1 / 23

Carbon Neutral Energy from Waste Gasification

Carbon Neutral Energy from Waste Gasification. Presented by Allen Medearis and Trip Dacus April 14, 2010 University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Outline. Gasification UTC Natural Gas Replacement Design -Background -Material and Energy Balance -Cost Analysis -Conclusions

zenaida-english
Download Presentation

Carbon Neutral Energy from Waste Gasification

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Carbon Neutral Energy from Waste Gasification Presented by Allen Medearis and Trip Dacus April 14, 2010 University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

  2. Outline Gasification UTC Natural Gas Replacement Design -Background-Material and Energy Balance-Cost Analysis -Conclusions Garbage Gasification Design-Basis -ChemCAD -Material Balance -Power Production -Economic Analysis -Conclusion

  3. Gasification Extracting Energy From Organic Materials Converts Carbonaceous Materials Into Carbon Monoxide and Hydrogen Uses High Temperatures (>700°C) and Controlled Oxygen Content Result is Syngas

  4. Replacing UTC’s Natural Gas Usage • Use Wood and Paper • Gasify to Make Fuel to Use in Furnaces • Replace UTC’s Natural Gas Usage +20% with Syngas • Assumptions -Wood and Paper Are Viewed as Cellulose- Syngas Can Be Sufficiently Burned to Power the Furnaces

  5. UTC CO2 Footprint

  6. Process Flow Diagram

  7. Material and Energy Balance ResultsReplacing 120% of Natural Gas Usage • Material Composition of Feed - 70% Cellulose - 20% Water - 10 % Ash • Feed Stream: 22.7 Tons/Day of Wood and Paper • Exit Stream: 17 Tons/Day of Syngas

  8. Cost Analysis Capital Costs-Grinder $60,000-Cleaner $350,000-Gasifier $330,000 Lang Factor (3.63) Labor Cost $300,000/year Annual Power Cost $10,000/year

  9. Cost Analysis (cont’d) Total Capital Cost: $2.7 Million Time to Payoff: 3.6 Years Total Savings Per Year: $770,000

  10. Conclusions About UTC Design Great Way for University to Save Money Fast Payoff Reduces Carbon Footprint of University Recommend University Fund Further Research

  11. Outline Gasification UTC Natural Gas Replacement Design -Background-Material and Energy Balances -Cost Analysis -Conclusions Garbage Gasification Design-Basis -ChemCAD -Material Balance -Power Production -Economic Analysis -Conclusion

  12. Introduction • Gasify Chattanooga Waste for Production of Syngas • Burn Syngas in Combined Cycle Gas Turbine for Power Production

  13. Basis - Assumptions • 4.4 lbs of trash per person per day • Chattanooga population - 300,000 • Use existing trash collection infrastructure

  14. Basis Chattanooga Trash Output – 660 tons/day of trash

  15. Plant Design Schematic Combustion Turbine Air Filter Waste Power Gasifier Ash/Slag Grinder Exhaust Air Power Steam Turbine Condenser

  16. Material Balance CO2 840 tons/day Waste, 660 tons/day H2O 690 tons/day RPM Gasifier System Air, 3100 tons/day Ash/Slag 65 tons/day

  17. Power Generation

  18. Capital Cost Analysis Capital Cost of the Plant = $27M per year

  19. Capital Cost Analysis CTM – Capital cost of the plant Cp,i – Purchased cost for major equipment units FLang – Lang Factor (3.63 for solid-fluid processing) Total Capital Cost = $120 M

  20. Economic Analysis • Income (per year) CHANGE • 74MW sold at $0.05 per kW·hr = $31M • Expenses (per year) • 10% of electricity for plant usage = $3M • 10 employees at $100,000 per year = $1M Net Income = $27M per year

  21. Cash Flow Diagram 4 ¼ Years to pay off capital investment

  22. Recommendation Based on this design, we recommend that the city should fund a detailed design study

  23. Thank you for listening! Are there any questions?

More Related