Open AccessProduction of mild gasification coproducts
Author(s) -
David A. Horne,
Paul J. Watson
Publication year - 1994
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Reports
DOI - 10.2172/34217
Subject(s) - coal , pyrolysis , char , combustion , moisture , heat of combustion , waste management , solid fuel , fluidization , chemistry , inert gas , inert , chemical engineering , environmental science , fluidized bed , organic chemistry , engineering
In summary, the co-product production runs performed by the SGI Development Center yielded sufficient simulated PDF (process derived fuel) and CDL (coal derived liquid) to meet the production needs for each of the four coals. The LFC Process appears to be an attractive method for upgrading all of the coals except for the Knife River Coal because of its limited yield and difficulty in processing. The Buckskin coal appears to be a slightly stronger candidate for upgrading than the other three coals because it has the greatest CDL yield and a more than 50% increase in heating value from ROM to PDF. (LFC processing of Usibelli and Sarpy Creek coal produces more PDF, but the heating value increase is less and the oil yields are low. Processing Knife River coal produces much less PDF but a greater heating value increase because of its higher moisture content). Finally, in all cases, the LFC Process removed significant percentage of the organic sulfur, clearly demonstrating its coal cleaning potential