Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. K. Mudge
S. L. Weber
D. H. Mitchell
L. J. Sealock, Jr.
R. J. Robertus
January1981
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. Neither-theUnited States
nor the Department of Energy, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their
employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness or usefulnes5 of anyinformation, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would
not infringe privately owned rights.
The views, opinions and conclusions contained in this report are those of the contractor and do not necessarily
represent those of the Un~tedStates Government or the United States Department of Energy.
NTlS
Selling Price
INVESTIGATIONS ON CATALYZED
STEAM GAS I F I CATION OF BIOMASS
L. K. Mudge
S. L. Weber
D. H. Mitchell
L. J. Sealock, J r .
R. J. Robertus
January 1981
Prepared f o r
t h e U.S. Department o f Energy
under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO-1830
P a c i f i c Northwest Laboratory
Richland, Washington 99352
SUMMARY
No s h i f t r e a c t o r i s r e q u i r e d f o r methanol synthesis.
Methanation requirements are low r e s u l t i n g i n h i g h conversion
efficiency.
a Y i e l d s and e f f i c i e n c i e s are g r e a t e r .
SUMMARY . iii
INTRODUCTION .
CONCLUSIONS .
RECOMMENDATIONS
LABORATORY STUD1ES .
EXPERIMENTAL EQUIPMENT .
FEED MATERIALS .
EFFECTS OF A L K A L I CARBONATES .
EFFECTS OF SECONDARY CATALYSTS
Gasifier .
Wood F e e d S y s t e m .
Gas S u p p l y S y s t e m s .
Gas C l e a n u p S y s t e m .
I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n and D a t a A n a l y s i s .
PDU OPERATION .
Test Procedures and S a f e t y Considerations
Feedstock f o r t h e PDU .
PDU Results w i t h t h e Agitated- Bed G a s i f i e r
FEASIBILITY STUDIES .
ECONOMICS OF CATALYTIC GASIFICATION
Wood-to-Methane P l a n t .
Wood-to-Methanol P l a n t .
COMPUTER MODELLING STUDIES .
FUTURE MODELLING EFFORTS .
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
FIGURES
Sumnary o f Study A c t i v i t i e s .
Batch-Feed Reactor .
Continuous Wood-Feed Reactor .
Volume o f Gas Production f o r Catalyzed and Noncatalyzed Steam
G a s i f i c a t i o n o f Wood a t 5500C
Re1a t i v e C a t a l y s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s a t 6500C
Schematic o f t h e S t i rred-Bed G a s i f i e r
v i ii
Comparisons o f Catalyzed Versus Uncatalyzed Results
f o r Methane Production .
Comparisons o f Catalyzed versus Uncatalyzed Results
f o r Synthesis Gas Production .
Effects of Temperature on t h e Dry Gas E q u i l i b r i u m Composition
a t Atmospheric Pressure f o r Steam-to-Wood R a t i o o f 0.33 .
E f f e c t s o f Temperature on the Dry Gas E q u i l i b r i u m Composition
a t Atmospheric Pressure f o r Steam-to-Wood R a t i o o f 1 .
Potent ia1 Methane and Methanol Y i e l d s a t Atmospheric Pressure
xii
40 Annual Direct Operating Costs for 200-tonlday Wood-to-Methane
Plant . 121
&
41 Gas Cost - Utility Financing Method--200 tonlday Dry Wood . 122
42 Gas Cost - Equity Financing Method--200 tonlday Dry Wood 123
xvi
INTRODUCTION
3) a c i d gas removal,
4) r e f o r m i ng o f hydrocarbons,
The following conclusions are based on current results from PNL studies
on catalyzed steam gasification of wood:
a Steam gasficiation of wood in the presence of catalysts to produce a
methane-rich gas and a methanol synthesis gas is technically
feasible.
a A nickel-on-silica-alumina catalyst was effective both for generation
of a methane-rich gas and for generation of a methanol synthesis gas
at respective temperatures of 550' and 750'~.
a Catalyst systems need not include an alkali carbonate primary
catalyst.
a Presence of an active nickel catalyst essentially eliminates produc-
tion of condensable liquids during the gasification processes.
a Potential yields of methane and methanol are significantly greater
from the catalytic processes than from conventional processes that
employ oxygen-steam gasification of wood in a fixed bed.
a Cost of methane from wood by catalytic gasification in a 2000-ton
(1800-t) dry wood per day plant is competitive with projected future
costs of substitute natural gas (SNG).
a Cost of methanol from wood by catalytic gasification in a 2000-ton
(1800-t) dry wood per day plant is competitive with the current price
of methanol.
a Major operating costs are for wood, labor, gasifier catalyst, and
taxes and insurance.
a Investment costs and high labor costs make production of methanol
and SNG in a 200-ton (180-t) dry wood per day plant economically
unattractive.
Further conclusions based on task studies are presented in the discussion.
RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPERIMENTAL EQUIPMENT
FEED MATERIALS
GRADUATED
GAS
+COLD WATER OUT SAM PLE
BAG
LIQUID CONDENSER
GRADUATED
5 . 7 cm I D QUARTZ REACTOR
CATALYSTBED
WATER PUMP
rtI /C-
--) WATER OUT
LIQUID CONDENSOR
n
3- WATER I N VENT
GAS
SAMPLE
COLLECTOR
WATER TEST
LIQUID COLD METER
COLLECTOR
The c a t a l y t i c e f f e c t s o f d i f f e r e n t a l k a l i carbonates on t h e r e a c t i o n o f
steam w i t h wood and wood char were determined i n t h e laboratory. Results o f
these determinations are presented i n the f o l l o w i n g discussion.
0
0
2;:
0
?? 1 7
m-
.
mw o c s
m 0
k
CO rl
In-
.-
w-
e- .r
P E
5 wL
ul
n
w
.v ul
mcl
-..-
U L
n-
3
rC1
a
-0 E
n
u- n
0
h
w n
3
7-0
m w
--
> C,
0
w C
m C C m
a, w m w
w m r L m r L L
$ 0 0 3 0 a J w w
>c
.-CE
7
3
,
L
O L
,,m
I U
n
V
z
3z 25
)
L
L
m
O U -
4 2
m
V
g a s i f i c a t i o n c a t a l y s t s , these are r e l a t i v e l y inexpensive. Typical r e s u l t s
obtained a t 6 5 0 ' ~ f o r a c a t a l y s t concentration of 3 x gemole a l k a l i l g wood
and steam f l o w o f 1.2 glmin are shown i n F i g u r e 5. These data show a d i m i n i s h -
i n g order o f e f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r p o t a s s i um carbonate, sodium carbonate, t r o n a and
borax. The same r e l a t i v e order of effectiveness was observed a t o t h e r tempera-
t u r e s and c a t a l y s t concentrations. The e f f e c t o f temperature w i t h and w i t h o u t
potassium carbonate c a t a l y s t on gas y i e l d s i s shown i n F i g u r e 6; t h e e f f e c t o f
sodium carbonate concentration i s shown i n F i g u r e 7.
-
TEMPERATURE=~~O~C
NO CATALYST
I
0 200 400 600 800 loo0 1200 1400 1600
TIME, s
FIGURE 5. Re1a t i ve C a t a l y s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s a t 6500C
TIME, s
FIGURE 6. E f f e c t o f Temperature on Gas Production With and
Without Potassium Carbonate C a t a l y s t
LODGEPOLE PINE
1 1
200 400 600 800 lo00 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
TI ME, s
FIGURE 7. Effect of Sodium Carbonate Concentration on Gas Yield a t 6500C
W t i n Gas Products
( W t i n Wood
C a t a l y s t' ( a ) (W t WCt ii nn Residue
Wood
Potassium Carbonate 130 188 75 22
Sodium Carbonate 97 138 58
Trona 79 132 56
None 32 69 38 31
-2 5
0 WOOD IMPREGNATED WITH 3x10-~
MOLE Klg WOOD
-3.0 -
Y -35 -
-2?
-4.0 -
-45 - I I I
1 1.1 12
Reaction
Temperature, Steam Rate, Rate Constant,
oc g/mi n s-1
0.4 2.6 x
0.4 2.5 x
0.4 2.5 x 10'~
0.4 2.2 low5
0.4 2.6 x
1.2 1.4 x 10'~
1.2 1.1
1.2 1.0
0.4 1.3 x 10'~
0.4 1.2
0.4 8.6 x 10'~
0.4 8.0 x 10'~
0.4 4.0 x
1.2 3.4
1.2 9.3
1.2 9.9
0.4 3.1 x 10'~
0.4 3.1 x
0.4 3.1 x 10'~
0.4 2.5 x 10'~
0.4 8.2 x 10'~
1.2 9.9
1.2 2.0
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
reaction r a t e i s influenced by the mass transfer or diffusional properties in
the char. The activation energies calculated a t the lower steam r a t e are
presented in Table 6. A discussion of the postulated mechanism follows.
Experiments completed early in the program with a continuous wood-feed
reactor allowed visual observation of the reaction process. The presence of
the potassium carbonate catalyst was observed t o induce swelling of the wood
particle when exposed to reaction temperatures. Diffusion i s the controlling
mechanism f o r alkali carbonate catalyzed steam gasification of wood char as
indicated by 1) the f a c t that the reaction kinetics are dependent upon the
steam flow rate and 2 ) the f a c t that particle swelling i s induced by the alkali
carbonate.
I t i s postulated that the swelling of the wood particle increases the pore
diameters thus making the char surface more accessible. In contrasting a small
pore without the alkali carbonate to a large pore with the alkali carbonate,
the reaction r a t e in the smaller pore will be more diffusion limited a t the
higher temperatures. F i r s t order reaction r a t e equations that include diffu-
sional 1imitations conclude that the calculated reaction r a t e constant, k , i s
proportional to the square root of the true reaction r a t e constant k t , or
.
kakt1/2 Therefore, the true activation energy,EaTRUEi s equal to two times
the observed or calculated activation energy, EaOBS, or EaTRuE -- 2EaOBS The
effectiveness factors associated with diffusion limitations i s represented
graphically in Figure 11 and discussed below.
Since t h e r e a c t i o n r a t e i s d i r e c t l y p r o p o r t i o n a l t o t h e r e a c t a n t concen-
t r a t i o n i n a f i r s t order r e a c t i o n , t h e average concentration near the p a r t i c l e
surface, A, compared t o t h e b u l k stream concentration, A, i s a measure o f how
much the r e a c t i o n r a t e i s a f f e c t e d by d i f f u s i o n . The r a t i o A/A i s defined as
t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s f a c t o r E shown i n F i g u r e 11. .Therefore, t h e observed reac-
t i o n r a t e constant k i s equal t o t h e t r u e r e a c t i o n r a t e constant, kt, m u l t i -
p l i e d by t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s f a c t o r , E. F i g u r e 11 i l l u s t r a t e s how E v a r i e s
w i t h i n the pore w i t h a p l o t o f E vs mL, o r E vs L m where:
m= W D
k = observed r e a c t i o n r a t e constant
D = diffusivity coefficient
L = l e n g t h o f pore
Yields, w t %
Experiments Gases Liquids Char Water
- - -
% Carbon
Exper iments Converted t o a Gas Btu Gas/Btu Wood x 100
At 550'~
17% K2C03 25 16
N i 1404:Si-A1 (1:l) 48 46
Harshaw Ni-0101
Harshaw ~ i - 1 4 0 4 ( ~ )
Harshaw ~ i - 3 2 6 6 ( ~ )
Harshaw N i - 3 2 1 0 ( ~ )
Harshaw ~i
-5142(~)
Harshaw Ni-Cu-Mo
Harshaw N i -Mo
Harshaw Ni-W
Hars haw Co-Mo
Grace Si-A1
Union Carbide Xeolte
Girdler ~ i - ~ - 5 6 ( ~ )
Girdler ~ i - ~ - 8 7 ( ~ )
N i -Ni/A1203 c a t a l y s t prepared a t Brigham Young U n i v e r s i t y ( a )
Strem Pd
Strem Ru
Strem R ~ I ( ~ )
Gas Composition
33.6 vol%
33.6 vol%
22.5 volX
10.31 vol%
Trace
ROTAMETER
4
THREE WAY I
VALVE 1'1
.GAS STORAGE
BULB
MANOMETER
SAMPLE CEL
ru: RESERVOIR
FRESH CATALYST /
0.14- /
I
g 0.12-
0.10-
K
5 0.08-
2
0.06-
0.04 -
0.02 -
I 1 I l l l l l l I 1
0.00
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
P = ABSOLUTE PRESSURE, PSI
The micrograph shows that the majority of the catalyst surface is covered
with carbon. This can be contrasted to a micrograph of a fresh Ni-3266 cata-
lyst shown in Figure 15. The contrast in surface morphology explains why the
coked catalyst was inactive. The EM supplies information regarding the rela-
tive concentration of surface nickel sites available for reaction. Figure 16
illustrates a comparison of surface nickel concentrations of coked and fresh
catalyst. This figure indicates that the catalyst surface is being covered
with carbon prohibiting contact of reactants with the active sites on the cata-
lyst. A carbon-hydrogen-nitrogen (CHN) analysis indicated that the carbon con-
tent of the coked catalyst was 15 wt%.
Studies on catalyst lifetime and regeneration are in progress to determine
catalyst requirements. Catalyst systems that show favorable activity for gen-
eration of a methane-rich gas are also being studied. The weight'ratio of wood
FIGURE 14. Coked Ni- 3266 Catalyst, 3340X
FIGURE 15. Unused N i -3266 C a t a l y s t s , 10,021X
-
Ni (KP)
Fe (Ka)
Wood-Feed t o Wood-Feed To
Fresh C a t a l y s t C a t a l y s t Charge R a t i o
Catalyst Charge R a t i o F o l l o w i n g Regeneration
Harshaw Ni-3266 10 52
Laboratory- Prepared Ni/Si-A1 13 6
Laboratory-Prepared Ni /A1 203 5 Not Determined
Harshaw Ni-3266 28 Not Determined
Ni-3266:Si-A1 ( 3 : l ) 15 30
TABLE 14. C a t a l y s t s Screened f o r Methanol Synthesis Gas Production
Harshaw ~ i - 1 4 0 4 ' ~ )
Harshaw Ni-1404:Grace Si-A1 (Various r a t i o s ) ( a )
Harshaw Ni-Cu-Mo ( a )
Harshaw ~i
-3~66(~)
Harshaw Ni -3266:Grace Si-A1 (Various r a t i o s ) ( a )
G i r d l e r Ni-G-56:Grace S i -A1 (Various r a t i o s ) ( a )
G i r d l e r Cu-Zn
G i r d l e r Fe203
G i r d l e r Ni ~ - 1 3 - 3 ( ~ )
Grace Si-A1
Strem Mordenite Molecular Sieve
Strem Type Y Molecular Sieve
Harshaw Co-Mo: Molecular Sieve
10% Ni impregnated on Si-A1
30% N i impregnated on h i g h surface area A1203( a )
15% N i impregnated on low surface area Si-A1
Ni- Ni A1203 c a t a l y s t prepared a t BYU
Prepared Ni-Cu-Mo ( a )
Grace Ni
( a ) Favorable a c t i v i t y shown
Catalyst
Reactor Temperature
C a t a l y s t Bed Temperature
Wood Feed Rate
Steam Feed Rate
Carbon Conversion t o a gas
Wood-FeedICatalyst Weight R a t i o
H2/C0 Mole R a t i o
(BTU Gas/BTU Wood) x 100
P o t e n t i a l Weight F r a c t i o n Wood as Methanol
Gas Composition
53.0 v o l %
16.9 v o l %
Trace v o l %
Trace v o l %
3.1 v o l %
27.0 v o l %
Unused Regenerated
2
BET Surface Area, m /g 145 1.4
2
N i c k e l Surface Area, m /g 56 0.4
0.161
---- COKED Ni-3266 CATALYST I
0.14- FRESH Ni-3266 CATALYST
.
0.12-
0.10-
P a
N
k 0.08-
2
0.06 -
0
0
---- -----
0.04 - e*)
H~
/
0.02 -
e4
9 ~ ) ~
O . O
&
O ~ . : I " ' I I I I I 1111 I I I I r 1 1 1 1 1
I r I I I 1 1 1 1 1
43
catalyst. T h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e regenerated c a t a l y s t has been s i n t e r e d and
s u p p o r t s t h e d a t a p r e s e n t e d i n Table 16 and t h e p o r e d i s t r i b u t i o n
determinations.
rn
45
FIGURE 22. SEM Micrograph o f Carbon Layers on Ni-3266
A f t e r 72 h o f Operation, 132X
As a r e s u l t o f t h e i n a b i l i t y t o regenerate t h e Ni-3266 c a t a l y s t , a t t e n t i o n
was s h i f t e d t o e v a l u a t i o n of a Ni-Cu-Mo a l l o y c a t a l y s t on an alumina s u p p o r t
f o r s y n t h e s i s gas generation. Preliminary studies w i t h t h i s a l l o y c a t a l y s t for
s y n t h e s i s gas g e n e r a t i o n has i n d i c a t e d e x c e l l e n t r e s i s t a n c e t o carbon deposi -
tion. Work on methanation r e a c t i o n s w i t h a Ni-Cu a l l o y c a t a l y s t by A r a k i and
Ponec (1976) demonstrated t h a t t h e presence o f copper d i l u t e s t h e number o f
. n i c k e l s i t e s , t h u s i n h i b i t i n g carbon f o r m a t i o n . Therefore, an a l l o y c a t a l y s t
- f o r s y n t h e s i s gas p r o d u c t i o n may have t h e l i f e t i m e needed f o r economic
a feasibility.
Experiments t o evaluate a Harshaw Ni-Cu-Mo a l l o y c a t a l y s t on alumina
showed a s i g n i f i c a n t increase i n c a t a l y s t l i f e t i m e . Data i n Table 17 present
average r e s u l t s obtained w i t h the a l l o y c a t a l y s t . E a r l y i n the experiment,
c a t a l y s t a c t i v i t y decreased s l i g h t l y . No f u r t h e r change i n a c t i v i t y occurred
f o r the next 175 h. Although s t i l l a c t i v e , t h e c a t a l y s t was then subjected t o
regenerat i o n w i t h steam a t 8 0 0 ' ~ f o l l owed by hydrogen reduct i o n a t 450'~.
C a t a l y s t a c t i v i t y was r e s t o r e d t o t h a t o f t h e o r i g i n a l c a t a l y s t by t h i s proce-
dure. The experiment was continued f o r an a d d i t i o n a l 210 h w i t h o n l y the
i n i t i a l s l i g h t deactivation. Regeneration again r e s t o r e d t h e s l i g h t a c t i v i t y
l o s t a f t e r which the experiment was continued another 24 h before the c a t a l y s t
was removed f o r c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n studies.
Reactor Temperature
C a t a l y s t Temperature
Wood Feed Rate
Steam Rate
Wood FeedICatalyst Weight R a t i o 188 .O
Carbon Conversion t o a Gas 85.0%
(BTU Gas/BTU Wood) x 100 94.6
H2/C0 R a t i o
Gas Composition
obtained by increasing steam rates. The increased steam rate magnifies the
water gas shift reaction thus producing more Hz and C02, and less CO. Typical
results obtained by increasing steam rates while at the same time maintaining
the H2:N2 ratio at 3:l are included in Table 21.
Major conclusions of the completed ammonia synthesis gas studies are sum-
marized below:
a Girdler 6-3 chromium-promoted iron oxide or a Girdler 6-93 cobalt-
molybdate CO shift catalyst produced an optimum H2:N2 ratio of 3:l.
Of the catalysts tested, these catalysts produced the highest overall
conversions (65%) to the gaseous phase while maintaining the desired
product yields.
TABLE 21. Experimental Results o f Lodgepole Wood Impregnated w i t h
17% K2CO3 i n the Presence o f A i r , Steam, and Commercial
G i r d l e r 6-93 CO S h i f t C a t a l y s t
Steam Rate
0.64 g/min 1.0 g/min 1.2 g/min 1.6 g/min
Run number
Secondary C a t a l y s t
Reactor Temperature, OC
C a t a l y s t Bed Temperature,
O c
A i r Rate L/min
Wood Feed Rate, g/min
H2/N2 R a t i o
Cold Gas E f f i c i e n c y , %
Gas Composition, v o l %
2
N2
co
Catalyst
Cold Gas E f f i c i e n c y , % 94 98
P o t e n t i a l Weight F r a c t i o n
Y i e l d o f Methanol 0.63
Gas Composition, v o l %
The main objective of the PDU studies was to evaluate catalysts and oper-
ating conditions developed in the laboratory on a scale approximating commer-
cial operations to identify heat and mass transfer problems associated with
scale-up. Operations were structured to allow determination of material and
energy distribution in the system.
Design and procurement of equipment began in January 1978. The initial
design included a stirred-bed gasifier. By March 1980 the PDU was modified by
converting the stirred bed to a fluidized bed. The PDU designs and operations
are presented in the following discussion.
PDU DESCRIPTION
Design of the PDU with the stirred-bed gasifier was initiated before
design criteria were fully established in the laboratory. Therefore, the PDU
was designed for general purpose operation to develop the following
information:
a process yields, conversion efficiency, thermal efficiency, throughput
a required or desirable process features (catalyst recycle, feed mate-
ri a1 preparation, product gas treatment)
a equipment requirements (materials hand1ing, instrumentation, con-
struction materials, unit operations)
utility requirements
a emission control requirements.
A flow schematic of the original PDU with the stirred-bed gasifier is shown in
Figure 26. A photograph of the completed PDU is shown in Figure 27.
Gasifier
The stirred-bed gasifier is illustrated in Figure 28. The gasifier is a
250-psig pressure vessel. The shell is 2 ft (60 cm) sch 80 carbon steel pipe
10 ft (3 m) long. The bottom head of the gasifier contains the gas inlet
FIGURE 26. Schematic o f Original PDU
FIGURE 27. Photograph of Original PDU
l I 4 i N . TUBE BUNDLE
FOR S A M P L l NG AND
TEMPERATURE PROBES
CASTABLE REFRACTORY
64
in identifying hot gas circulation between the shell and refractory. Seven
thermocouples were glued to the shel 1 exterior to monitor shel 1 temperatures.
From October 1979 to March 1980 the PDU was modified extensively. The
most significant change was the modification of the gasifier vessel to operate
in a fluid-bed mode.
During the agitated-bed testing it became apparent that the agitated sys-
tem was difficult to model, and very difficult to scale up. Also, and perhaps
most importantly, the agitator was presumed to be the cause of severe catalyst
attrition. Finally the system did not have good heat transfer characteristics
which prohibited operation at temperatures above 600'~ without the use of oxy-
gen. For these reasons it was decided to convert the PDU to allow fluidized-
bed operation.
The modifications involved removal of the agitator and the agitator
support-drive system, installation of a new gas inlet section, a new distribu-
tor plate, a new stainless steel liner and gasifier heaters.
With the auger removed from the bed, the effective cross-sectional area of
the reactor was 0.66 ft2 (610 cm2) instead of 0.35 ft2 (330 cm2) with the
auger. The larger area meant that the gas flows would need to double to main-
tain the same linear velocity. For this reason a new liner for the bed was
constructed for an inside effective area of 0.31 ft2 (290 cm2 ) . The new liner,
also made of 310 stainless steel, had an I.D. of 7.75 in. (20 cm).
A new gasifier bottom head and gas distributor were procured to accommo-
date the smaller diameter bed. This assembly was intentionally designed to
decrease the heat loss in the gas inlet section. Only one bed-draining device
is used in the new bottom head assembly. The distributor plate was reposi-
tioned from 14 in. (36 cm) to 2 in. (5 cm) below the wood-feed port. This
allows the feed to be reacted with the hottest gas in the system.
Ceramic fiber heaters, with nichrome elements were clad to the new bed
liner. These heaters failed after only several days use. They were replaced
by sheathed heaters which are still in service.
A problem remained in getting enough heat into the gasifier bed. This was
solved by installing six cartridge heaters directly into the bed of char and
catalyst. These heaters have a total capacity of 30 kW and have performed very
well to date.
The top head of the gasifier had to be replaced for the installation of
the cartridge heaters. The modified head does not utilize the instrument bun-
dles described earlier. Instead, individual tubes for thermocouples and pres-
sure sensors extend into different levels of the gasifier from the top head.
Figure 31 shows a schematic of the fluidized-bed gasifier as it now
exists.
Wood Feed System
Wood is introduced to the gasifier using a lockhopper and an auger feeder.
The lockhopper is a 4-ft3 (0.11-m 3 ) chamber with pneumatically operated ball
valves on the top and bottom. Figure 32 shows the lower portion of the lock-
hopper. A level indicator in the lockhopper signals when wood loading is
required. Operators raise weighed batches of wood to the hopper via a
hydraulic-electric crane. The hopper valves are closed and the hopper is
purged with Cop. After purging, the top hopper valve is opened, and the wood
is added to the hopper. The top valve is closed. Air is purged from the hop-
per, and the bottom hopper valve is then opened. The wood drops to the auger
feeder. Interlock mechanisms prevent operators from opening both hopper valves
at the same time. Upon loss of power or supply air, the bottom valve fails to
the closed position, and the top valve fails open to ensure safety.
The screw feeder consists of two metering screws approximately 2 in.
( 5 cm) in diameter. These operate with a variable-speed hydraulic drive at
about 20 to 40 rpm. They push the wood onto a third screw oriented 90' from
the metering screws. The third screw (injector screw) is also about 2 in.
( 5 cm) in diameter. It operates at about 150 to 200 rpm with a variable speed
hydraulic motor. At this speed, wood is rapidly moved into the gasifier. The
injector screw also is connected to a hydraulic ram that gives the screw 6 in.
(15 cm) of travel. This feature is helpful in breaking jams in the injection
PRODUCT GAS
OUTLET
KAOWOOL BLANKET
8 cm THICK
CASTABLE REFRACTORY
3 cm THICK
EXTERNAL BED
HEATERS
FEED PORT
METAL LINER
2 0 cm I D x 1 3 7 cm DISTRIBUTOR PLATE
LONG
69
section. Controls for the feeder include two tachometers, control valves, and
an electric interlock that prohibits operation of the metering screws without
the injector screw in operation.
Gas Supply Systems
Reactant gases include steam, oxygen, air, and carbon dioxide. Steam is
supplied with a 150-lb/h (68-kg/h) 100-psi (690-kPa) generator. The saturated
steam is heated to 110'~ with trace heaters prior to the steam control valve
and orifice meter. A pneumatic integral orifice meter and controller are used
for steam control. Oxygen can be fed to the gasifier if desired. Since oxygen
requirements are low, the oxygen is supplied with 380 1b (170 kg) liquid oxygen
storage cylinders. Oxygen flow is measured by a rotameter. Low pressure air
is available as a feed gas. Air is metered using a pitot tube sensor. Carbon
dioxide is available from a 6-ton (5-t) storage tank and is metered using a
pitot tube apparatus. Carbon dioxide is sometimes used for purge gas on the
plant. Nitrogen is available from standard gas cylinders. It is used as a
quench gas in case of automatic shutdown. It is also used for purge gas. All
feed gas temperatures are recorded on a datalogger. Pressures and flow rates
are recorded in data books by operators. All feed gas lines contain check
valves to eliminate backflow in the lines.
The feed gases mix in a header system and then travel through a 1-in.
(2.5-cm) ball valve. This valve is interlocked with the datalogger. If gasi-
fier temperatures exceed a preset point (usually 800°c), the valve will auto-
matically close, thereby preventing runaway temperatures in the reactor. When
the valve closes, another valve on the nitrogen quench system opens, and the
gases in the gasifier are flushed out of the system. The feed gases then pass
through the gas preheater. This unit uses electric heaters to bring the gases
to about 700'~. The controls for this heater and a portion of the heater are
shown in Figure 33.
Provisions were made for recycling a portion of the product gas through
the gas heater to the gasifier. This would be useful for boosting velocities
in the gasifier. The blower used for recycle gas was a rotory lobe-type with
a variable speed drive. A packed-bed contactor was placed upstream of the
r e c y c l e blower t o c o o l t h e r e c y c l e gas by d i r e c t c o n t a c t w i t h water i f neces-
sary. F i g u r e 34 shows t h e c o n t a c t o r and r e c y c l e blower. Recycle gas flow
r a t e s were measured by d i f f e r e n t i a l pressure produced w i t h a p i t o t tube. The
automatic shutdown system described p r e v i o u s l y a1so stops t h e r e c y c l e blower.
I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n and Data A n a l y s i s
PDU OPERATION
- SiAl + N i ONLY
I I I
- S i A l + Ni
- A
I
YA 1 I
- 0 4% K2C03
n S i A l ONLY, PDU
- A S i A l ONLY, LAB STUDY
S i A l + N i + K2CO3, LAB STUDY
S i A l + Ni, LAB STUDY
A d d i t i o n o f t h e g a s i f i c a t i o n c a t a l y s t increased gas y i e l d s n o t i c e a b l y .
0 I I 1 I I I I I I I
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 .O
WE1 GHT R A T I O OF STEAM TO WOOD
Test No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Temperature, OC 550 470 495 495 450 505 510
Feedstock Headrig Headrig Headrig Headrig Forest Forest Headrig
Sawdust Sawdust Sawdust Sawdust Residue Residue Sawdust
Weight R a t i o
Steam-to-Wood .93 .29 .34 .54 .40 -0- -0-
Gas Composition, v o l %
41 26 28 34 31 18 15
2
CH4 15 22 22 22 23 27 30
CO 4 8 8 6 33 7 11
C02 40
43 41 38 42 48 43
0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
2
0.0 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1
C3
Cold Gas
Efficiency, % 62 36 42 66 43 48 43
Carbon Conversion, %
gas 67 44 47 64 49 52 48
1i q u i d -- 1 1 1 1 1 2
solid 4 44 51 33 23 30 17
P o t e n t i a1 CH4
s c f /ton 9500 5400 6400 9000 6700 5900 6000
( nm3/t (300) (170) (ZOO) (280) (210) (180) (190)
T e s t No.
Temperature, OC
Gas Composition, v o l %
CH4
co
C02
C2,C3yC4
Weight R a t i o Steam:Wood
s c f p r o d u c t / l b wood
( nm3/kg )
Carbon Conversion, %
gas
1i q u i d
char
Cold Gas E f f i c i e n c y , %
P o t e n t i a1 CH4
scf /ton
( nm3/t
AT SCREW FEEDER
1 ft ABOVE FEEDER
A 2 A ABOVE FEEDER
0 3 ft ABOVE FEEDER
v 4 ft ABOVE FEEDER
0
0 33 66 99 132 165 198 231 264 297 330
TlME ( m i n ) AFTER START OF WOOD FEED
0 AT SCREW FEEDER
0 1 ft ABOVE FEEDER
* 2 ft ABOVE FEEDER
o 3 A ABOVE FEEDER
v 4 A ABOVE FEEDER
0
0 22 44 66 88 110 132 154 176 198 220
TIME ( m i n ) AFTER START OF WOOD FEED
T e s t No.
Temperature, OC
Gas Composition, v o l %
H2
CH4
CO
C02
2
C3
Product Gas Y i e l d
s c f / 1b wood 21.7 19.4 21.9 18.6 27.2 18.5 16.1
( nm3/kg) (1.35) (1.21) (1.37) (1.16) (1.70) (1.15) (1.01)
Carbon Conversion, %
gas 78 74 70 73 82 66 72
liquid 1 1 1 3 1 1 2
solid 26 15 18 23 22 21 23
P o t e n t i a l Methane Y i e l d
scf/ton 11,000 10,900 9,800 9,200 11,500 8,500 8,900
( nm3/t (340) (340) (310) (290) (360) (260) (280)
P o t e n t i a1 Methanol Y i e l d
w i t h o u t reforming,
w t / w t d r y wood 0.34 0.29 0.44 0.35 0.58 0.37 0.28
Cold Gas E f f i c i e n c y 79 77 75 71 88 65 67
UNC ATALYZED AT 750'~
FIGURE 44. Comparisons o f Catalyzed versus Uncatalyzed Results f o r Synthesis Gas Production
The assumptions used i n the program are:
no l i q u i d phase present
the o n l y gas species considered are H2, H20, CH4, CO, and C02
any s o l i d i s 100% carbon and has an a c t i v i t y o f 1
a l l hydrogen and oxygen i n the wood are converted t o gas.
PDU DATA
o
CARBON
CONVERSION r
i
CONVERS I 0 V f -- - - H2
0
- CH4
/-
C02
S
'
z
o
0.3
T = 55O0c
STEAM : WOOD= 0.3333 :1
DRY BAS1 S
0 10 20 30 40
PRESSURE (dm)
PRESSURE (atrn)
Size, p Weight %
+I49 10
-149 + l o 5 5
-105 +74 5
-74 +53 5
-53 +10 55
-10 20
Wood-to-Methane
Capacity, Dry Tons Woodlday ( t / d a y ) 2000 (1800)
Location P a c i f i c Northwest
Product S p e c i f i c a t i o n s SNG:
HHV - 960 B t u / s c f
3
- (36 mJ/nm )
co
0.1 ~ 0 1 %
G a s i f i e r Conditions
Temper a t ure, OC 550
Pressure, atm 10
Steam Rate, w t / w t Dry Wood 0.33
Char production, w t / w t M A F ( ~ Wood
) 0.24
Char Heating Value, B t u / l b (kJ/kg) 13,500 (31,400)
Gas Production, w t / w t MAF wood 1.09
Cold Gas E f f i c i e n c y , % 65
Gas Composition, v o l %
38.0
11.2
CH4 23.6
C02 19.5
CO 7.7
( a ) MAF i s m o i s t u r e ash f r e e .
FRESH
FLUE GAS CATALYST
A
RECYCLE
CATALYST
WOOD DELIVERED
TO PLANT
WOOD RECEIVING
ANDSTORAGE
WOOD
DRYING
-* GASIFICATION
CATALYTIC
0
? COMPRESSION 4
SHIFT
CONVERSION
- . PRIMARY
METHANATI ON
I AIR
t
EXCESS
CHAR CHAR CATALYST
RECOVERY AND
REGENERATION w
- AC l D GAS
REMOVAL
FLUE GAS, LIME
I
AIR b
•
- STEAM
BLOWDOWN
b 3
.
-.
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT c
FINAL
METHANATI ON
1 1 1 1
RAW WATER RAW WATER
TREATMENT
ASH
TO HEAT RECOVERY
SYSTEMS
. TREATED
WATER
SLUDGE
-
PRODUCT
GAS DRYING
AND FINAL
COMPRESSION
1
COOLING PRODUCT GAS
TOWER
I
LOSSES
Weighted
Fir Average
W t % Dry
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Ash
w t % Moisture (as received)
Btu/dry 1b
3
p l a n t i s 21.6 m i 11i o n s c f d (610,000 nm /day) o f SNG w i t h a HHV o f 956 Btu/scf
(35,600 k ~ / n r n ~ ) . A1 1 process and support f a c i 1it i e s necessary t o convert
wood t o SNG are included i n t h e c o s t estimates.
SNG, HHV
% = loo
Wood, HHV + E l e c t r i c i t y + Diesel Fuel
Cost ($1,000)
Equipment 33,320
D i r e c t Purchase M a t e r i a l 10,690
Subcontract: M a t e r i a l 590
Labor (385,000 MHR) 10,370
D i r e c t H i r e Labor (685,000 MHR)
SIT D i r e c t Costs
Field Indirects
Pro- Services
Other
9/12/80 T o t a l I n s t a l l e d Cost (T.I.C.)
Exclusions: Property
S t a r t - u p Costs
P l a n t ~oadways
Demolition o f Underground Obstructions
Premium Time
Operating and Maintenance Costs
Contingency
TABLE 34. D i r e c t Cost Sumnary f o r Wood-to-Methane P l a n t - -
2000 t o n l d a y Dry Wood
Cost ($1,000)
Wood Storage and Handling 17,704
Wood Drying 6,821
G a s i f i c a t i o n Area 11,986
Compression 1,926
S h i f t Conversion 2,998
Primary Methanation 2,192
Acid Gas Removal 2,143
' F i n a l Methanation and Product Gas D r y i n g 2,964
C a t a l y s t Regeneration 1,512
Waste Water Treatment 1,801
Raw Water and Cooling Water Treatment 2,483
B o i l e r s and BFW Systems 7,290
Miscellaneous U t i l i t y Systems 1,928
TOTAL $ 63,748
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - UTILITY FINANCING
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Calculation:
Bases:
20-yr p r o j e c t l i f e
16- yr sum-of-the-years' - d i g i t s d e p r e c i a t i o n on t o t a l p l a n t
investment
100% e q u i t y c a p i t a l
12% DCF r e t u r n r a t e
48% federal income t a x r a t e
D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms:
I lo6 $
= T o t a l p l a n t investment,
S
W
= Start- up cost, 106 8
= Working c a p i t a l , 10 $
N = T o t a l n e t operating cost, 106 $ / y r
G = Annual gas production, 1012 B t u l y r
Calculation:
T o t a l C a p i t a l Requirement $ 31,805
lowering the wood cost or improving y i e l d s from the wood would have more impact
on c o s t s than any o t h e r s i n g l e v a r i a b l e .
The p r o d u c t i o n c o s t s have a l s o been
c a l c u l a t e d f o r wood costs o f $5, $10, and $40 per d r y ton d e l i v e r e d t o the
plant.
Wood-to-Methanol P l a n t
Bases :
20- yr p r o j e c t l i f e
5% year s t r a i g h t l i n e d e p r e c i t a t i o n on t o t a l c a p i t a l requirement
e x c l u d i n g working c a p i t a l
48% f e d e r a l income t a x r a t e
75/25 d e b t l e q u i t y r a t i o
10% i n t e r e s t on debt
15% r e t u r n on e q u i t y
Defin i ti on o f Terms:
C lo6 $
= T o t a l C a p i t a l Requirement,
W = Working C a p i t a l , lo6 $
N = T o t a l Net Operating Cost, lo6 $/yr
G = Annual Gas Production, 1012 Btu/yr
d = F r a c t i o n debt
i = I n t e r e s t on debt, %/yr
r = Return on e q u i t y , %/yr
p = Return on r a t e basis, %/yr
p = ( d ) i + (1-d) r
Calculation:
Bases:
20- yr p r o j e c t f i l e
16- yr sum-of-the-years' -
d i g i t s d e p r e c i a t i o n on t o t a l p l a n t
investment
100% e q u i t y c a p i t a l
12% DCF r e t u r n r a t e
48% f e d e r a l income t a x r a t e
D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms:
I = T o t a l p l a n t investment, lo6 $
s = Start- up costs, 106 $
W = Working C a p i t a l , lo6 $
N = T o t a l n e t o p e r a t i n g cost, 106 $/yr
G = Annual gas production, 1012 B t u l y r
Calculation:
Wood-to-Methanol
Capacity, Dry Tons Woodlday ( t l d a y ) 2000 (1800)
Locat ion P a c i f i c Northwest
Product S p e c i f i c a t i o n s Methanol : 99.3% p u r i t y
G a s i f i e r Conditions
Temperature, OC 750
Pressure, atm 10
Steam Rate, w t l w t Dry Wood 0.75
Gas Composition, v o l %
CH4
C02
co
WOOD DELIVERED
TO PLANT
WOOD RECEIVING
AND STORAGE
CHAR TO DRYER
WOOD
DRYING
a
CATALYTIC
GASIFICATION
A A
7 CO SHIFT _
- ACIDGAS
REMOVAL
I
CON DENSATE
-
FRESH
AIRTODRYER CATALYST STEAM
- -
CHAR AND 4
I
I CHAR AND v
v
CATALYST COMPRESSION
RECOVERY CATALYST CATALYST
-
WOOD PURGE GAS
REFORMING
CHAR 9
BOILER
4 METHANOL METHANOL
SYNTHES lS PRODUCT
TO HEAT RECOVERY v
SYSTEMS
-
WASTE
WATER
TREATMENT
LIME
1
PRODUCT
RAW WATER RAW WATER
a STORAGE AND
TREATMENT b
TREATED WATER SHIPPING
COOLING
TOWER
.WASTE
WATER
SLUDGE 1
METHANOL
1 PRODUCT
LOSSES
* = loo
Methanol, HHV
Wood, HHV + E l e c t r i c i t y + Diesel Fuel
Cost ($1,000)
Equipment 35,390
D i r e c t Purchase M a t r i a l 10,840
Subcontract: M a t e r i a l 650
Labor (403,000 MHRS) 11,600
D i r e c t H i r e Labor (665,000 MHRS) 8,530
SIT D i r e c t Costs 67,010
Field Indirects 14,150
Pro- Services 15,920
Other 1,750
METHANOL PLANT (By Lake1and-T. I.C. )
9/12/80 T o t a l I n s t a l l e d Cost (T. I.C.)
Exclusions : Property
S t a r t - u p Costs
P l a n t ~oadways
Demolition o f Underground Obstructions
Premium Time
Operating and Maintenance Costs
Contingency
for the plant is obtained by addition of an allowance for funds during con-
struction, start-up costs, and working capital. These costs and the basis for
their calculation are shown in Table 46. The total capital requirement for
this plant is $145,571,000.
The annual direct operating costs for the 2000-ton/day dry wood plant have
been calculated and are shown in Table 47. These costs include raw materials,
utilities, catalyst and chemicals, labor, administration and general overhead,
supplies, and taxes and insurance. Maintenance costs are calculated as a per-
centage of capital investment, as suggested by the cited guidelines and are
$36,464,000. The most significant costs are wood, gasifier catalyst, labor,
and taxes and insurance. Labor costs are not very easy to reduce signifi-
cantly, while taxes will depend upon local conditions and incentives. The
major variable costs are wood and catalyst usage in the gasifier. Studies on
improvement of catalyst life are in progress. At $20/dry ton for wood, which
is the value used for the base case shown in Table 47, wood costs are about
one-third of the total direct costs and one-fourth of the total production
costs. Thus, either lowering the wood cost or improving yields from the wood
have more impact on costs than any other single variable. The production costs
TABLE 46. Total Capital Required For Wood-to-Methanol Plant--
2000 tonlday Dry Wood
Cost ($1,000)
Total Plant Investment 120,830
Allowance for Funds During Construction
(Total Plant Investment x 1.25 yr x 0.09)
Start-up Costs (20% of Total Annual Gross
Operating Costs)
Working Capital (Sum of (1) raw material
inventory of 14 days at full rate,
(2) materials and supplies at 0.9% of total
plant investment, and (3) net receivables
at 1/24 annual methanol revenue at
calculated sales price)
Total Capital Requirement
have also been calculated for wood costs of $5, $10, and $40 per dry ton, and
the impact is illustrated in Figure 55. These prices for wood include delivery
to the plant.
In Tables 48 and 49 methods are given for calculating production costs
based upon utility financing and private investor financing, respectively. The
calculations for the base case of a wood cost of $20/dry ton are shown. For
utility financing, the methanol production costs are $0.45, $0.48, $0.55, and
$0.69 per gallon for wood prices of $5, $10, $20, and $40 per dry ton. For
private investor financing, the methanol production costs are $0.59, $0.62,
$0.69, and $0.83 per gallon for the corresponding wood costs.
The same design basis was used to determine operating costs for a 200-ton
dry wood (180-t) per day plant for production of fuel grade methanol. All
yields are 10% of the yields from the larger plant. Details are presented in
Appendix D and sumnarized below.
The total plant investment was estimated to be $34,830,000 September 1980
basis. To obtain the total capital requirement for the plant, additional costs
must be added to the estimated plant investment. These costs are an a1lowance
TABLE 47. Annual Direct Operating Costs For Wood-to-Methanol Plant--
2000 ton dry wood/day
Operating factor: 330 dayslyr
Cost
Cost Component Annual Use $/Unit $1000/yr
Raw Mater i a1
Wood 660,000 dry tons 20/dry ton 13,200
Utilities
Water 526,522 M a1 0.50lMgal 263
Electricity 1.76 x 10I Kwh 0.03/kWh 5,280
Diesel Fuel 108,900 gal l.OO/gal 109
Catalysts and Chemicals
Gasifi er Catalyst 330,660 I b 8.5111 b 2,814
Shift catalystv 150 ft3 107/ft3 16
Chloride Guard Catalyst 3,300 ft3 151/fj3 498
Sulfur Guard Catalyst 2,500 ft3 75/ft 188
Methanol Catalyst Confidential -- 360
Reformer Catalyst 140 ft3 235/ft3 33
Labor
Process Operating 55 men @ 2080 h 10.70/h 1,224
Maintenance 8 60% of total 3,160
maintenance
Supervision @ 20% of process
operating and
maintenance labor 877
Administration and General Overhead @ 60% of total labor
Supp 1 i es
Operating @ 30% of process
operating 1abor
Maintenance @ 40% of total
maintenance cost
Taxes and Insurance @ 2.77% of total
plant investment
Total Operating Cost Per Year $ 36,912
-
-
-
-
- - UTILITY FINANCING
- A -PRIVATE INVESTOR FINANCING
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Bases:
20-yr p r o j e c t l i f e
5%/yr s t r a i g h t l i n e d e p r e c i a t i o n on t o t a l c a p i t a l requirement
excluding working c a p i t a l
48% f e d e r a l income t a x r a t e
75/25 d e b t l e q u i t y r a t i o
10% i n t e r e s t on debt
15% r e t u r n on e q u i t y
D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms:
C = T o t a l c a p i t a l requirement, 106 $
W = Working c a p i t a l , 106 $
N = T o t a l net operating cost, lo6 $ / y r
G = Annual f u e l production, lo6 g a l l y r
d = F r a c t i o n debt
i = I n t e r e s t on debt, %/yr
r = Return on e q u i t y , % / y r
p = Return on r a t e base, %/yr
p = ( d ) i + (1-d) r
Calculation:
Average methanol c o s t =
TABLE 49. Methanol Cost- Equity Financing Method--2000 ton/day Dry Wood
Bases :
20-yr p r o j e c t l i f e
16-yr sum-of-the years' - d i g i t s d e p r e c i a t i o n on t o t a l p l a n t
investment
100% e q u i t y capi t a l
12% DCF r e t u r n r a t e
48% f e d e r a l income t a x r a t e
D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms:
I = T o t a l p l a n t investment, lo6 $
S = Start- up costs, 106 $
W = Working c a p i t a l , lo6 $
N = T o t a l n e t operating cost, lo6 t / y r
G = Annual methanol production, 10 g a l / y r
Calculation:
TABLE 50. Total Capital Requirement for 200-ton Dry Wood/Day Methanol Plant
Cost ($1,000)
Total Plant Investment 34.830
Allowance for Funds During Construction 3;918
(Total Plant Investment x 1.25 yr x 0.09)
Start-up Costs (20% of Total Annual Gross 1,559
Operating Costs)
Working Capital (Sum of (1) Raw Material 56 (1)
Inventory of 14 days at full rate,
(2) Materials and Supplies at 0.9% of 313 (2)
Total Plant Investment, and (3) Net 545 (3)
Receivables at 1/24 annual methanol
revenue at calculated sales price)
Total Capital Requirement 41,221
The annual direct operating costs were calculated and are shown in
Table 51. These costs include raw materials, utilities, catalyst and chemi-
cals, labor, administration and general overhead, supplies, and taxes and
insurance. Maintenance costs are calculated as a percentage of capital invest-
ment, as suggested by the cited guidelines. These annual costs are $7,794,800.
The most significant costs are wood, gasifier catalyst. labor, and taxes and
insurance. Labor costs would not be very easy to reduce significantly, while
taxes will depend upon local conditions and incentives. The major variable
costs are wood and catalyst usage in the gasifier. At $20/dry ton for wood,
which is the value used for the base case shown in Table 51, wood costs are
about 17% of the total direct costs and are 10% of the total production costs.
Thus, either lowering the wood cost or improving yields from the wood have more
impact on costs than any other single variable. The production costs have also
been calculated for wood costs of $5, $10, and $40 per dry ton. These prices
for wood include delivery to the plant.
TABLE 51. Annual D i r e c t ~ p e r a t ' i n gCosts f o r 200-ton Dry Wood/Day Methanol P l a n t
Cost
Cost Component Annual Use $/Unit $1000/yr
Raw Materi a1
Wood 66,000 Dry Ton 20/Dry Ton 1,320.0
Utilities
Water 52,652 Mgal 0.50/Mga 1 26.3
Electricity 2.43 x 107 kwh 0.03/kwh 729.6
D i e s e l Fuel 10,890 g a l l.OO/gal 10.9
C a t a l y s t s and Chemicals
Gasifier Catalyst 33,066 1b 8.51/7b 281.4
S h i f t catalystv 15 f t 3 107/f t 3 1.6
C h l o r i d e Guard C a t a l y s t 330 f t 3 151/ft3 50.0
S u l f u r Guard C a t a l y s t 250 f t 3 75/f t 3 18.8
Methanol C a t a l y s t Confidenti a1 ------ 36.0
Reformer C a t a l y s t 15 f t 3 235/f t 3 3.5
Labor
Process Operating 48 Men @ 2080 h 10.70/h 1,068.3
Maintenance @ 60% o f T o t a l 873.6
Maintenance
Supervision @ 20% o f process 213.7
o p e r a t i n g and
maintenance l a b o r
Supplies
Operating @ 30% o f Process
Operating Labor
Maintenance 8 40% o f T o t a l
Maintenance Cost
Bases :
20-yr p r o j e c t l i f e
5% year s t r a i g h t l i n e d e p r e c i a t i o n on T o t a l C a p i t a l Requirement
e x c l u d i n g Working C a p i t a l
48% f e d e r a l income t a x r a t e
75/25 debt/equi t y r a t i o
10% i n t e r e s t on debt
15% r e t u r n on e q u i t y
C = T o t a l C a p i t a l Requirement, 106 $
W = Working Capital, 106 $
N = T o t a l Net Operating Cost, l o 6 $ / y r
G = Annual Fuel Production, 106 g a l / y r
d = F r a c t i o n Debt
i= I n t e r e s t on Debt, %/yr
r = Return on equity, % / y r
p = Return on Rate Base, %/yr
Calculation:
Definition of Terms:
I = Total Plant Investment, lo6 $
S = Start-up Costs, 106 $
W = Working Capital, 106 $
N = Total Net Operating Cost, 106 i/yr
G = Annual Methanol Production, 10 gal/yr
Calculation:
Average methanol cost =
The r e a c t o r models e x i s t i n g i n t h e ASPEN program a r e n o t a c c u r a t e d e s c r i p -
t i o n s o f o u r experimental u n i t s p r i m a r i l y because mass and h e a t t r a n s f e r
e f f e c t s a r e ignored. Thus, much t i m e has been spent a n a l y z i n g our d a t a t o
q u a n t i f y any d i f f u s i o n a l l i m i t a t i o n s .
- r = kmA ( C - C ) = k C
P B S R S
where r = Rate o f steam r e a c t i o n
km = Mass t r a n s f e r c o e f f i c i e n t
A = Surface area o f p a r t i c l e
P
CB = Bulk steam c o n c e n t r a t i o n
C S = P a r t i c l e s u r f a c e steam c o n c e n t r a t i o n
kR = F i r s t o r d e r k i n e t i c r a t e c o n s t a n t
Some p r e l i m i n a r y r e s u l t s a r e
Temperature, OC
550
1) Mass t r a n s f e r does a f f e c t o v e r a l l r e a c t i o n r a t e s i n t h e b a t c h
reactor.
4) Pore d i f f u s i o n l i m i t a t i o n s do n o t e x i s t i n e i t h e r t h e batch r e a c t o r
o r t h e PDU.
FUTURE
- MODELLING EFFORTS
Sealock, Jr., J., S. L. Weber and L. K. Mudge. 1980. " K i n e t i c s and Mechanisms
o f Steam G a s i f i c a t i o n o f Biomass i n t h e Presence o f A l k a l i Carbonates."
Biosources Digest 2(1) :12-26.
No. o f No. o f
i Copies Copies
OFFSITE ONSITE
6. J. Berger 26 P a c i f i c Northwest L a b o r a t o r y
DOE C. M. Devarv
Biomass Energy Systems D i v i s i o n D. H. ~ i t c h G l l
600 E. S t . N.W. L. K. Mudge ( 1 0 )
Washington, DC 20545 R. E. N i g h t i n g a l e
R. J. Robertus
Simon F r i e d r i c h ( 2 ) G. F. S c h i e f e l b e i n ( 2 )
DOE L. J. Sealock, J r .
Biomass Energy Systems D i v i s i o n P. C. Walkup
600 E. S t . N. W. S. L. Weber
Washing ton, DC 20545 Publishing Coordination (2)
Technical I n f o r m a t i o n ( 5 )
27 DOE Technical I n f o r m a t i o n Center