In the past, coal has commonly been used as a fuel in electrical power generation. Although the details have changed with time, in a coal fired power station the coal is generally burnt under oxidising conditions in a boiler unit to generate steam, which is then used to operate a turbine driven generator. Although this technology is reasonably well understood, it is still not without its drawbacks. If the coal is burnt under conditions which optimise coal consumption, and also if the coal contains significant amounts of sulphur, oxides of both sulphur and nitrogen are formed, which result in ecological damage.
Techniques for removing acid oxides from flue gases, particularly sulphur oxides, are known. The commonly used one is to add a particulate calcium compound, such as calcium carbonate, or calcium oxide(lime) to the coal so as to trap the sulphur oxides as calcium sulphite and/or calcium sulphate. However, the utilisation of the calcium compound in the furnace is relatively inefficient.
Alternatives to full sized power stations have been proposed. One of these is the so-called “Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle” (hereafter IGCC) technique. The IGCC technique is attractive for producing electricity from coal because of its low emissions level and its significantly improved fuel efficiency in comparison with a conventional coal fired power station. In a power generation unit using IGCC, the coal is gasified under reducing conditions, the resulting gas is burnt with air as the oxygen source and the resulting hot gas is used to power a gas turbine. The gas turbine drives the generating equipment, which can be mounted directly onto the same shaft as the gas turbine itself
However, the IGCC technique is not without its own disadvantages, one of which is that the sulphur is still present in the coal, and thus can be present in the hot gas being burnt to power the gas turbine. Due to the different conditions in the two systems, the presence of sulphur in the fuel poses a quite different problem in an IGCC system to that found in a conventional steam generating furnace.
IGCC systems involve a coal gasification step which is carried out in a gasifier under reducing conditions. Due to the different chemical conditions involved in the gasifier, instead of producing sulphur oxides in the hot gas, the sulphur is present chiefly as hydrogen sulphide, H2S. The hydrogen sulphide must be largely removed, first due to the limit on the amount of sulphur that can be accepted in the gases going forward to the turbine stage, and second due to the toxicity of hydrogen sulphide.
The step normally taken to capture the hydrogen sulphide is to react it with a calcium compound, by adding typically powdered calcium oxide(lime) or limestone to the IGCC reactor. In the reactor, the powdered limestone reacts to produce mainly calcium sulphide, according to essentially the following reaction:
CaCO3+H2S→CaS+H2O+CO2 (1)
This ash product cannot be sent to a landfill site, because reaction of ground water with the calcium sulphide produces poisonous hydrogen sulphide. At a practical level, almost quantitative destruction of the calcium sulphide is required before the ashes can be disposed of safely in a landfill site
To destroy the calcium sulphide and to enhance process efficiency, it has been proposed to burn the ash product remaining from the coal gasification process, which will include calcium sulphide, calcium oxide, ash materials (from the coal or other carbonaceous feed material), and unburnt char, with air in a so-called topping cycle combustor, which is typically a pressurised fluidized bed combustor (hereafter PFBC) or preferably a circulating fluidized bed combustor (hereafter CFBC). In the PFBC or CFBC topping cycle, in theory the calcium sulphide should be oxidised to calcium sulphate, more or less as proposed by Wheelock in U.S. Pat. No. 5,228,399 and by Moss, in U.S. Pat. No. 4,435,148. According to both of these patents, when calcium sulphide is burnt under the correct conditions of oxygen partial pressure and temperature, reaction (2) takes place.
CaS+2O2→CaSO4 (2)
It has been shown that reaction (2) does not go to completion as proposed in these two patents: Qiu et al., in Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 37, 923-928 (1998) showed that as the calcium sulphide is oxidised the calcium sulphate is formed as a relatively hard crust of calcium sulphate on the surface of the calcium sulphide particles. Qiu et al. showed that once this hard crust has formed, the rate of oxidation of the calcium sulphide inside the calcium sulphate crust is controlled by the rate at which oxygen can be transported through the calcium sulphate crust into the calcium sulphide core of the particle. Qiu et al. showed that the oxygen transfer rate is far too slow for the process to be of any commercial usefulness.
Proposals have been made to overcome this difficulty, for example by Wheelock in U.S. Pat. No. 4,102,989; in U.S. Pat. No. 5,653,955 and in U.S. Pat. No. 6,083,862, and by Turkdogan in U.S. Pat. No. 4,370,161 In these patents either very carefully controlled conditions are used (eg '955) or at least one additional reagent is added to the gas (eg '862 and '161).
This invention seeks to overcome these difficulties, and to provide an alternative two stage process whereby the calcium sulphide formed in an IGCC system can be safely and more or less quantitatively converted to other sulphur compounds which can be trapped and used for other useful purposes.
In the process according to this invention several potentially competing reactions can occur; these are:
CaCO3+H2S→CaS+H2O+CO2 (1)
CaCO3→CaO+CO2 (3)
CaO+H2S→CaS+H2O (4)
CaS+2CO2→CaO+SO2+2CO (5)
It is noticeable that none of these reactions produce any significant amounts of calcium sulphate.
Since the reaction conditions are chosen so that the calcium sulphide produced in these reactions is not oxidised to calcium sulphate, the creation of a tightly adhering calcium sulphate crust on the particles of calcium sulphide is avoided, thus allowing the reaction producing sulphur dioxide, for example Reaction (5), to go more or less to completion. The resulting ash product can be disposed of safely in a land fill site.
Thus in its broadest embodiment, this invention seeks to provide a process for removing sulphide compounds from an exhaust gas flow from a first gasifier furnace in which a carbon containing fuel which also contains sulphur, is consumed under reducing conditions, which process comprises.
Preferably, the desired carbon dioxide partial pressure is obtained by using a mixture of carbon dioxide and nitrogen.
Preferably, the first gasifier furnace fuel is a fossil fuel. More preferably, the first gasifier furnace fuel is coal.
Preferably, the first gasifier furnace is operated according to the integrated gasification combined cycle technique (IGCC).
Preferably, the second reactor furnace is chosen from the group consisting of a pressurised fluidised bed combustor (PFBC) and a circulating fluidised bed combustor (CFBC).
Preferably, the second reactor furnace is operated at a temperature of about 850° C. to about 980° C.
Preferably, in step (c) at least 90% of the calcium sulphide present in the first ash product is converted to calcium carbonate and/or calcium oxide.
Preferably, in step (c) a mixture of carbon dioxide and nitrogen is used to obtain the desired carbon dioxide partial pressure.
The invention will now be described in more detail with reference to the attached Figures in which;
Referring first to
In operation, a sample of calcium sulphide having a particle size of less than about 45 μm is placed in the ceramic boat and the system flushed for about 20 minutes with carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide The carbon dioxide used had total impurities of less than 100 ppm and therefore contained negligible amounts of oxygen. The carbon dioxide flow rate was generally maintained at about 0.6 dm3/min. During some of the tests the effect of water vapour was also investigated. The carbon dioxide flow rate was increased to 1 dm3/min. the water flow rates was controlled by a syringe pump at 0.1 dm3/min.
The tube furnace used was capable of reaching 850° C. in about 30 minutes. For this furnace construction the temperature differential between the calcium sulphide sample and the quartz tube is negligible. The gas in line 20 was fed to carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide NDIR analyser.
The test run shown in
In the first pass, a small sulphur dioxide peak occurred in the temperature window of 400° C.-550° C.; this peak did not appear in the second pass. This result indicates that the first sulphur dioxide peak is caused by impurities in the calcium sulphide sample. It is also of interest that the ratio of sulphur dioxide to carbon monoxide at a value of from about 0.4 to about 0.5 within the temperature window of from abut 800° C. to about 850° C. is larger than the stoichiometry of the reactions given above would indicate. This suggests that these simple reactions do not adequately describe the oxidation of calcium sulphide by carbon dioxide.
The test run shown in
For the test runs shown in
It is clear from these two much longer runs that oxidation by carbon dioxide is far more effective than oxidation with water over the same temperature range Additionally it is also noteworthy that no calcium sulphate is formed.
The results shown in
These results demonstrate that carbon dioxide oxidation can be used to destroy calcium sulphide more or less completely. There are at least two strategies whereby this reaction can be used. The first is to operate at a temperature above the stability of calcium carbonate with pure carbon dioxide, that is above 900° C. to ensure that the pores in the calcium sulphide particles remain open. The second is to operate at lower temperatures with mixtures of carbon dioxide and nitrogen such that calcium carbonate is not stable at the operating temperature of interest.
This is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Ser. No. 11/011,599 filed Dec. 15, 2004 which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Ser. No. 10/600,345 filed Jun. 23, 2003.
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11011599 | Dec 2004 | US |
Child | 11542165 | Oct 2006 | US |
Parent | 10600345 | Jun 2003 | US |
Child | 11011599 | Dec 2004 | US |