Examples of Industrial Applications

Abstract

The description of the 335 MWe_ISO coal-based Puertollano IGCC power plant as example of industrial application of IGCC technology together with its main lessons learnt are summarised in this chapter. This chapter includes process description, syngas analysis, main operational real data (power production and emissions), and main causes of unavailability as well as R&D lines. These are mainly focused on improvement of IGCC technology taking into account efficiency increase and emissions reduction. So, first results of the CO₂ capture and H₂ co-production 14MW_th pilot plant installed in the Puertollano IGCC are included.

1 ELCOGAS Description

1.1 The Company

ELCOGAS, S.A., the owner company of the Puertollano IGCC power plant was founded on 8th April 1992, as a mercantile company subject to Spanish legislation, with the objective of the construction and exploitation of the Puertollano integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plant (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1

The Puertollano IGCC power plant view

This power plant is the largest IGCC plant in the world using solid fuel in a single pressurised entrained flow gasifier and is in commercial operation since 1998 with synthetic gas. Its design fuel is a mixture 50:50 of poor quality coal (high content of ash) and petcoke (high content of sulphur).

The founding members were European electrical companies along with the main combined cycle and gasification plant suppliers, Krupp Koppers and Siemens from Germany, in association with Babcock Wilcox Española, from Spain as manufacturer. The current members and their percentage of shares are shown graphically in the following Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

ELCOGAS capital share (at 31st December 2010)

1.2 Process and Integration Description

Table 1 summarises the principal data for the ELCOGAS IGCC power plant. The Puertollano IGCC power plant consists of three main units: (i) the gasification unit (generating the synthetic gas) supplied by Krupp Koppers, (ii) the air separation unit (ASU) that produces nitrogen and oxygen supplied by Air Liquide and (iii) the combined cycle (CC) (producing electricity) supplied by Siemens. These main units division is analogous to the considered approach in chapter Modelling Superstructure for Conceptual Design of Syngas Generation and Treatment for superstructure conception. The solid fuel is dried, mixed and milled in the coal preparation system and then sent with pure nitrogen to the gasifier to produce synthetic gas. Then, the syngas obtained in the pressurised entrained flow gasifier is cooled down, cleaned and subsequently burnt as fuel in the gas turbine of the combined cycle plant. The synthetic gas is the result of several reactions between fuel (a mix of coal and petroleum coke) with oxygen/steam at high temperatures of up to 1,600°C. The required oxygen for the gasification process is produced in an integrated ASU (based on a cryogenic process), which also produces pure nitrogen for drying the pulverised fuel, for fuel transportation and for the safety inertisation of the different circuits with a purity of 99.99% and waste nitrogen with 98% purity to dilute clean gas from gasification unit before being burnt in the gas turbine combustion chamber. Figure 3 shows the ELCOGAS IGCC simplified flow diagram.

Table 1 Summary of the ELCOGAS IGCC power plant main data

Fig. 3

Simplified flow diagram of the Puertollano power plant

The synthetic gas obtained, which basically consists of CO and H₂, is subsequently subjected to an exhaustive cleaning process to eliminate the small parts of pollutants, fly ash, halogens, cyanides, sulphur compounds, etc. Then, the so-called clean gas, free of pollutants, is saturated, mixed with waste nitrogen (to reduce NO _x formation) and burnt, with a high-efficiency level, in the gas turbine of the CC electricity-generating unit. The gas turbine (model V94.3, 200 MW _e under ISO conditions) is capable of operating with both synthetic and natural gases. The gas turbine exhaust gases with residual heat are fed into a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG), producing steam that is used together with the steam produced in the gasification process to generate additional electricity in a conventional steam turbine (135 MW _e under ISO conditions) with condensation cycle. The demonstrated plant net efficiency is 42.2% under ISO conditions.

The design of the heat exchangers battery is particularly relevant in terms of efficiency, basically as regard steam production and consumption, incorporating two heat recovery boilers, one for the raw gas produced in the gasifier and the other for the turbine exhaust gases. Furthermore, the steam acts as a heat conductor for several uses in gasification, desulphurisation and air separation processes.

The Puertollano power plant was designed with a high-integration level that involves the integration of the three previously mentioned units:

• Integration of the gasification island and combined cycle water–steam systems: The water fed to the steam generators is pre-heated in a section of the combined cycle’s HRSG and is sent to gasification where a saturated steam is produced as a result of the exchange of heat with the raw gas. This saturated steam is exported to the HRSG for superheating and expansion inside the steam turbine, generating additional electricity.

• Nitrogen-side integration between ASU and combined cycle: The waste N₂, a by-product of the ASU, is compressed and mixed with the syngas to reduce NO _x emissions and to increase the capacity of the gas turbine.

• Air-side integration between ASU and combined cycle: The compressed air required by the ASU is totally extracted from the gas turbine compressor.

The integration of water–steam systems is normal in all IGCC power plants in operation. On the other hand, integration between the ASU and CC is an option, which is much more frequently discussed. The highly integrated designs mean greater power plant efficiency, because the consumption of auxiliary systems for air compressors and ASU products is reduced. Nevertheless, these involve longer start-up times during which time, the back-up fuel (natural gas in most cases) is used. With regard to the IGCC power plants using coal that are in operation in Europe, highly integrated design has predominated because of its increased efficiency, whereas in the United States, with lower fuel prices, increased availability and flexibility, which a non-integrated design offers, has been preferred. Currently, the tendency is towards designs where the air required by the ASU comes in part from the gas turbine compressor and in part from a separate compressor. This provides the necessary flexibility for faster start-ups and an intermediate auxiliary consumption between the two options.

1.3 Fuel and Clean Gas Data

Main parameters of ELCOGAS fuel components, coal, petcoke and mixture are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Fuel characteristics (design data)

Coal comes from the ENCASUR mine and the petcoke from REPSOL-YPF refinery being both of them located very close to the power plant and transported by trucks. It must be noted that the main features of mixture are its high content in ash and sulphur approximately 21 and 3.5%, respectively.

The composition of obtained syngas before and after the cleaning-up processes—dry dedusting, washing and desulphurisation systems—(called raw and clean gas, respectively) is shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Syngas composition

1.4 Environmental Advantages

ELCOGAS IGCC power plant can meet all projected environmental legislation, solving the compliance problems of electric power generation. Because it operates at higher efficiency levels than conventional fossil-fuelled power plants, ELCOGAS emits less CO₂ per unit of energy.

ELCOGAS gaseous emissions (SO₂, NO _x ) are small fraction of allowable limits, being NO _x emissions lower in IGCC operation than in NGCC (Natural Gas Combined Cycle) mode.

The water required to operate it is less than half of that required for pulverised coal plant with a flue gas scrubbing system. In addition, a complex wastewater treatment plant permits and meets European and Spanish legislation (European Union Directive [1] and AAI-CR21 [2], respectively).

The solid residues are, in its majority, vitrified (no leachable), resulting in useable by-products for construction industry. Sulphur recovery is approximately 99.9% because of tail gas recycling system.

1.5 Main Milestones

Since order of main contracts, up to more than 14 million of electrical MWh has been produced as IGCC, the main milestones can be summarised as follows in Table 4.

Table 4 ELCOGAS power plant milestones

1.6 Operating Data: Power Production and Emissions

1.6.1 Power Production

A graphical summary of historical power production data is presented in the following figures and tables. Figure 4 presents the annual power production using syngas (mode IGCC) and natural gas (mode NGCC), as well as, the total gross power production, showing a great improvement since 1998 up to 2002. In the year 2003 and 2006, two gas turbine major overhauls (50,000 and 75,000 equivalent operating hours) were carried out, reducing the annual production. Other main causes of reduction of energy production were in 2004 and 2005 because of a gas turbine main generation transformer isolation fault, and in 2007 and 2008 because of the ASU waste nitrogen compressor coupling fault and poor repair of MAN TURBO. A new increase in power production was produced in 2009. Table 5 shows the main operational achievements for the ELCOGAS power plant.

Fig. 4

IGCC, NGCC and total gross power production

Table 5 ELCOGAS main operational achievements

1.6.2 Emissions

The Puertollano power plant atmospheric emissions of SO₂, NO _x and particles comply with the European Union Directive 2001/80 EEC [1], which for the IGCC operations is much more restrictive than that applied to all other coal-fired power plant, as well as the ELCOGAS specific power plant regulation, as Fig. 5 shows including real average data from 2010.

Fig. 5

ELCOGAS power plant emissions in IGCC and NGCC modes including 2009 average emissions data

2 Lessons Learnt in the Early Operating Years

The following can be highlighted as main lessons learnt in relation to the ELCOGAS operating experience achieved in the early years.

2.1 Inflexibility of the Operation Because of the Design Including Total Integration

Although its advantages in relation to plant efficiency have been demonstrated, the total integration between the ASU and combined cycle involves, besides a greater level of complexity, a long and costly start-up sequence. In practice, these result in it operating as a base load power plant, maintaining a high-minimum technical load (60%). The regulation of the load being around 60–100% is indeed viable, with it being possible to offer a competitive response in relation to reaction times (3% load variation per minute).

Bearing in mind the additional cost involved in the high level of N₂ required during the commissioning process, one reaches the conclusion that an important saving can be made if in the new designs the concept of total integration is reconsidered in favour of an ASU capable of producing pure N₂ independently of the combined cycle operation.

2.2 Main Causes of Limitations in Availability During First Operating Years

Availability has not been substantially affected by problems that are intrinsic to the gasification process, but by the low level of reliability of more conventional units in any coal-fired thermal power plant.

At a global level, the most significant problem was related to the gas turbine, because of the burner overheating and the refractory tiles on the combustion chamber what implied an overhaul every 500 operating hours. Both problems were solved by burners modifications—carried jointly between ELCOGAS and Siemens—and after their implementation in 2003, overhauls are every 4,000 operating hours.

Other main problems were related to water leakages of gasifier membrane wall because of flow blockages, local erosion and distributors design, solids handling (slag and fly ash) because of erosion of components by local high velocities that were substituted by abrasion resistant materials and design and operating procedures were revised, pressure control and fluidisation stability of fuel dust conveying and feeding systems, candle filter performance because of poor engineering from LLB (Lurgi Lentjes Babcok) and COS hydrolysis alumina-based catalyst water carryover that were solved changing the catalyst by other one based on titanium oxide.

2.3 Alternative Fuels

Different tests were undertaken during early operating years to demonstrate IGCC fuel flexibility (see Sect. 3.2 for additional fuel tests). So in 2000, different ratios of coal and petcoke were tested modifying their design percentage (50/50 wt/wt %) to 54–46%, 58–42%, 45–55% and 39–61% whose main results were:

• Carbon conversion ranges varied between 98.4 and 99.7%.

• Clean gas composition was kept very stable during the tests.

• The higher mixture ash content, the higher slag/ash separation.

• Emissions fulfilled European and Spanish legislative limits and ELCOGAS emission permit in the whole range of tested mixture.

In addition, in 2000, some tests with meat and bone meal (MBM) were undertaken, using a total of 93 tons of MBM. The main conclusions obtained from these tests were:

• Co-gasification IGCC technology is the best to eliminate MBM, without environmental impact in emissions and with high energy efficiency

• A method for controlled dosage of MBM to the gasifier was defined, checking that the method was valid for inserting a material different from usual fuel in the gasifier.

• Protection of MBM from humidity during storage and handling is the most important factor for preventing problems of transport in grinding train.

• There were not great differences with usual operation in fuel preparation, sluicing systems, fly ash dedusting systems and slag discharge system. The expected behaviour of MBM as fusion agent (because of its high Ca content) could not be confirmed.

• Two effects were clear: The chloride concentration increased with MBM percentage increase and the fouling of HP boiler gasifier tended to decrease.

2.4 Improvements for Future Designs

The large amount of knowledge acquired during the design, construction and operation of the Puertollano IGCC power plant enables ELCOGAS to define a series of improvements to be incorporated in the design of a new IGCC plant. Those with a high financial value, which enable substantial cost reductions to be made, are summarised in Table 6.

Table 6 Summary of possible improvements in new IGCC designs

If a new and optimised design for the ELCOGAS IGCC plant was to be created, using the same combined cycle technology, but incorporating the above-mentioned improvements and other less significant improvements resulting from the operating experience of the first operating years, a saving in terms of the investment cost of between 20 and 25% would be made in relation to the cost of the current power plant.

However, the improvement that would have the greatest impact on the installed cost would be the use of more advanced gas turbines, which would enable IGCC units with larger capacities and higher efficiency levels to be developed, with a significant reduction in investment costs because of the benefits of size. The use of these gas turbines, together with the improvements noted, can lead to a completely competitive IGCC power plant with regard to costs. Therefore, it will be fundamental to ensure improved performance with regard to the gas turbines, which must be based on the experience demonstrated by the supplier in syngas applications.

3 Towards Zero-Emissions IGCC Power Plants: ELCOGAS R and D Lines

During the early operating years, ELCOGAS obtained important achievements demonstrating the potential of IGCC technology, including its advantages and disadvantages and identifying its main improvement and optimisation lines.

The future of the ELCOGAS IGCC is based on the opportunity that to have an operative IGCC plant, the R&D activities should be related to fuel flexibility (real tests with different coals, petcoke, biomass, wastes, etc.), multi-production (electricity, hydrogen, synthetic gasoline, biodiesel, etc.) and zero emissions (reduction of emissions, CO₂ capture, etc.).

So, since 2007, ELCOGAS has defined an R and D investment plan to develop IGCC technology to decrease the environmental impact of power production (towards zero emissions) as main target. ELCOGAS presents a yearly results report of that R and D plan to Spanish Government for evaluation. Main lines of this R and D plan are (apart from dissemination):

• CO₂ emission reduction in utilisation of fossil fuels

• H₂ production by gasification of fossil fuels

• Diversification of raw fuels and products

• Other environmental improvements

• IGCC processes optimisation

In the following sections, a brief summary of main activities is described.

3.1 Optimisation of IGCC Processes

This activity is oriented to improve availability and costs, being its main ongoing tasks:

• Gasification island materials: life extension.

• Study of syngas corrosion processes: optimisation and tests of materials.

• Elimination of water leakages in the membrane at reaction chamber.

• Ceramic filter system: Many tests with alternative filters have been done with poor results, so final assessment is to install a new filter system provided by Pall-Schumacher.

• Gas turbine reliability improvement and life extension.

• Improvement of integration with ASU: installation of a start-up compressor.

• Analysis of O&M specific availability incidents.

3.2 Diversification of Raw Fuels and Products

The aim of this activity is to demonstrate IGCC fuel flexibility by undertaking tests with alternative fuels. Main tests recently undertaken are described in the following paragraphs.

3.2.1 Co-Gasification Tests of Olive Wastes

Within the Spanish project PIIBE (CENIT Programme) [3], whose aim was to impulse biofuels technologies in Spain, ELCOGAS coordinated the sub-project about biodiesel from gasification by real co-gasification up to 10% of biomass and syngas characterisation (F-T process in laboratory). The selected biomass to be tested in the IGCC was olive waste (orujillo).

Table 7 shows the average composition of the received orujillo and the common fuel (coal, petcoke and limestone) used in the power plant.

Table 7 Olive waste (orujillo) and ELCOGAS common fuel average composition analysed by ELCOGAS laboratory

All tests carried out using orujillo as fuel, including the duration as well as the operating hours of them, are shown in Table 8. So, more than 3,600 tons of orujillo was co-gasified in more than 1,100 operating hours (Table 8).

Table 8 Battery of co-gasification tests in ELCOGAS (2007-2009)

Main conclusions from the co-gasification tests can be summarised as follows:

• The technical viability of co-gasification up to 10% has been demonstrated.

• Operation has been within design ranges.

• Biomass handling:

  • Orujillo should not be stored for a long time, because the biomass absorbs humidity.

  • Orujillo goes easily stodgy if a large quantity is stored in the feed hopper before its consumption.

• Grinding system: During the 8 and 10% tests, the increase of the mills consumption and the pressure difference was detected.

• Gasifier load: No influence on the gasifier load arises from the orujillo co-gasification when 1, 2, 4 and 6% tests were carried out. More difficult to maintain it in 8–10% tests because of the mills load.

• Clean gas: Orujillo co-gasification has no impact on the clean gas quality; its characterisation is similar to those relating to ELCOGAS common operation.

• Emissions: The 8 and 10% addition of orujillo seems to have an influence in the SO₂ emissions (although orujillo has no content in sulphur), but always within limits. AAI-CR21 [2] establishes these limits in 200 mg/Nm³ for the SO₂ at IGCC mode, with 6% of oxygen.

Other alternative fuels, such as shredder fibres and wastes from paper industry are currently under study to be tested as alternative fuels to the design fuel, coal and petcoke.

3.3 CO₂ Emission Reduction Using Fossil Fuels

Main tasks to develop this R and D line are related to:

• IGCC efficiency optimisation.

• Analysis of viability to improve efficiency based on critical assessment of Puertollano IGCC design. CARNOT project (EU programme) [4]: Pre-engineering studies for a new IGCC plant; a critical assessment of Puertollano plant design was done together with Siemens and Krupp and a detailed pre-engineering energy and mass balance of the future plant with and without CO₂ capture and H₂ production, based on ELCOGAS plant experience was done too.

  • Auxiliary consumption optimisation. New revision.

  • Development of tools to improve efficiency. Supervision online of main equipment efficiency, they are installed and in tests.

  • Integration optimisation. Improvement of controls to adjust heat and mass balances in real operation.

  • Net efficiency in the case called ‘with CO₂ capture’ includes the process of 100% of produced syngas to capture CO₂ as well as CO₂ compression for geological storage.

Table 9 summarises main results of this critical assessment.

Table 9 CARNOT project results (pre-engineering studies for a new IGCC plant)

• CO₂ capture for CCS with IGCC. ELCOGAS participates in the following funding projects:

• ALCO₂: Study to determine viability of CO₂ geological storage in the proximity of Puertollano IGCC plant [5]. A study based on documentation was done, determining the existence of two areas with high probability and 12 with some probability. Status: closed, developed during 2003–2004.

• PSE-CO₂: To explore H₂ production and CO₂ capture, from coal and petcoke, integrated with electricity production in an existing commercial IGCC, by installing a pilot plant of 14 MW _th that takes syngas from main plant [6]. Status: Ongoing, period 2005–2011.

Currently, ELCOGAS largest investment is focused on the PSE-CO₂ project. It is the first IGCC plant in the world to have an integrated pilot plant of industrial scale (14 MW _th ) to obtain H₂ and CO₂ ready for geological storage, integrated with electricity production. Project was presented to the VI FP in 2004 for the call of studies for HYPOGEN plant (HYdrogen and POwer GENeration from fossil fuels with CCS) [7] and it was rejected with the main argument of ‘premature’, but it is being supported by Spanish and Castilla-La Mancha governments.

The PSE-CO₂ project is part of a Spanish national initiative called ‘Advanced Technologies of CO₂ Conversion, Capture and Storage’ that includes other related projects; being project #1 the building up of ELCOGAS itself:

• Project #2 explores CO₂ capture with oxyfuel technology, led by CIUDEN (Fundación ciudad de la Energía).

• Project #3 deals with study and regulation of geological storage in Spain, led by IGME (Instituto geológico y minero de España)

• Project #4 focuses on public awareness of CCS technologies, led by CIEMAT (Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas).

Main targets of the PSE-CO₂ project are: (1) to demonstrate the feasibility of CO₂ capture and H₂ production in an IGCC that uses solid fossil fuels and wastes as main feedstock and (2) to obtain economic data enough to scale it to the full Puertollano IGCC capacity in syngas production. The participants are ELCOGAS (coordinator), University of Castilla-La Mancha (UCLM), CIEMAT (Spanish research centre) and INCAR (coal Spanish research centre), being the original budget 18.5 M€.

The process of the 14 MW _th pilot plant consists of a shifting unit to convert CO into CO₂, a CO₂ separation unit—based on absorption processes with amines—and a H₂ purification unit (PSA) being all of them are commercial processes. Auxiliary systems and full control are integrated in the existing IGCC, supplied by Zeus Control. The syngas—approximately 3,600 Nm³/h, dry base—can be fed into the pilot plant desulphurised, i.e., downstream of IGCC desulphurisation unit (called sweet gas) or upstream of this unit (called sour gas). Main differences between both gases are H₂S and COS contents. So, sour and sweet catalysts will be tested to obtain technical and economic yields at full scale, obtaining CO₂ capture costs at different purity grades. Figures 6 and 7 show the pilot plant flow diagram and its location in the Puertollano IGCC power plant.

Fig. 6

Flow diagram of the CO₂ capture and H₂ production pilot plant

Fig. 7

CO₂ capture and H₂ co-production pilot plant: location

The detailed description of the pilot plant three steps are shown in the following paragraphs:

3.3.1 First Step: Conversion With Water Steam

The aim of this phase is to modify the clean gas composition to increase its CO₂ and H₂ content. The syngas from the existing IGCC is desulphurised in a sulphur removal reactor (Zn oxide-based adsorber) and mixed with saturated medium pressure water steam. A static mixer is used to obtain a proper homogenisation of this mixture, and then being heated up to 310°C. Subsequently, this mixture is fed to a shift catalytic reactor supplied by Johnson–Matthey where conversion from CO and steam to CO₂ and H₂ is produced up to achieve 480°C. Downstream, there is an intermediate cooling down phase, reducing the mixture temperature up to 350°C, subsequently the mixture is fed to the second shift reactor, where it reacts up to 390°C achieving the appropriate conversion degree. Afterwards, the gas is first cooled down to 160°C in two pre-heaters, then up to 80°C in an aero-refrigerator and finally up to 45°C.

Sour and sweet catalysts will be tested to obtain technical and economic yields at full scale, obtaining CO₂ capture costs at different purity grades.

3.3.2 Second Step: CO₂ and H₂ Separation

The target of this step is to separate CO₂ and hydrogen, obtaining a hydrogen-enriched gas. So, an aMDEA (active Methyl Diethanol Amine) solution is used to capture CO₂. Downstream of this capture, the resulting gas is a hydrogen-enriched flow called raw hydrogen (77.4% of purity). This flow can be sent to the gas turbine or to be purified in the next pilot plant step. The aMDEA is regenerated—with CO₂ desorption—by means of temperature increase and pressure reduction. The expected CO₂ capture is higher than 90%. The regenerated aMDEA is conditioned (pressure increase and temperature decrease) to be re-used.

3.3.3 Third Step: Hydrogen Purification

Pure hydrogen (99.99% purity) can be obtained in this step from the raw hydrogen coming from the previous step. For this propose, 40% of raw hydrogen is purified by means of a PSA unit (pressure swing absorption) supplied by LINDE. Impurities such as CO₂, CO, N₂ and Ar are trapped in an adsorption multi-bed system while the hydrogen passes through it. This purification unit consists of four stages: (i) adsorption, (ii) decompression, (iii) regeneration and (iv) compression. It requires at least two adsorption beds, so while one bed is in the adsorption stage, the other one is carrying out the other three stages. However, four beds, consisting each of them in activated carbon, alumina and molecular sieve, are used to obtain the expected hydrogen purity.

The estimated capacity of this unit is 2 tons of hydrogen per day with 99.99% of purity, being the expected hydrogen recovery 95%. The tail gas generated in this step can be sent to the gas turbine or can be used as heat source in other processes.

Main features of the pilot plant are summarised in Table 10.

Table 10 CO₂ pilot plant main characteristics

3.3.4 Current Status of the Pilot Plant:

• CO₂ fist captured: 13 September 2010

• Up to March 2011: sweet capture tests

• Up to June 2011: sour capture tests

3.3.5 Other Partners Activities in the PSE-CO₂ Project:

UCLM activities are related to water gas shift, mainly development of new catalyst (based on Co). Its lab installation (see Fig. 8) can operate up to 80 bar, which includes two reactors in series with cooling and can produce any kind of gas composition. INCAR tasks are related to research of CO₂/H₂ non-commercial separation processes based on solid adsorbents. Finally, CIEMAT participation is focused on using solid adsorbents, catalysts or membranes for gas treatment and commercial catalyst evaluation. Its installation (Fig. 8) can operate up to 750°C and 30 bar, it can manage flows between 5 and 20 Nm³/h and it can work continuously for several days.

Fig. 8

Laboratory-scale installation (UCLM, CIEMAT and INCAR)

3.3.6 First Results of the Pilot Plant

First learning from the pilot plant is related to costs. The 14 MW _th pilot plant costs have been €13 million including its design, supply, construction, commissioning and start-up. Depending on the considered operational scenarios and taking into account the previous investment cost, the capture costs of the avoided CO₂ would be between 18 and 23 €/ton CO₂.

ELCOGAS’s aim after the battery of planned tests (until March 2011) is to demonstrate that capture costs of the avoided CO₂ can be reduced to approximately 10 €/t CO₂.

3.3.7 Activities After PSE-CO₂ Project Completion

In addition to the objectives of the PSE project, once it is finished, ELCOGAS will have installed in its IGCC a large pilot plant that can be used as industrial platform to other projects about syngas uses, CO ₂ capture and treatment processes and H ₂ purification and use, which permits, among others, the following activities:

• Optimisation of catalyst for shifting reaction. Test with different catalysts.

• Development and demonstration of new processes for CO₂–H₂ separation.

• Demonstration of several processes for CO₂ treatment.

• Improvement of integration efficiency between the capture CO₂ and the IGCC power plant.

4 Conclusions

The world energy demand is expected to be doubled by 2050, being those based on fossil fuels what will experiment the biggest increase (especially in the Asiatic countries) because of the their lower costs. In view of this fact, diversification of fossil fuels use according to reserves—located all over the world and total available amount—and total life cycle are absolutely necessary to assure sustainability and supply guarantee. Because of this, coal is going to be one of the main energy sources and, therefore, an availability of clean coal technology is mandatory.

Based on real data and lessons learnt (e.g., lower emissions compared with other coal-based technologies and natural gas power plants and fuel flexibility) in more than 10 operating years of IGCC coal-based power plants, the IGCC technology is the best candidate to obtain clean energy from coal.

Fuel flexibility of IGCC technology has been demonstrated through the several undertaken co-gasification tests. Co-gasification with coal improves economics and efficiency of biomass fuels, encouraging renewable energy production.

IGCC power plants can be adapted as a multi-product plant to be adjusted to the market demand. So, from syngas, hydrogen can be produced—with lower production costs than from alternative sources—to be used in refinery as well as in fuel cell for power generation or transportation and several chemical can be generated such as ammonium, urea and methanol. IGCC refinery-based plants also show favourable commercial perspectives, avoiding the disposal of residues and supplying power, hydrogen and steam to the refinery.

In addition, because of the higher efficiency of IGCC plants, significant reductions in CO₂ emission can be achieved by replacing conventional coal-fired units by IGCC plants. Besides, CO₂ capture technology used in IGCC power plants (pre-combustion) is considered the best one because of estimated costs and also implies H₂ production. Both increase of efficiency and CO₂ reduction follow the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommendations to cut greenhouse gas emissions and to reduce the impact on global warming.

The existing IGCC power plants have the opportunity to contribute to the optimisation of IGCC technology. So improvements and processes that are being set out for designing new plants can be tested and developed even at commercial scale, leading to ultra-efficient and zero-emission energy plants based on gasification of low-cost fuels. It must be noted that ELCOGAS contribution with its CO₂ capture and hydrogen production pilot plant to obtain proven results at industrial scale about the real costs and feasibility of CCS.