Talk:Integrated gasification combined cycle

I have started this page up via a cut and paste from Combined cycles. I also changed the links from the syngas and the disambiguation pages. I hope that this is helpful. It does leave the Combined Cycles page looking a bit thin. Donebythesecondlaw (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Strategic Importance"
Is IGCC that important? It sounds a bit like a slanted phrase, though if a reference to something (e.g. appropriate Congressional report) can be provided then it can stand. Donal Fellows (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree Donal - strategic is a bit of a loaded word. Something that this article should communicate more clearly is that IGCC was not developed for CO2 capture at all; the process was intended to clean up the incomplete combustion products and particulates. It just so happens that the technology also makes it much more favorable for capturing CO2, so whether or not that is of "strategic importance" is a matter of perspective. Right now it is not definitive whether CO2 regulation will come into place for the major energy-consuming countries; if that does not happen then IGCC will have little importance, but if it does happen then most people in the world will be relying on IGCC-generated power for the next 50-odd years. I'd put that under "strategic significance". Also that same statement, as well as your question, represent a single-country perspective: I am assuming he/she meant the U.S. when writing "Because coal is America's most abundant energy source, the environmental benefits of this technology are strategically important to the nation." China is presently the largest consumer of coal and will soon reach 3 times the U.S. consumption rate, so whether China imposes and enforces CO2 regulations holds much more global significance than the U.S. government's policy. This might help a little: Liu H., Ni W., Li Z., Ma L. (2008). "Strategic thinking on IGCC development in China". Energy Policy 36, pp. 1-11. 72.186.157.71 (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Also: IGCC is 'strategically important' for all non-oil/non-gas economies. Perhaps removing sole reference to US would make the statement more acceptable? (Ilianiliev (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC))

MORE on STRATEGIC: Strategic depends on performance. If the IGCC technology becomes competitive with current new plant technologies and captures carbon dioxide, then it is strategic. It is then strategic for electric power generation, as well as for production of fuel and other chemicals. One would suggest that a rewrite could distinguish these different types of IGCCs: oxygen-blown, air-blown, and if critical for its specialized design, production of fuel and other chemicals. (arthurstrang@msn.com) looking to join talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArthurStrang (talk • contribs) 18:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArthurStrang (talk • contribs)   (ArthurStrang (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC))

Diagram Discrepancy
From the block diagram it seems to be that economised boiler feedwater enters the radiant syngas cooler and is heated. From these block diagrams of the IGCC cycle:

http://majarimagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/igcc_review_fig3.jpg

http://www.tpy.ac.th/webcoaltpy/pic/coal_igcc.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2149/2252088885_24a96db315.jpg

http://www.ccsd.biz/factsheets/images/igcc1.gif

it seems as though it is steam enters the gasifier. I recognise the distinction between the gasifier and the syngas cooler; the former, once 'started' (perhaps through input steam), generates heat and the latter can be cooled by boiler feedwater (to improve plant efficiency). Is my understanding correct and if so, should we show steam entering the gasifier in the block diagram or is that wrong? Thanks. Deltayears (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

MORE on STRATEGIC: Strategic depends on performance. If the IGCC technology becomes competitive with current new plant technologies and captures carbon dioxide, then it is strategic. It is then strategic for electric power generation, as well as for production of fuel and other chemicals. One would suggest that a rewrite could distinguish these different types of IGCCs: oxygen-blown, air-blown, and if critical for its specialized design, production of fuel and other chemicals. (arthurstrang@msn.com) looking to join talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArthurStrang (talk • contribs) 18:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Installations
It looks like the "Installations" section could use some updating and editing. Does anyone know the status of "Poland's Kędzierzyn Zero-Emission Power & Chemical Plant"? Is this still the most relevant example? It is not listed as a project on the Carbon Capture and Storage page. Hannahpayne —Preceding undated comment added 22:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC).

Low Cost Energy
Given that the Kemper power plant is currently 3 billion dollars over budget (on a 2 billion dollar job) I think the statement that kemper is providing low cost energy to Mississippians is incorrect. It should be removed, or adjusted.

67.2.170.158 (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Integrated gasification combined cycle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081015025223/http://www.nuon.com:80/about-nuon/Innovative-projects/magnum.jsp to http://www.nuon.com/about-nuon/Innovative-projects/magnum.jsp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080124001602/http://www.hillaryclinton.com/files/pdf/poweringamericasfuture.pdf to http://www.hillaryclinton.com/files/pdf/poweringamericasfuture.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Integrated gasification combined cycle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110721072632/http://publicutilities.utah.gov/news/cleanenergysummitreidopposescoal.pdf to http://publicutilities.utah.gov/news/cleanenergysummitreidopposescoal.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible Edits/Contributions to Page
Add more Technical content, more recent references, and discuss the Kemper project. We can also add the reactions that take place because the page only has a process flow diagram. We can also add information on development areas that can improve IGCC such as the gasifier as well as large projects that incorporate IGCC like the Kemper County Energy Facility.

Some references we’d like to use:

1.	Mao, Yisha. "Considerations For IGCC Power Plant Designs." Considerations For IGCC Power Plant Designs. Stanford University, 12 Dec. 2012. Web. 19 Apr. 2016. . 2.	Padurean, Anamaria, Calin-Cristian Cormos, and Paul-Serban Agachi. "Pre-combustion Carbon Dioxide Capture by Gas–liquid Absorption for Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Power Plants." International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 7 (2012): 1-11. Web. 18 Apr. 2016. . 3.	Schlissel, David. The Kemper IGCC Project: Cost and Schedule Risks. Rep. The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, n.d. Web. 18 Apr. 2016. . 4.	Maurstad, Ola. "An Overview of Coal Based Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Technology." Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (2005). MIT LFEE 2005-002 WP. Web. 18 Apr. 2016. . 5.	Holt, Neville, George Booras, and Douglas Todd. A Summary of Recent IGCC Studies of CO2 Capture for Sequestration. Proc. of The Gasification Technologies Conference San Francisco. Gasification & Syngas Technologies Council, 14 Oct. 2003. Web. 18 Apr. 2016. . 6.	"IGCC Efficiency / Performance." National Energy Technology Laboratory. U.S. Department of Energy. Web. 18 Apr. 2016. .

S.scribner08 (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Integrated gasification combined cycle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411124518/http://www.westgov.org/wieb/electric/Transmission%20Protocol/SSG-WI/pnw_5pp_02.pdf to http://www.westgov.org/wieb/electric/Transmission%20Protocol/SSG-WI/pnw_5pp_02.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Integrated gasification with fuel cells
The article says nothing about integration of gasification with fuel cells. Or perhaps that should be a different article?--86.124.124.137 (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)