Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MODELING FOR
UNDERGROUND
COAL
GASIFICATION
MATHEMATICAL
MODELING FOR
UNDERGROUND
COAL
GASIFICATION
Preeti Aghalayam
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
KEYWORDS
List of Figures xi
List of Tables xiii
Acknowledgments xv
1Introduction 1
1.1 UCG: A Clean Coal Technology 2
1.2 Worldwide Practice of UCG 3
1.3 Role of Mathematical Modeling 8
2Fundamentals of Underground Coal Gasification 11
2.1 Chemical Reactions and Kinetics 11
2.2 Cavity Formation and Growth 18
2.3 Effects of Heat and Mass Transport 21
2.4 Product Gas Quality 23
3UCG as a Chemical Reactor 29
3.1 Cavity Models 29
3.2 Geomechanical Models 32
3.3 Predictive Process Models 34
3.4 Models for the Economics of UCG 38
4Future Outlook 47
References 53
Index 59
List of Figures
Introduction
3,00,000
2,50,000
2,00,000
1,50,000
1,00,000
50,000
0
na
a
n
y
SA
an
ssi
di
ain
ali
ric
bi
sta
hi
U
om
In
Ru
str
Af
ak
kr
C
er
Au
ol
U
zh
th
G
C
Ka
u
So
Figure 1.1. Total recoverable coal (million metric tons) worldwide was tab-
ulated, and the countries with the largest reserves are shown here. The data
is from 2016 (Proven Coal Reserves 2017).
2 MATHEMATICAL MODELING OF UCG
8,000
7,000 2010
6,000 2011
5,000 2012
4,000 2013
3,000 2014
2,000
1,000
0
na
es
pe
ia
a
sia
y
an
di
ric
ric
pa
an
at
ro
hi
ra
In
m
Af
Af
St
Ja
ce
fC
Eu
Eu
er
O
d
G
.o
te
ut
ia
an
ni
EC
So
ep
As
U
pe
sR
ro
EC
le
Eu
op
D
Pe
EC
-O
on
N
Figure 1.2. The CO2 emissions (in million metric tons) due to coal usage are
tracked in this plot for several coal countries. The trends in CO2 emissions from
20102014 are seen clearly (CO2 emissions from coal consumption 2017).
The continuing dialog on clean coal technologies is, thus, more relevant
than ever today. In particular, the pollutant emissions from coal-based
technologies are under significant discussion. In Figure 1.2, the increase in
CO2 emissions during 20102014 is documented, based on the available
data. The alarming rises in CO2 emissions in China and to a lesser extent,
in India, are seen. The technologies of coal usage directly impact these
emissions, and in the recent past, several improvements have been made.
UCG is proposed as a clean coal technology for the future due to the var-
ious inherent advantages it presents. First, UCG permits the exploration
of deep coal deposits, which may be otherwise unsuitable for mining. For
example, for India, this represents a 30 percent increase in available coal
resources. Second, the technology for the practice of UCG is well devel-
oped now due to the various efforts over the years, including in the area
of oil exploration. The lack of need of mining presents another advan-
tagethat the costsboth environmental and otherwiseof transporting
mined coal from the resource location to the plant are avoided. The nature
of the coal itself has some, but not a significant, impact on the nature of
the gases produced by UCG; thus, it can be used across the board for coals
Introduction3
AUSTRALIA
BANGLADESH
BELGIUM
One of the deepest deposits that have been explored for UCG has been
at the Thulin site in Belgium. A successful gasification experiment was
conducted in the Leopold-Charles double seam located at approximately
860 m depth, in the late 1980s. Analysis of post-burn drillings was used
to evaluate some aspects of the pyrolysis and gasification reactions
(Chandelle et al. 1993).
CANADA
CHINA
INDIA
In India, over 100 billion tons of coal and 20 billion tons of lignite are
at depths great than 300 m below the surface, and preliminary economic
analysis indicates that some of these mines may be good candidates
for UCG, for both energy production and chemicals synthesis (Khadse
2015). A detailed laboratory study that mimics UCG operation (Bhas-
karan et al. 2013) reports feasibility analysis for two Indian coals. A soft
lignite sample with high volatile matter and moisture from the Vastan
mine in Gujarat reports a high product gas calorific value of 170 KJ/
mol, whereas a hard coal sample from Nagpur, characterized by low
volatile matter and moisture, yields 69 KJ/mol, in their micro-UCG
experiment. They conclude that the Vastan mine has higher potential
for successful UCG operation. Neyveli Lignite Corporation and Coal
India Limited are also emerging as potential participants in Indian UCG
(Yang et al. 2015).
PAKISTAN
POLAND
RUSSIA
The USSR and Former Soviet Union (FSU) have presented us with a lot
of useful information regarding UCG. The practice of UCG was heralded
here during the 1930s, and several industrial-scale UCG plants were oper-
ated effectively at various locationsYuzhno-Abinsk (Siberia), Shats-
kaya and Podmoskovnaya (Moscow Region), Lisichansk (Ukraine), and
Angren (Uzbekistan) (Blinderman et al. 2008). In the 1960s as well, as
many as five UCG gas production stations were in operation, with the
Yuzhno-Abinsk facility producing gas for several boiler plants during
19551996 (Shafirovich and Varma 2009). The commercial UCG site at
Introduction7
Angren, Uzbekistan, is by-far the best example for UCG, which has gen-
erated more gas than any other UCG facility across the world (Olness
1982). These studies have provided us with several useful results, includ-
ing the development of technology for underground linking, UCG site
selection dos and donts, and the importance of environmental monitoring
(Shafirovich and Varma 2009). Ukraine participated in UCG projects in
Europe in the recent past and a technical institute based in Ukraine has
patented a geo-technology process for obtaining hydrogen by purifying
UCG product gas (Yang et al. 2015).
SOUTH AFRICA
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
predictive proof for the process are vital. Although generic UCG models
are important, it is more critical that specific ones that speak about the
kinetics, efficiency, environmental aspects, and coal utilization amounts
for a chosen coal mine are important. Finally, models that approach the
feasibility study of UCG from the viewpoint of economic viability, in com-
parison with the traditional practices of coal utilization, are also critical.
In the body of literature work so far in UCG, the main aspects that
have emerged with respect to mathematical models are cavity forma-
tion and growth, chemical kinetics, effects of heat and mass transport,
and overall predictive process models that target the product gas com-
position and calorific value. Thermochemical processes in UCG strongly
affect the product gas composition, and research has highlighted that there
is operational similarity between surface gasification in fixed-bed reac-
tors and UCG, prompting much of the work in mathematical modeling
of UCG to be based on surface gasification (Andrianopoulos, Korre, and
Durucan 2015). However, it is clear that a detailed consideration of the
sub-surface layout of UCG is important in the development of reliable
process models (Andrianopoulos, Korre and Durucan 2015). Due to the
importance of the economics of UCG in underscoring its feasibility, a
handful of models targeting the costs associated with UCG-generated
electricity and UCG-produced product gas in specific locations have also
been developed recently (Nakaten et al. 2014). Detailed studies regarding
the factors affecting cost of UCG product gas is another direction that has
been explored (Nakaten, Azzam, and Kempka 2014).
Index
A I
ABAQUS, 33 India, 5
ASPEN PLUS-based model,
3738 L
Australia, 4 LBK field trial, 25, 30
B P
Bangladesh, 4 Pakistan, 56
Belgium, 4 perfectly stirred reactors (PSRs),
23
C plug flow reactor (PFR), 23
Canada, 4 Poland, 6
cavity growth, vii predictive process models, 3438
cavity models, 2932 process models, vii
chemical kinetics, vii product gas, vii
China, 5
clean coal technology, 23 R
clean coal technology, vii Russia, 67
coal combustion, vii
coal gasification, vii S
South Africa, 7
D STARS software, 38
discrete element method (DEM) Swan Hills Synfuels, 37
code, 32
T
F Thar Coal and Energy Board
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, 24 (TCEB), 5
FLAC3D, 33
fluid-thermal-geomechanical U
simulation, 33 UCG models
cavity models, 2932
G cost estimations, 4145
geomechanical model, 3234 economics of, 38
60 Index