Gasification and co-gasification of biomass wastes: Effect of the biomass origin and the gasifier operating conditions

Lapuerta, Magı́n; Hernández, Juan José Marín; Pazo, Amparo; López, Juan José Marín

doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2008.02.001

Cited by 253 publications

(126 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

107

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Many co-conversion studies related to co-gasification studies have focused on parametric studies of the gasifier [31][32][33][34][35][37][38][39][40][41][42][43], mostly omitting the mechanisms by which mixtures of coal and biomass interact and how coal and biomass thermally degrade. The interaction between coal and biomass during thermal co-conversion is an issue yet to be solved; some devolatilization and pyrolysis results of coal and biomass blends have revealed no or very little synergy between the two fuels [44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] while others have revealed significant synergy [43,[57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71].…”

Section: Feedstockmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The interaction between coal and biomass during thermal co-conversion is an issue yet to be solved; some devolatilization and pyrolysis results of coal and biomass blends have revealed no or very little synergy between the two fuels [44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] while others have revealed significant synergy [43,[57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71]. It is important to segregate the synergistic effect from the catalytic effect engendered by biomass mineral matters; most of the studies that found synergistic effects between the two fuels failed to segregate these two phenomena.…”

Section: Feedstockmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Review of Thermal Co-Conversion of Coal and Biomass/Waste

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Biomass is relatively cleaner than coal and is the only renewable carbon resource that can be directly converted into fuel. Biomass can significantly contribute to the world's energy needs if harnessed sustainably. However, there are also problems associated with the thermal conversion of biomass. This paper investigates and discusses issues associated with the thermal conversion of coal and biomass as a blend. Most notable topics reviewed are slagging and fouling caused by the relatively reactive alkali and alkaline earth compounds (K 2 O, Na 2 O and CaO) found in biomass ash. The alkali and alkaline earth metals (AAEM) present and dispersed in biomass fuels induce catalytic activity during co-conversion with coal. The catalytic activity is most noticeable when blended with high rank coals. The synergy during co-conversion is still controversial although it has been theorized that biomass acts like a hydrogen donor in liquefaction. Published literature also shows that coal and biomass exhibit different mechanisms, depending on the operating conditions, for the formation of nitrogen (N) and sulfur species. Utilization aspects of fly ash from blending coal and biomass are discussed. Recommendations are made on pretreatment options to increase the energy density of biomass fuels through pelletization, torrefaction and flash pyrolysis to reduce transportation costs.

show abstract

Section: Feedstockmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Feedstockmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Thermal Co-Conversion of Coal and Biomass/Waste

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This agricultural by-product is generated in large amounts in the wine making regions of Mediterranean countries, with an estimated yearly production of between 1.0-1.5 t ha -1 (Lapuerta et al, 2008). Prior to being used, the biomass was ground and sieved to a particle size < 500 µm.…”

Section: Biomass Supply and Characterisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Less information is available on the use of entrained-flow reactors (also referred to as free fall and drop tube reactors), a design characterised for its mechanical simplicity and robustness (Biagini et al, 2005;Lapuerta et al, 2008;Zhao et al, 2009). Owing to the temperature patterns and atmospheric conditions generated inside the reaction chamber and also to differences in heat transfer efficiencies, reactor design has a notable effect on the quality and composition of the resulting syngas (Knoef, 2005;Han and Kim, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gasification of grapevine pruning waste in an entrained-flow reactor: gas products, energy efficiency and gas conditioning alternatives

Aranda

Aplicada²,

Proyectos³

et al. 2013

Global NEST Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Owing to its higher efficiency and versatility, gasification is seen as a necessary evolution in the development of biomass energy systems. This technology has been primarily tested in fixed bed (updraft and downdraft) and fluidised bed reaction systems, with less information available about the potential of entrained-flow reactors. This latter design benefits from a relatively simple mechanical structure, robustness against severe gasification conditions and also reduced investment and operating costs. This paper describes the development of a pilot scale entrained-flow reactor and evaluates its performance in the gasification of wood waste left over from the pruning of grapevine (Vitis vinifera). The original biomass was initially analysed for its chemical composition and thermal behaviour. A series of gasification trials were conducted to evaluate the effect of temperature and relative biomass/air ratio (F rg ) on the yield, composition, heating value of the resulting syngas. The cold gas efficiency of the system was determined for different operating conditions from the heating value and yields of the resulting producer gas.The results showed that the use of higher temperatures caused a small increase in overall gas yields (from 1.76 Nm 3 kg -1 at 750ºC to 1.96 Nm 3 kg -1 at 1050ºC) and a notable rise in its heating value (from 3.65 MJ kg -1 at 750ºC to 4.95 MJ kg -1 at 1050ºC), primarily derived from an increase in the concentration of hydrogen. The experimental results show a reduction in the fuel properties of the producer gas when using biomass/air ratios (F rg ) below 2.5, which was attributed to the partial combustion of the producer gas. However, this effect was largely counteracted by the production of higher gas yields (3.39 Nm 3 kg -1 for F rg = 2.16 compared to 1.96 Nm 3 kg -1 for F rg = 4.05), owing to the higher conversion of the fuel at low biomass/air ratios. Optimum gasification conditions (cold gas efficiency up to 83.06 %) were reached when using high reaction temperatures (1050ºC) and low F rg (2.19). This paper also provides a final review about the formation of unwanted tars and particulates in gasification processes, its effect in energy applications, and the use of alternative technologies (thermocatalytic cracking, reforming, water-gas shift) for the conditioning and upgrading of the resulting gas stream.

show abstract

“…To date, studies of co-gasification have been limited only to coal or plastic wastes coupled with another biomass; for example in the works by Pinto et al (2002), Senneca (2007) and Yuehong, Hao, and Zhihong (2006). At present, only one report (Lapuerta, Hernández, Pazo, & López, 2008) of a preliminary study of co-gasification of different biomasses can be found, in which the biomasses considered are limited to those available in Mediterranean countries. The gasification process can be complicated as it requires the biomass feedstock to have a low moisture content, typically below 15% (Moni & Sulaiman, 2013a).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Diversification of Feedstock in Gasification of Oil Palm Fronds

Sulaiman¹,

Razali²,

Konda³

et al. 2014

J MECH ENG SCI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Co-gasification of biomass can be beneficial since relying on only one type of biomass can interrupt operations if the supply of feedstock is disrupted for any reason. Despite this a gasifier system is usually designed for operation with only one specific feedstock. The gasifying of different biomasses can lead to failure or inefficiency. In this work the gasification of different forms of feedstock derived from oil palm frond was tested in an updraft gasifier that was specially designed for oil palm fronds. The feedstocks considered were dried frond blocks, briquetted fronds and overdried (at 150°C) frond blocks. The air flow rate was maintained to the value set for dried fronds in order to investigate the robustness of such configurations. The resulting syngas from the gasification was analyzed in terms of the composition of combustible gases and higher heating value (HHV). Overall, it was found that the altered forms of feedstock caused degradation in the syngas quality, which resulted in a decrease in the HHV of up to 65%.

show abstract

Gasification and co-gasification of biomass wastes: Effect of the biomass origin and the gasifier operating conditions

Cited by 253 publications

References 18 publications

A Review of Thermal Co-Conversion of Coal and Biomass/Waste

A Review of Thermal Co-Conversion of Coal and Biomass/Waste

Gasification of grapevine pruning waste in an entrained-flow reactor: gas products, energy efficiency and gas conditioning alternatives

On the Diversification of Feedstock in Gasification of Oil Palm Fronds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About