3 Exergetic overview of all cases investigated (HTW high-temperature Winkler, INCI
internal circulation gasier, Pitt#8 Pittsburgh No. 8 coal, SAf South African coal) (with permis-
sion from Ref. [9]. Copyright 2014, Elsevier).

 All non-slurry systems require moderator steam to process Pitt#8 coal; this
applies to all new concepts. For SAf coal, mineral matter moderates the tem-
perature to some extent. Consequently, only the uid-bed systems require
steam as a gasifying agent. Only for the standard Siemens, new Shell, and
new GE-Q congurations is there any question as to whether the moderator
steam demand can be covered by the internal steam production during
gasication.
 The auxiliary consumptions include compressor loads, coal milling and con-
veying consumption, quench water preheat and pressurization, pilot fuels,
and injected purge gases. In all standard GE systems, the auxiliary exergy
ow increases in proportion to the quench water demand. For SAf coal, the
general level is higher due to the elevated raw gas mass ow. The high-tem-
perature Winkler (HTW) system and internal circulation uidized bed
(INCI) concept show the lowest auxiliary consumption due to the moderate
gas cooling effort and, in the case of HTW, the lower coal grinding required.
For all E-Gas systems, the gas cooling efforts are similar, but a recycle gas
328 8 Exergetic Process Assessment

compressor is needed, which increases the auxiliary load. The recycle gas
compressor featured in the standard Shell system consumes less exergy than
necessary for the quench water preheat and pressurization used in the new
concept. The Siemens systems display the highest auxiliary demand due to a
high quench water demand and additional pilot burner fuel, which increases
for the lower-grade feedstock.
 Regarding steam generation, the standard GE-RC design features the highest
steam production, while the GE-Q design provides no steam at all. The stan-
dard Siemens systems and the new concepts from Shell also raise little
steam either directly or indirectly from the membrane wall. In general, the
steam production is higher in the case of the SAf coal due to the higher
mass ows (inert material, oxygen) needed for constant thermal capacity
and a higher gasication temperature.
 The residual thermomechanical exergy ow of the product gas is dominated
by its H2O content, which is strongly dependent on the gas cooling method
(compare to Figure 8.2). The different GE cases reveal that the amount of
thermomechanical exergy ow remains nearly constant if the gas is added
to the steam raised. Hence, the utilization of the gas determines whether it
is benecial or not for the raw gas to have a high moisture exergy; in this
study it is treated as benecial (e.g., for CO shift conversion).

8.2.2.2 Exergetic Process Efciency

When the benet is related to the effort, it is possible to determine the exergetic
process efciency in the sense of a degree of quality (for details Section 8.1). As a
demonstration of the inuence of the gas cooling method on the overall exergy
balance, Figure 8.4 shows the exergetic process efciency of the reaction cham-
ber (gasier balance) versus the total system efciency (overall balance of gasier
and raw gas cooling). The development from the traditional systems to the new
concepts is indicated by arrows, which are parallel to the x-axis if only the gas
cooling is changed. If the arrows are parallel to the diagonal, the gas cooling
remained the same, but the gasier itself was altered.
Figure 8.4 reveals that of the standard systems, the E-Gas and Shell systems
exhibit the highest exergetic efciency. The standard Siemens technology drops
behind them due to the full water quench and the pilot fuel demand. However,
the Siemens gasier offers the highest efciency among the standard systems in
the case of the SAf coal, while the E-Gas gasier experiences the disadvantages
of slurry feeding. For clarity, only the GE-R conguration is displayed; here the
GE-Q conguration is in average 0.8%pts. lower than that of GE-R and the GE-
RC conguration is +1.2%pts. higher. Apart from the Shell full water-quench
concept, all new concepts are moving toward higher exergetic efciencies. As
can be derived from the direction of the arrows, only the gas cooling is changed
in the case of Siemens, whereas all the other cases feature changes to the gasi-
cation principles and the gas cooling stays untouched. The new concepts of GE,
E-Gas and INCI, have the potential to exceed 80% exergetic process efciency
 8.3 Conclusions of Process Assessment 329

85 85
Pitt#8 SAf

ex,G (Gasifier) (%)

80 80
ex,G (Gasifier) (%)

75 75
Standard Advanced Standard Advanced
Siemens Siemens
Shell Shell
E-Gas E-Gas
70 HTW/ICFB HTW/ICFB 70
GE-R GE-R

70 75 80 85 70 75 80 85
ex,S (Gasifier + Raw Gas Cooling) (%) ex,S (Gasifier + Raw Gas Cooling) (%)

Figure 8.4 Change in the exergetic process 8 (Pitt#8) and South African (SAf) coal (HTW
efciency of the gasier and of the gasier high-temperature Winkler, INCI internal cir-
including raw gas cooling, comparing stan- culation gasier) (with permission from
dard and advanced design for Pittsburgh No. Ref. [9]. Copyright 2014, Elsevier).

for Pitt#8 coal. However, in the case of SAf coal, only the INCI uid-bed
approach might hold the potential to exceed 80% considerably.

8.3
Conclusions of Process Assessment

The comprehensive thermodynamic and exergetic analyses of all the processes

modeled lead to the following conclusions for the individual technologies, which
must be interpreted with respect to the boundary conditions and modeling limi-
tations as described in Sections 5.6.3 and 5.6.4:

1) The Siemens gasier shows the highest syngas yield of all the standard
technologies for various coals and ash contents. It has also the highest
cold gas efciency among the standard systems, only slightly exceeded by
the HTW at 45 wt%(wf) ash. The exergetic process efciency can be
improved by +1.3 to +1.5%-pts. replacing the full water quench with par-
tial heat recovery as intended in the advanced concept. The main barrier to
higher exergetic process efciencies is the application of a pilot fuel.
2) The standard Shell gasier shows the highest exergetic process efciency
of all standard single-stage systems for Pitt#8 coal. Because of a higher
heat loss from the reaction zone, the cold gas efciency and syngas yield
are slightly lower than in the standard Siemens systems. The new simpli-
ed reaction chamber with full water quench shows the potential to exceed
all Siemens designs as long as no pilot fuel is required, especially for ash-
rich coals.
330 8 Exergetic Process Assessment

3) As single-stage slurry-feed processes, the standard GE congurations show

the lowest cold gas efciencies but can exceed the uid-bed processes in
their syngas yield for Pitt#8 coal. The performance deteriorates if the coal
rank decreases or the ash content increases. Given the technical feasibility
of a refractory-lined dry-feed system, of all the entrained-ow technolo-
gies, a GE gasier with an integrated solid feed pump exhibits the highest
potential in cold gas efciency and syngas yield, even in terms of increasing
ash content. The exergetic process efciency could also be improved sig-
nicantly (+5 to +7%-pts.) with the disengagement of the slurry.
4) The standard E-Gas gasier exhibits the highest exergetic process ef-
ciency of the standard systems for Pitt#8 coal. Because of the second stage,
its cold gas efciency and syngas yield is superior to the standard GE sys-
tem and shows much higher potential for optimization. The migration to
slurry drying increases the cold gas and exergetic efciency to the highest
level of all entrained-ow gasiers even for ash contents up to 45 wt%. The
syngas yield remains low due to increased CH4 production.
5) Because of its operation at dry ash conditions, the HTW gasier shows the
lowest losses with increasing ash content. However, the poor carbon con-
version limits its performance signicantly.
6) The INCI gasication concept has a high exibility when it comes to adapt-
ing the process to the feedstock as it has two independent gasifying agent
inlets. Regarding cold gas efciency and exergetic process efciency, it
might have the potential to exceed all other processes. It also seems to have
advantages in terms of syngas yield at very high ash contents (>40 wt%).

References

1 Fratzscher, W. (1986) Exergie. Deutscher Technische Universitt Bergakademie

Verlag fr Grundstofndustrie.
2 ASPEN Plus (2006) Version 2006, Aspen
Technology Inc., 200 Wheeler Road
Burlington, MA.
3 Barin, I. (1995) Thermochemical Data of
Pure Substances, vol. 2. VHC Publishers,
New York.
4 Baehr, H. (2005) Thermodynamik. Springer.
5 von Morstein, O., Kuske, E., Rappold, D.,
Gnster, W., Graeber, C., Beysel, G.,
Alekseev, A., Buschsieweke, F., Korobov, D.,
Riedl, K., Rainer, H., and Grbner, M.
(2009) Verbessertes IGCC-Kraftwerk ohne
und mit CO2-Abtrennung, Endbericht
COORIVA. Tech. Rep. AP2001, FK
0327700A.
6 McDaniel, J. (2008) Polk power station 250
MW IGCC, Compact Course Gasication.
Freiberg, November 1012.
7 Hornick, M.J. and McDaniel, J.E. (2002)
Tampa electric Polk power station
integrated gasication combined cycle
project nal report. Tech. Rep. DE-FC-
2191Mc27363, Tampa Electric Company,
Polk Power Station.
8 Laugwitz, A., Grbner, M., and Meyer, B.
(2011) Availability analysis of integrated
gasication combined cycle (IGCC) power
plants, in Power Plant Life Management
and Performance Improvement, Woodhead
Publishing, pp. 110142.
9 Grbner, M. and Meyer, B. (2014)
Performance and exergy analysis of the
current developments in coal gasication
technology. Fuel, 116, 910920.