Control oriented modeling and optimization of one dimensional packed bed model of underground coal gasification

Uppal, Ali Arshad; Bhatti, Aamer Iqbal; Aamir, Erum; Samar, Raza; Khan, Shahid A.

doi:10.1016/j.jprocont.2013.12.001

Cited by 41 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Note that the formation of methane due to the pyrolysis of coal (in the absence of oxygen), as observed previously [21][22][23][24], can considerably increase the heating value of the UCG product. However, since the produced gas from the coal pyrolysis is in contact with the injected oxygen from the rubble zone, it is instantly converted to CO 2 and H 2 O (see Fig.…”

Section: The Model For Deep Thin Coal Gasificationsupporting

confidence: 65%

Energy and exergy analysis of alternating injection of oxygen and steam in the low emission underground gasification of deep thin coal

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

• We model UCG process with alternating injection of steam/oxygen.• We used exergy analysis to investigate the practicality of the process.• We show that the alternating injection UCG is practical at low pressure.• Zero emission conversion of coal is not currently practical.• Co-injection of steam/oxygen results in a higher recovery of coal. A R T I C L E I N F O Keywords:Underground coal gasification Alternating injection Exergy analysis Carbon capture and storage A B S T R A C TRecent studies have shown that by coupling the underground coal gasification (UCG) with the carbon capture and storage (CCS), the coal energy can be economically extracted with a low carbon footprint. To investigate the effect of UCG and CCS process parameters on the feasibility of the UCG-CCS process, we utilize a validated mathematical model, previously published by the same authors, that can predict the composition of the UCG product, temperature profile, and coal conversion rate for alternating injection of air and steam for unmineable deep thin coal layers. We use the results of the model to conduct an energy and exergy analysis of the UCG process. We study the effect of various process parameters on the efficiency of the UCG process, the zeroemission recovery factor of coal, and the total CO 2 emission of the process. Moreover, we compare the alternating injection of air/steam with the injection of an air and steam mixture.Exergy analysis shows that the alternating injection of air/steam describes a practical process for UCG at low pressure. However, injecting a mixture of steam and oxygen results in a practical recovery factor of coal higher than the alternating injection process. Additionally, we show that the zero-emission conversion of unmineable deep thin coal resources in a coupled UCG-CCS process, that is not practical with the current state of technology, can be realized by increasing the energy efficiency of the carbon dioxide capture process.

show abstract

Section: The Model For Deep Thin Coal Gasificationsupporting

confidence: 65%

Energy and exergy analysis of alternating injection of oxygen and steam in the low emission underground gasification of deep thin coal

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The consideration of the "in-situ" coal seam as a packed bed primarily originated from the concept of Higgins [41] considering the creation of a permeable zone between two boreholes either by reverse combustion linking (RCL) or by fracturing the coal seam using pressurized air or chemical explosives [42,43]. The resultant coal seam resembles a packed bed where coal particles are filled in the reactor.…”

Section: Packed Bed Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Their input parameters for the base case were slightly different than that of Thorsness et al [48] as can be seen from Table 8. However, at least for one run, they simulated the experimental conditions of Thorsness et al [43] in order to compare their calculated exhaust gas composition with the experimental data ( Figure 8). However, they could not compare the calculated results of Thorsness et al [48] that were very close to the experimental results quantitatively, although they followed the development of the model of Thorsness et al [48].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, Uppal et al [43] also developed another 1D packed bed model adopting the existing model of Thorsness et al [48] with some modifications in the model structure and solution strategy. In order to observe their model capability, they considered a bed length of 4.8 m only and observed various features of their simulations with qualitative agreement with the literature.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Their model lacks some detailed information such as particle diameter, porosity, permeability, etc., which are considered important for understanding a UCG process. Nevertheless, their model indicates that a control strategy Recently, Uppal et al [43] also developed another 1D packed bed model adopting the existing model of Thorsness et al [48] with some modifications in the model structure and solution strategy. In order to observe their model capability, they considered a bed length of 4.8 m only and observed various features of their simulations with qualitative agreement with the literature.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Modelling Underground Coal Gasification—A Review

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The technical feasibility of underground coal gasification (UCG) has been established through many field trials and laboratory-scale experiments over the past decades. However, the UCG is site specific and the commercialization of UCG is being hindered due to the lack of complete information for a specific site of operation. Since conducting UCG trials and data extraction are costly and difficult, modeling has been an important part of UCG study to predict the effect of various physical and operating parameters on the performance of the process. Over the years, various models have been developed in order to improve the understanding of the UCG process. This article reviews the approaches, key concepts, assumptions, and limitations of various forward gasification UCG models for cavity growth and product gas recovery. However, emphasis is given to the most important models, such as packed bed models, the channel model, and the coal slab model. In addition, because of the integral part of the main models, various sub-models such as drying and pyrolysis are also included in this review. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of the various simulation methodologies and sub-models in order to enhance the understanding of the critical aspects of the UCG process.

show abstract

Mathematical Modeling of Gas Generation in Underground Gas Generator

Zakharov

2019

Communications in Computer and Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Control oriented modeling and optimization of one dimensional packed bed model of underground coal gasification

Cited by 41 publications

References 11 publications

Energy and exergy analysis of alternating injection of oxygen and steam in the low emission underground gasification of deep thin coal

Energy and exergy analysis of alternating injection of oxygen and steam in the low emission underground gasification of deep thin coal

Modelling Underground Coal Gasification—A Review

Mathematical Modeling of Gas Generation in Underground Gas Generator

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About