Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Variation of Feedstock in a Dual Fluidized Bed Steam Gasifier Influence on Product Gas, Tar Content
and Composition
Johannes C. Schmid, Ute Wolfesberger, Stefan Koppatz, Christoph Pfeifer, and Hermann Hofbauer
Vienna University of Technology, Institute of Chemical Engineering, Getreidemarkt 9, A-1060 Vienna, Austria
Corresponding author: Email: johannes.schmid@tuwien.ac.at, Tel.: +43 1 58801 166 385
A steam blown dual fluidized bed gasification
plant was used to yield a nitrogen (N2) free product
gas (synthesis gas) from various biomass fuels. In
addition to the variation of process parameters like
temperature, steam to carbon ratio, fluidization
rate and the influence of different bed materials,
various feedstock inputs affected the generation of
the product gas. This study focuses on the
gasification of different biomass feedstock. The
variation of biomass implies wood chips, wood
pellets, sewage sludge pellets and straw pellets. The
chosen evaluated experimental results are all
gained from the uniformly operated classical
100kWth DualFluid gasifier at Vienna University
of Technology at constant gasification temperatures
between 800C and 810C. The composition and
ash melting behavior of each feedstock is displayed,
as well as the ranges of the product gas
compositions generated. Beside the main gaseous
product gas components, typical content ranges of
dust and char are highlighted. The content and
composition of tar in the product gas is discussed.
Further it is possible to present gravimetrical and
GCMS measured tar values. Not less than five
significant component-groups of tar will also be
outlined for each feedstock.
Keywords: biomass, gasification,
circulating fluidized bed, synthesis gas
reforming,
INTRODUCTION
The thermo-chemical conversion of biogenous
feedstock is a promising option to advance the ecofriendly and efficient production of heat and power,
as well as the generation of valuable products for
chemical the industry based on renewable sources.
Biomass is particularly relevant as this feedstock
constitutes the only carbon source available within
the range of renewables [1].
Fluidized bed processing is applied by
preference for the gasification of various carbonic
fuels, and therefore also for biomass. This
technology intensely promotes the conversion of
the solid feedstock into a valuable gas by an
excellent gas-solid contact and heat transfer. The
application of biomass derived product gas as
precursor for various syntheses might increase the
share of renewables in the chemical industry in
contrast to fossil fuels. Air blown fluidized bed
concepts were proposed for the gasification of
biomass. However, conventional gasification with
EXPERIMENTAL
Figure 4 presents the 100kWth gasifier at the
Vienna University of Technology. All important
elements like loop seals, process media inputs,
solids separator and various feedstock hopper
arrangements are visible in this sketch. The dashed
line indicates the global solids circulation rate of
the bed material in the reactor system. Olivine sand
with a mean particle diameter of 0.5mm is used as
the bed material. Feedstock hopper 1 was used for
all experimental results presented in this
publication. Thus, the fuel input was always
realized directly into the bubbling fluidized bed of
the gasification reactor, which favors a prompt
intermixing of fuel particles into the fluidized bed
in contrast to top-down charging of the fuel
particles. There are specific requirements of the
feeding system in order to ensure the transport of
fuels with various calorific values and size
distribution. As the feeding system of solid fuels is
a very important part of a gasification plant,
especially at industrial scale [20], a few words are
required to explain the other hopper installations.
The feeding arrangement of hopper 3 is equivalent
to a spreader feeding. It enables a comparison of
different locations of fuel input. The partially water
cooled screw feeding equipment of hopper 4 allows
the possibility of feeding materials with low
melting temperatures. In order to guarantee the
highest safety demands, all hoppers of the 100kWth
gasification plant are locked gas tight and flushed
with nitrogen. For comparison of the experimental
olivine
400 600
0.08 0.18
3.8 6.4
0.8 1.1
66 97
800 810
0.38 0.50
0.06 0.13
2.1 6.2
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Table 2: Lower heating value, volatiles, ash contents and water contents of various fuels, wt.% = percentage by weight
FEEDSTOCK / FUEL
lower heating value
lower heating value
water content
ash content
volatile matter
kJ/kg (dry)
kJ/kg (moist)
wt.%
wt.% (dry)
wt.% (dry)
softwood
pellets
18750
17460
6.1
0.3
86.5
hardwood
chips
18180
17010
5.7
1.0
84.0
40%straw/60%wood
blended pellets
18470
16270
10.5
1.6
82.4
100% straw
pellets
17680
16100
7.9
6.7
77.3
sewage sludge
pellets
12420
10800
11.0
41.5
55.4
100% straw
pellets
6.7
46.9
5.4
39.5
0.55
0.52
0.41
sewage sludge
pellets
41.5
29.7
3.7
20.2
3.9
1.01
0.05
Table 3: Main elements of various fuels, free from water, relative weight percentage
FEEDSTOCK / FUEL
ash content
C, carbon
H, hydrogen
O, oxygen
N, nitrogen
S, sulfur
Cl, chlorine
wt.%(dry)
wt.%(dry)
wt.%(dry)
wt.%(dry)
wt.%(dry)
wt.%(dry)
wt.%(dry)
softwood
pellets
0.3
50.2
6.0
43.4
0.05
0.005
0.003
hardwood
chips
1.0
48.8
5.9
44.1
0.15
0.02
0.003
40%straw/60%wood
blended pellets
1.6
49.9
5.7
42.6
0.25
0.02
0.01
Table 4: Calorific elements of various fuels, free from water, ash-free, relative weight percentage
FEEDSTOCK / FUEL
C, carbon
H, hydrogen
O, oxygen
N, nitrogen
S, sulfur
Cl, chlorine
wt.%(dry, ash-free)
wt.%(dry, ash-free)
wt.%(dry, ash-free)
wt.%(dry, ash-free)
wt.%(dry, ash-free)
wt.%(dry, ash-free)
softwood
pellets
50.4
6.1
43.5
0.05
0.005
0.003
hardwood
chips
49.3
5.9
44.6
0.15
0.015
0.003
40%straw/60%wood
blended pellets
50.7
5.7
43.3
0.25
0.02
0.01
100% straw
pellets
50.3
5.8
42.3
0.59
0.56
0.44
sewage sludge
pellets
50.7
6.3
34.5
6.67
1.73
0.09
hardwood
chips
1420
1460
40%straw/60%wood
blended pellets
900
1240
100% straw
pellets
720
1080
sewage sludge
pellets
1140
1240
C
C
softwood
pellets
1400
1450
100% straw
pellets
sewage sludge
pellets
< 0.5
<3
<1
45 50
<2
<2
37
30 35
6 10
< 0.5
< 1x10-4
< 1x10-4
< 0.5
< 1x10-4
< 1x10-4
< 5x10-5 (per)
<1
<3
6 10
13 16
8 12
24
< 0.1
25
25 30
<3
< 0.5
< 0.5
24 30
< 0.5
<1
< 5x10-2 (per)
Table 7: Process parameters of gasification experiments with various fuels, gasification reactor: GR, combustion reactor: CR
FEEDSTOCK/FUEL
PARAMETER
gasification temperature, GR
combustion temperature, CR
feedstock/fuel input, GR
feedstock/fuel input, GR
fuel to combustion reactor, CR
overall fuel input, GR & CR
product gas output, GR
lower heating value of gas, GR
product gas power, GR
cold gas yield/efficiency, GR
overall gas efficiency, experiments, GR & CR
overall gas efficiency, typical for 10MW plant
overall gas efficiency, estimated for 100MW plant
steam to carbon ratio, GR
steam to carbon ratio, GR
steam to fuel ratio, GR
C
C
kg/h
kW
kW
kW
m3stp/h
MJ/m3stp
kW(cold,tar&char-free)
kW/kW
kW/kW
kW/kW
kW/kW
kgH2O/kgC
molH2O/molC
kgH2O/kgfuel,dry
softwood
pellets
hardwood
chips
802
862
20.0
97.0
23.1
120.1
15.7
14.0
61.1
0.63
0.51
0.64 - 0.73
0.71 - 0.75
1.6
1.1
0.8
807
859
16.0
75.6
22.4
98.0
13.6
13.4
50.8
0.67
0.52
0.64 - 0.73
0.71 - 0.75
2.0
1.4
1.0
40%straw
60%wood
blended
pellets
800
844
16.8
75.9
25.6
101.5
16.1
12.4
55.4
0.73
0.55
0.64 - 0.73
0.71 - 0.75
2.2
1.5
1.1
sewage
sludge
pellets
810
897
22.0
66.0
30.8
96.8
15.9
11.8
52.0
0.79
0.54
0.64 - 0.73
0.71 - 0.75
3.0
2.0
0.9
Fig. 6: Main gaseous components of product gas yielded from various biomass fuels, relative product gas composition, vol.% (dry)
2 3.5
0.5 - 1
N2, nitrogen
vol.% (dry)
3-6
40 - 55
11 - 14
DISCUSSION
Since the feedstock composition varies over a
wide range it is not possible to set all process
parameters to similar values. In addition to
chemical similarity, it must be taken into account
that the fluid dynamics in the reactor is also an
important parameter to ensure operating conditions
without any problems [26, 27]. Furthermore, the
conversion of carbonic fuels in a fluidized bed
seems to be simple: Throw solid fuel into well
mixed bed material particles at very high
temperature - of course there will be a
decomposition of the fuel into predominantly
gaseous components. But the chemical reaction
pathways and also the fluid dynamics inside the
fluidized bed is very complex. This is the reason
why meaningful experimental results are so
important in this area of research and development.
Fig. 9: Relatively tar composition of GCMS tar values (middle of circles) by weight percentage, PAHs: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Fig. 10: SEM image of coated bed material particle, olivine [29]
Fig. 11: Typical various operation parameters of the DualFluid gasifier with 16.8kg/h 40%straw/60%wood blended pellets as feedstock
[18] Schmid, J.C., Pfeifer, C., Kitzler, H., Prll, T., Hofbauer, T.,
(2011). A new Dual Fluidized Bed Gasifier Design for Improved
In Situ Conversion of Hydrocarbons. Accepted for oral
presentation at the International Conference on Polygeneration
Strategies (ICPS11), Vienna, Austria
[19] Bridgewater, A.V., Bohlar-Nordenkampf, M.A., (2005).
Economics of Biomass Gasification. In H.A.M. Knoef,
Handbook Biomass Gasification, Eschede, The Netherlands,
Biomass Technology Group
[20] Vogel, A., Bohlar-Nordenkampf, M., Hofbauer, H., (2006).
Teil 1:
Technologische
und
verfahrenstechnische
Untersuchungen. In Analyse und Evaluierung der thermochemischen Vergasung von Biomasse, Schriftenreihe:
Nachwachsende Rohstoffe, Band 29, Landwirtschaftsverlag
[21] CEN BT/TF 15439, (2006). Biomass Gasification Tar and
Particles in Product Gases Sampling and Analysis.
[22] Milne, T.A., Evans, R.J., Abatzoglou, N., (1998). Biomass
gasifier Tars: Their Nature, Formation and Conversion.
Golden, Colorado, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
[23] Wolfesbereger, U., Aigner, I., Hofbauer, H., (2009). Tar
Content and Composition in Producer Gas of Fluidized Bed
Gasification of Wood Influence of Temperature and Pressure.
Environmantal Progress & Sustainable Energy, Vol. 28
[24] Prll, T., Hofbauer, H., (2008). Development and
Application of a Simulation Tool for Biomass Gasification
Based Processes. International Journal of Chemical Reactor
Engineering: Vol.6
[25] Mller, S., Stidl, M., Prll, T., Rauch, R., Hofbauer, H.,
(2011). Hydrogen from Biomass - Large Scale Hydrogen
Production Based on a Dual Fluidized Bed Steam Gasification
System, Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery, Vol.1
[26] Glicksman L.R., (1982). Scaling Relationships for Fluidized
Beds. Chem. Eng. Sci., Vol. 39, No.9,
[27] Leckner, B., Werther, J., (2000). Scale-up of Circulating
Fluidized Bed Combustion. Energy Fuels, American Chemical
Society, Vol.14
[28] Schuster., G., Lffler, G., Weigl,. K., Hofbauer, H., (2001).
Biomass Steam Gasification an Extensive Parametic Modeling
Study. Bioresource Technology, Vol.77
[29] Kirnbauer, F., Hofbauer, H. (2011). Investigations on Bed
Material Changes in a Dual Fluidized Bed Steam Gasification
Plant in Gssing, Austria. Energy Fuels, American Chemical
Society
[30] Kirnbauer, F., Kotik, J., Hofbauer, H., (2011).
Investigations on Organic Matter in DFB Biomass SteamGasification Plants in Gssing/Austria and Oberwart/Austria. In
Proceedings of the 19th European Biomass Conference, Berlin,
Germany
[31] Corella, J., Aznar, M.P., Gil, J., Caballero, M.A., (1999).
Biomass Gasification in Fluidized Beds: Where to Locate the
Dolomite to Improve Gasification? Energy Fuels, Vol.13,
American Chemical Society
[32] Schmid, J., Prll, T., Pfeifer, C., Hofbauer, H., (2011).
Improvement of Gas-Solid Interaction in a Dual Circulating
Fluidized Bed System. In Proceedings of the 9th European
Conference on Industrial Furnaces and Boilers, Estoril, Portugal
[33] Prll, T., Rauch, T., Aichernig, C., Hofbauer, H., (2005).
Fluidized Bed Steam Gasification of Solid Biomass Analysis
and Optimization of Plant Operation using Process Simulation.