Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 1416–1428

www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Conceptual design and simulation study

of a co-gasification technology
Zhao Yuehong, Wen Hao *, Xu Zhihong
Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Zhongguancun, Beijing 100080, PR China

Received 11 August 2004; received in revised form 23 February 2005; accepted 25 August 2005
Available online 10 October 2005

Abstract

As a promising clean coal technology, co-gasification has been extensively investigated. In this paper, a new co-gasifi-
cation technology and a conceptually designed gasifier for such technology are proposed. The distinct advantages of this
technology are its fuel flexibility and the availability to establish the gasifier by reconstructing a blast furnace or similar
shaft furnace. Based on the idea of the new co-gasification technology, process modeling is conducted using the ASPEN
Plus process simulator. By comparison with the laboratory scale experimental measurements on the co-gasification pro-
cess, it is shown that the developed model reasonably describes the thermodynamic features of the co-gasification process
and, thus, provides a useful tool for the analysis of this process. The obtained results also demonstrate that the co-
gasification process provides an ideal thermodynamic condition for the co-gasification reactions and can operate at a
quasi-equilibrium condition without employing catalysts at 1273 K. Lastly, the effects of changes of oxygen, steam and
natural gas in the feedstock on the co-gasification process are studied by sensitivity analysis using the developed model.
 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Co-gasification; Blast furnace; Gasifier; ASPEN Plus

1. Introduction

Coal is a major source of energy, accounting for 25% of the world energy supplies and 40% of the world
electricity generation. It is predicted that coal will continue to play an important role in meeting the worldÕs
increasing energy demands in the foreseeable future. However, the use of coal faces several challenges. The
major one is the considerable emission of CO2, SOx and NOx, which leads to climate change and air pollution.
Co-gasification of coal with other less carbon containing fuels, such as natural gas, coke oven gas, biomass
and waste plastics with the aid of oxygen and steam, is considered to be a promising technology to reduce such
emissions, even in dealing with high ash content coals and has been extensively investigated [1–6]. Further-
more, the urgent needs for producing alternative liquid fuels and chemical products from syngas prompt

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 10 62626704; fax: +86 10 62561822.
E-mail address: hwen@home.ipe.ac.cn (W. Hao).

0196-8904/$ - see front matter  2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2005.08.024
 Z. Yuehong et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 1416–1428 1417

the study of such a process. Up to now, studies of co-gasification processes have been performed using en-
trained, fluidized bed and fixed bed gasifiers and hybrid systems.
China is the largest coal consumer in the world, accounting for 28% of the total consumption. However,
80% of the coal consumed in China is burned directly, which leads to severe atmospheric pollutions and
CO2 discharges [7]. By 2000, ChinaÕs CO2 emission had amounted to 30.52 · 108 ton [8], making China the
second largest CO2 producer following the US. It is indeed a challenge for China to reduce the waste emissions
and CO2 discharges without impeding social and economic development. Besides increasing the use of clean
fuel, co-gasification may be a promising way for China in view of the higher price of natural gas and oil in
China. On the other hand, the alternative liquid synfuel from syngas is being researched in China to meet
the rapidly increasing demand for liquid fuel. These two conditions lead to the idea of studying fuel flexible
co-gasification technology.
In the present work, a new co-gasification technology with the feature of fuel flexibility is proposed. The
core of this co-gasification technology is a shaft furnace type gasifier, which can be established by restructuring
a blast furnace or similar shaft furnace [9–11]. The literature survey shows that no information on such tech-
nology is currently available in the open literature. This paper deals with the conceptual design and modeling
study of this new co-gasification technology. The sensitivity analysis of this co-gasification process is also con-
ducted for analyzing the effects of its major operating parameters with the model developed in this paper.

2. Conceptual design of the co-gasification process

Fig. 1 depicts a schematic diagram of the conceptually designed gasifier, which is the core of the proposed
co-gasification technology. The gasifier is a shaft furnace type reactor, derived from a blast furnace or similar

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the gasifier.

1418 Z. Yuehong et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 1416–1428

shaft furnace, in which a packed coke bed is formed. It can be divided into three functional zones, which are a
gasification zone in the packed coke bed, a lower combustion zone below the packed coke bed and an upper
combustion zone on the top of the packed coke bed.
As a blast furnace, the gasifier is charged at the top in a conventional manner with the mixture of solid
carbonaceous material, which can be coal or coke, and slag producing material, such as limestone. By adding
the slag producing material, it is possible to desulphurize the produced syngas in the gasifier and to control the
composition of the slag phase that determines the smelting characteristics of the slag.
In the upper combustion zone, the charge introduced into the gasifier moves downwards due to gravity and
meets the oxygen and steam introduced through tuyere set T3, as shown in Fig. 1. The presence of oxygen,
steam and high temperature gas from the gasification zone prompts the process of devolatilization, pyrolysis
of the coal and further cracking of volatiles, producing the hot char that, in turn, moves downwards to the
gasification zone. Reactions (1)–(3) present the major reactions occurring in this zone.
Wet coal ! dry coal + H2 O ð1Þ
Coal ! CH4 + light hydrocarbons + tar + CO + CO2 + H2 + H2 O + coke ð2Þ
CH4 + light hydrocarbons + tar + coke + O2 ! CO + CO2 + H2 + H2 O ð3Þ
In the gasification zone, the high temperature gas stream from the lower combustion zone passes through
the coke bed and provides a high temperature atmosphere. The remaining carbonaceous materials, tar and
light hydrocarbons from the upper combustion zone, trapped in the coke bed, increase their residence time,
allowing for further cracking and reforming gasification in accordance with the reactions of char gasification,
hydrocarbons reforming and the water–gas shift, as shown in the following reactions (4)–(8). The reactions of
desulphurization and heat exchange between the char and the gas stream also occur.

C + CO2 = 2CO ð4Þ

C + H2 O = CO + H2 ð5Þ
Cm Hn + m CO2 = 2m CO + n/2 H2 ð6Þ
Cm Hn + m H2 O = m CO + (n + 2m)/2 H2 ð7Þ
CO + H2 O = CO2 + H2 ð8Þ

According to the successful experience of Corex technology [12], the temperature of 1273 K is sufficient to
cause complete disassociation of ammonia, phenols, tars and other condensable hydrocarbons. Therefore, the
produced syngas is designed be withdrawn in the middle of the gasifier, as shown in Fig. 1, where the gas tem-
perature is at 1273 K. As a result, the heavy hydrocarbons contamination of the produced syngas is expected
be greatly reduced. However, in order to avoid the possible ash sintering, the maximal temperature in the gas-
ification zone should be controlled below the fusion point of the ash (1573 K).
In the lower combustion zone, the fuels, which can be natural gas, oil, waste plastic or pulverized coal,
mixed with oxygen and with lime if desired, are injected into the gasifier through tuyere set T1 just above
the hearth line of the gasifier, as shown in Fig. 1. As a result, an oxidizing atmosphere is formed in this zone,
and the injected fuel and the residual char from the gasification zone are ignited and partially combusted, pro-
ducing the gaseous products that move upward into and through the coke bed in the gasification zone. The ash
components in the injected fuel and char are melted in the resulting high temperature atmosphere, dripping
and accumulating in the hearth, which is periodically discharged from a tapping hole. The input lime is also
melted and removes some sulfur from the produced syngas. Steam is injected through tuyere set T2 located
above T1 in order to adjust the gas temperature. The injected steam steals some heat and reacts with the
hot carbonaceous material, thus reducing the gas temperature and enriching the produced syngas with addi-
tional hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The major representative reactions occurring in this section are listed
as reactions (9)–(13).

C + O2 = CO2 ð9Þ
 Z. Yuehong et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 1416–1428 1419

C + 1/2 O2 = CO ð10Þ
Cm Hn + (m + n/4) O2 = m CO2 + n/2 H2 O ð11Þ
Cm Hn + m/2 O2 = m CO + n/2 H2 ð12Þ
C + H2 O = CO + H2 ð13Þ
In order to avoid the blocking problem arising from the deposited SiO powder in downstream gas pipelines,
as well as to keep a reasonable refractory life, the temperature in the lower combustion zone should be con-
trolled in the range of 1673–2073 K [13] to prevent the formation of SiO. Besides adjusting the quantity of
injected steam, the temperature control can also be realized by adjusting the quantity of injected oxygen or
by injecting liquid carbonaceous materials (oil or tar) mixed with the steam, if necessary.
Compared to the separate coal gasification and natural gas reforming, the proposed co-gasification technol-
ogy conceptually possesses several distinct advantages. First, it is of excellent fuel flexibility. It ensures the effi-
cient and economical operation of gasification as certain fuels become scare or more costly. Second, it is of low
capital costs and great engineering availability. Since the new gasifier can be reconstructed from an existing
blast furnace, which has been extensively studied in the fields of oxygen enriched blasts and injecting heavy
oil, natural gas, pulverized coal or waste plastics as secondary fuels [14,15], it provides a gasifier having
low capital costs and a reliable technological basis. Third, it is environmentally friendly. The co-gasification
of coal with less carbon containing fuels makes it possible to produce syngas with a moderate CO2 discharge.
The input of slag producing material and high operating temperature make it possible partially to remove sul-
fur and condensable hydrocarbons from the produced syngas in the co-gasification process. Moreover, the hot
coke bed formed in the gasification zone provides a longer residence time for the char particles and hydrocar-
bons to react with the CO2 and steam, thus achieving fewer particles carried by the produced syngas and com-
plete carbon conversion. Therefore, this new co-gasification technology provides a practical, economical and
clean alternative for producing syngas for various purposes.

3. Modeling of the co-gasification process

3.1. Model development

Gasification that proceeds at temperatures above 873 K causes the kinetic barriers to be largely minimized,
and the gaseous mixtures leaving many types of gasifiers are found to approach equilibrium [16]. Therefore,
the co-gasification process operated at 1273 K can be successfully described by means of a thermodynamic
model. In modeling the co-gasification process, a model is developed by using the ASPEN Plus process sim-
ulator in an attempt to analyze the effects of its major parameters. The flow chart of the model is presented in
Fig. 2 [17,18].
In the model, an overall equilibrium approach is employed while neglecting the hydrodynamic complexity
of the gasifier. The gasifier is treated as a well mixed reactor with uniform composition and status. The Gibbs

Gas-slag mixture
SSPLIT Product gas

Molten slag

Coal/ RGIBBS
Coke
RYIELD

Heat
O2 Natural gas

Fig. 2. The flow chart of the model.

1420 Z. Yuehong et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 1416–1428

reactor module (RGIBBS) is used to predict the equilibrium composition of the produced syngas, as presented
in Fig. 2. Coke is fed into the RYIELD module and converted into a stream composed of the equivalent ele-
mental components of the coke at the same enthalpy level, since the RGIBBS module in ASPEN Plus cannot
handle coke. This stream, as well as the injected fuel and oxygen, are then directed into the RGIBBS module,
and the products of the co-gasification process are specified. The RGIBBS module calculates the equilibrium
composition of the produced syngas at the specified pressure and temperature. The separation of the gas and
slag is simulated using a SSPLIT module that can completely separate the liquid from the gaseous products.
According to Ref. [18], no hydrocarbon, other than CH4, is thermodynamically stable under the gasifica-
tion conditions. Although C2H2, C2H4 and C2H6, as well as oils and tars, are produced in the gasifier, they are
accepted as non-equilibrium products. Therefore, CH4 is the only hydrocarbon taken into consideration in the
calculation in this study. No effort is devoted to the tar yields. The sulfur contained in the coal is assumed to be
converted mainly into H2S and COS. Therefore, the equilibrium products are specified as C, ash, H2, CO,
H2O, CO2, O2, N2, CH4, H2S and COS in the present work.
This developed model is capable of predicting the composition of the produced syngas and reactor temper-
ature under various operating conditions, including the flow rate, composition and temperature of the feed
materials, as well as the operating pressure and temperature. It can be used for gaining fundamental under-
standing of the engineering process and optimization of the co-gasification process, even for a scaled up gas-
ifier. However, before the developed model can be used for these purposes, it has to be validated using
experimental results.

3.2. Model verification

As an effort to demonstrate the validity of the developed model, the syngas composition obtained from the
model is compared with that from the experimental studies at various operating conditions using coke and
natural gas as feedstock. Tables 1 and 2 present the composition of the natural gas and coke used in the exper-
imental study.
Fig. 3 shows the schematic of the laboratory scale experimental system. The gasifier, connected with steam,
natural gas and oxygen feed and product gas lines, is made of a quartz tube 50 mm in diameter and 800 mm
long with coiled heating elements. The gasifier is filled with a certain amount of coke before the experiment.
The steam is produced in a steam generator, and its flow rate is controlled by a water pump. The natural gas,

Table 1
Main compositions of natural gas
Component CH4 C2H6 C3H8 N2 CO2 O2
Composition (vol%) 93.38 1.67 0.19 2.68 1.86 0.94

Table 2
Proximate and elemental analysis of coke
Component Composition (wt% dry)
Proximate analysis
Volatile 3.9
Fixed carbon 83.3
Ash 12.2
Moisture 0.6
Elemental analysis
C 84.82
H 0.69
O 0.71
N 1.16
S 0.51
Cl –
Ash 12.2
 Z. Yuehong et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 1416–1428 1421

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of laboratory scale experimental system.

steam and oxygen are fed to the gasifier until it is heated and maintained at a certain temperature of 1273 K at
atmospheric pressure. The experimental system operates at this condition for a sufficiently long time to ensure
that steady state is reached before the produced syngas samples are collected for analysis. The syngas samples
are analyzed for a complete determination of its composition by gas chromatography. The reproducibility of
the experimental results is checked to ensure that their experimental errors are lower than 5%, and each syngas
composition presented is the mean value of at least two trials.
The comparisons of the syngas composition predicted by the model and measured by the experiments are
performed at atmospheric pressure and a temperature of 1273 K. In the present work, the coke feed is fixed at
1500 g/batch, the natural gas, oxygen and steam are varied in the range: O2/CH4 ratio 0–2.5 mol/mol, H2O/O2
ratio 0.1–0.7 mol/mol. The results of the comparisons of the two major syngas contents, H2 and CO, are
shown in Figs. 4 and 5.
Figs. 4 and 5 show that the syngas composition predicted by the developed model agrees well with that
of the experimental measurements under the various operating conditions. The maximum discrepancies be-
tween the experiment and simulation results are lower than 5%. This indicates that the developed model rep-
resents the thermodynamic features of the co-gasification process well and, thus, provides a useful tool for the
analysis of the co-gasification process. In addition, it also shows that the co-gasification process provides an
ideal thermodynamic condition for the gasification reactions and can operate at a quasi-equilibrium condition
without employing catalysts at 1273 K. The discrepancies between the experiments and predictions are prob-
ably due to the present model not considering the kinetic factors and the mass transfer barriers inside the gas-
ifier, as well as the random experimental error. When a scaled up gasifier is modeled, the developed model may
give a better performance prediction for the probably improved conditions of the kinetics and mass transfer in
the scaled up reactor. Although the developed model is verified for the case of natural gas and coke mixtures
as feedstock, it could also be applied to other feedstock having similar chemical characteristics.

4. Sensitivity analysis

The sensitivity analysis is conducted to understand how the operating conditions affect the performance of
the co-gasification process. In the present work, the operating conditions to be considered are the changes of
oxygen, steam and natural gas content in the feedstock, and the co-gasification performances are the syngas
composition and reactor temperature. It is assumed that the co-gasification process is operated at atmospheric
pressure using coke and natural gas as feedstock whose composition is listed in Tables 1 and 2, and the coke
has a fixed molar mass of 12 g/mol with steady feed of 12 kg/min at 298 K. The parameters investigated are
the flow rates of oxygen (1000–3000 mol/min at 298 K), natural gas (1000–3000 mol/min at 298 K) and steam
1422 Z. Yuehong et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 1416–1428

100

90 (a)H2O/O2=0.2

80

70

Composition, Vol.%
60

50

40

30

20 Measured Data Predicted Data

H2
10
CO
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

(a) O2/CH4, mol/mol

100

90 (b)H2O/O2=0.31

80

70
Composition, Vol.%

60

50

40

30

20 Measured Data Predicted Data

H2
10
CO
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

(b) O2/CH4, mol/mol

100

90 (c) H O/O =0.48

2 2

80

70
Composition, Vol.%

60

50

40

30

20 Measured Data Predicted Data

H2
10
CO
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

(c) O2/CH4, mol/mol

Fig. 4. Comparison of predicted and measured syngas composition at various H2O/O2 ratios. Natural gas flow rate is 200 ml/min and
oxygen flow rate is 0–500 ml/min.

(750–2250 mol/min at 673 K). In order to plot clearly, only the major syngas compositions, H2, CO and CH4,
are presented in the figures.

4.1. Effect of oxygen content in feedstock

The effect of oxygen content in the feedstock on the syngas composition and the reactor temperature are
presented in Fig. 6(a) and (b), respectively.
 Z. Yuehong et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 1416–1428 1423

80

70
(a)O /CH =0.85
2 4

60

Composition, Vol.%
50

40

30

20
Measured Data Predicted Data
H2
10
CO
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

(a) H2O/O 2, mol/mol

80
(b)O /CH =1
2 4
70

60
Composition, Vol.%

50

40

30

20
Measured Data Predicted Data
10 H2
CO
0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

(b) H2O/O 2, mol/mol

80

70 (c)O2 /CH4 =1.39

60
Composition, Vol.%

50

40

30

20
Measured Data Predicted Data
H2
10
CO
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

(c) H2O/O 2, mol/mol

Fig. 5. Comparison of predicted and measured syngas composition at various O2/CH4 ratios. Oxygen flow rate is 1100 ml/min and steam
flow rate is 0.1–0.6 g/min.

Fig. 6(a) shows that the concentrations of H2 and CO are increased with the increase of O2 flow rate until
an O2/fuel ratio around 0.60–0.70, while the CH4 concentration is decreased. However, there is an inversion of
this trend for the H2 concentration, while the CO concentration has only a slight change when O2/fuel ratio is
above the range of 0.60–0.70. It may be observed that there exists an optimum region for the O2/fuel ratio
(0.60–0.70) where the H2 and CO concentrations show maximum values (44 mol% and 24 mol%), respectively,
1424 Z. Yuehong et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 1416–1428

45
H2
40 CO
CH4
35

Composition (Vol.%)
30

25

20

15

10

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

(a) O /fuel (mol/mol)
2

2400
Temp
2200

2000

1800
Temperature (K)

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

(b) O /fuel (mol/mol)
2

Fig. 6. Effect of oxygen content in feedstock on syngas composition and reactor temperature. Operating conditions: steam flow rate is
1500 mol/min and natural gas flow rate is 2000 mol/min.

and the CH4 concentration reaches nearly zero. This could be due to the fact that the increase of O2 flow rate
favors the partial or complete combustion reactions of natural gas, causing a decrease of the CH4 concentra-
tion in the syngas. When the O2/fuel ratio is small (<0.6), the partial combustion of natural gas is dominant
and produces more H2 than CO, consequently the concentration of H2 increases more quickly than that of
CO. As a result, the CH4 concentration in the syngas is decreased until the O2/fuel ratio reaches 0.68 where
the natural gas is completely converted. With further increase of the O2/fuel ratio, more oxygen is available for
further reactions of H2 and CO to H2O and CO2, which leads to the consumption of H2 and CO, especially for
H2. Therefore, there exists an optimum range for the O2/fuel ratio where the H2 and CO concentrations will
reach maxima corresponding to the lowest CH4 concentration.
As expected, the increase in O2 flow rate favors exothermic combustion reactions and, therefore, leads to an
increase in reactor temperature. However, for the different heat released from partial combustion and com-
plete combustion reactions, there exists a turning point on the increasing tendency of the reactor temperature
with increasing O2 flow rate, as shown in Fig. 6(b). In the present work, this turning point of the reactor
temperature appears in the range where the H2 and CO concentrations reach their maxima. Higher reactor
temperature means a decrease of the H2 and CO concentrations in the produced syngas and more O2
consumption. Therefore, it is better to select the O2 flow rate where the O2/fuel ratio is around the opti-
mum region so as to obtain richer syngas, sound oxygen cost and reasonable reactor temperature. For the
present work, the oxygen flow rate should be controlled so that the O2/fuel ratio is within the range of
0.60–0.70.
 Z. Yuehong et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 1416–1428 1425

4.2. Effect of steam content in feedstock

The effect of steam content in the feedstock on the syngas composition and the reactor temperature are pre-
sented in Fig. 7(a) and (b).
Fig. 7(a) shows that the increase of steam flow rate leads to a moderate reduction of the H2 and CO con-
centrations. With a 200% increase in the H2O/O2 ratio, the results are 3% and 9% decrease in the H2 and CO
concentrations, respectively. This could be due to the fact that the increased steam steals some heat and de-
creases the reactor temperature, as shown in Fig. 7(b), thus hindering the endothermic reactions of natural gas
steam reforming and char gasification. Furthermore, dilution of the produced syngas with the introduced
steam also leads to reduction of the H2 and CO concentrations. It also counterbalances the slight increase
of CH4 concentration due to the unfavorable natural gas steam reforming reactions, so that the CH4 concen-
tration remains constant for all steam flow rates considered in the sensitivity analysis. For less natural gas
input, the CH4 concentration remains very low in the syngas, as shown in Fig. 7(a). However, the lower reac-
tor temperature caused by increasing the steam flow rate prompts the exothermic water–gas shift reaction,
providing H2. Therefore, no significant changes in H2 concentration are detected, contrary to the correspond-
ing CO concentration variation. Steam may be an appropriate method to adjust the reactor temperature for its
moderate effect on the syngas composition, but it should be pointed out that the effect of steam flow rate on
reactor temperature is limited, as shown in Fig. 7(b).

45

40 H2
CO
35
CH4
Composition (Vol.%)

30

25

20

15

10

0
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2

(a) H2O/O 2 (mol/mol)

1025
Temp

1020

1015
Temperature (K)

1010

1005

1000

995
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2

(b) H2O/O2 (mol/mol)

Fig. 7. Effect of steam content in feedstock on syngas composition and reactor temperature. Operating conditions: oxygen flow rate is
2000 mol/min and natural gas flow rate is 2000 mol/min.
1426 Z. Yuehong et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 1416–1428

4.3. Effect of natural gas content in feedstock

The effect of the natural gas content in the feedstock on the syngas composition and the reactor tempera-
ture are presented in Fig. 8(a) and (b).
As presented in Fig. 8(a), the concentration of H2 increases proportionally with the increase of natural gas
flow rate when the natural gas/fuel ratio is below 0.65, while the concentration of CO has a slight increase.
This is probably due to the fact that increased natural gas prompts the reactions of steam reforming and par-
tial combustion of the natural gas, producing H2 and CO. These reactions produce more H2 than CO. As a
consequence, the concentration of H2 increases more quickly than that of CO. The concentration of CH4 ap-
pears to increase when the natural gas/fuel ratio is above 0.65, probably because the oxygen and steam supply,
or the released heat by combustion, are not enough to keep the endothermic natural gas reforming reaction
occurring. Furthermore, excessive dilution of the syngas by the unreacted natural gas makes the concentra-
tions of H2 and CO decrease further. However, the concentration of H2 remains at a high level (45%) be-
cause of the favored exothermic water–gas shift reaction. As shown in Fig. 8(b), corresponding to the
increase of natural gas flow rate, the reactor temperature decreases from 1860 K to 1040 K when the natural
gas/fuel ratio is increased from 0.5 to 0.65, corresponding with a very low CH4 content in the syngas. When
the natural gas/fuel ratio is above 0.65, the decrease of reactor temperature is much slower, corresponding to
the increase of CH4 content in the syngas. These results suggest that the natural gas/fuel ratio has a significant
effect on the rector temperature when nearly all the introduced natural gas is converted. Therefore, the natural
gas flow rate should be controlled in the range where the natural gas conversion ratio and the syngas

50

45 H2
CO
40
CH4
Composition (Vol/%)

35

30

25

20

15

10

0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75

(a) Natural gas/fuel (mol/mol)

2000
Temp

1800

1600
Temperature (K)

1400

1200

1000

800
0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
(b) Natural gas/fuel (mol/mol)

Fig. 8. Effect of natural gas content in feedstock on syngas composition and reactor temperature. Operating conditions: oxygen flow rate
is 2000 mol/min and steam flow rate is 1500 mol/min.
 Z. Yuehong et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 1416–1428 1427

composition have a good counterbalance. For the present work, the natural gas flow rate should be controlled
so that the natural gas/fuel ratio is within the range of 0.63–0.68.

5. Conclusions

In this paper, a new co-gasification technology is conceptually designed and modeled. Compared to sepa-
rate coal gasification or natural gas reforming, the proposed co-gasification technology conceptually possesses
advantages in fuel flexibility, emissions reduction, lower CO2 discharge and possibly lower investment.
The modeling of this co-gasification process is performed using the ASPEN Plus process simulator, and the
performance of the developed model is analyzed in terms of its predictive capabilities of the produced syngas
composition in this study. The simulation results are in good agreement with the laboratory scale experimental
data. This indicates that the co-gasification process provides an ideal thermodynamic condition for the gasi-
fication reactions and can operate at quasi-equilibrium conditions without catalysts at 1273 K. In addition, the
validity of the developed model as a useful tool for the analysis of the co-gasification process is demonstrated.
The sensitivity analysis shows that the oxygen has a significant effect on the syngas composition and reactor
temperature, and an optimum range of O2/fuel ratios exists where the concentrations of H2 and CO show
maximum values and the natural gas is completely converted at an appropriate reactor temperature. The in-
crease of steam flow rate results in a moderate reduction of the concentrations of H2 and CO, as well as the
reactor temperature. The effect of natural gas content in the feedstock shows that there exists an optimum
choice for the natural gas/fuel ratio where the concentrations of H2 and CO will reach their respective max-
imum values and natural gas will be completely converted. However, the increase of natural gas flow rate will
strongly decrease the reactor temperature, which should be considered for selection of the natural gas/fuel
ratio.
According to the above discussion, the results are encouraging and useful to guide the continuing work.
The future experimental and modeling efforts will focus on the chemical kinetics and associated engineering
studies of the co-gasification technology, as well as its economic feasibility and the use of alternative fuels.

Acknowledgement

Financial supports by the Chinese National Natural Science Foundation for innovative research groups
(No. 20221603) and the National High Tech Research and Development (863) Programme (No.
2002AA529090) are gratefully acknowledged.

References

[1] Smith IM, Topper JM. Potential for co-utilization of coal with other fuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. London, UK: IEA
Clean Coal Center; 2003.
[2] Collot AG, Zhuo Y, Dugwell DR, et al. Co-pyrolysis and co-gasification of coal and biomass in bench-scale fixed bed and fluidized
bed reactors. Fuel 1999;78:667–79.
[3] Pinto F, Franco C, Andre RN, et al. Effect of experimental conditions on co-gasification of coal, biomass, and plastics wastes with
air/steam mixtures in a fluidized bed system. Fuel 2003;82:1967–76.
[4] Pinto F, Franco C, Andre RN, et al. Co-gasification study of biomass mixed with plastic wastes. Fuel 2002;81:291–7.
[5] Denuil H, Monzaffarian M, Hemmes K, et al. New and advanced processes for biomass conversion. Available from: http://
www.ket.kth.se/rolando/paper/22_denUil.pdf, 2003.
[6] Liebner W, Ulber D. MPG-Lurgi multipurpose gasification: application in gas-gasification. In: 2000 gasification technologies
conference. San Francisco, CA, USA: 2000.
[7] Liu J. Strategic research of Chinese resource utilization. Beijing, China: Agriculture Process; 2002.
[8] International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook 2002. OECD/IEA, Paris, 2003.
[9] Li JL, Zhao YH, Wen H, et al. A new preparation process of low-cost synthesis gas from natural gas and coal and its thermodynamic
analysis. JISUANJI YU YINGYONG HUAXUE (Comput. Appl. Chem.) 2002;19:381–4.
[10] Li JL, Wen H, Li JH, et al. Chinese pat. ZL 01 2 7554.3, 2001.
[11] Li JL, Wen H, Li JH, et al. Chinese pat. 01134806.2, 2001.
[12] Puhringer O, Wiesinger H, Kepplinger WL, et al. Operation experience of COREX and its potential. MPT Int 1991;14:30–41.
[13] Li JL. A natural gas and coal gasification process and exploratory research on green process engineering. PhD thesis, Institute of
Process Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China, 2002.
1428 Z. Yuehong et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 1416–1428

[14] Babich A, Yaroshevskii S, Formoso A, et al. Co-injection of noncokeing coal and natural gas in blast furnace. ISIJ Int 1999;39:
229–38.
[15] Kim D, Shin S, Sohn S, et al. Waste plastics as supplemental fuel in the blast furnace process: improving combustion efficiencies. J
Hazard Mater 2002;B94:213–22.
[16] Chern SM, Walawender WP. Analytical calculation of equilibrium gas composition in a C–H–O-inert system. AIChE J 1989;35:
673–5.
[17] Aspen Technology Inc. ASPEN Plus users guide. Available from: http://www.aspentech.com, 2001.
[18] Mansart KG, Ghaly AE, Al-taweel AM, et al. Mathematical modeling of a fluidized bed rice husk gasifier. Part I: Model
development. Energy Sour 2000;22:83–98.