THERMOCHEMICAL CONVERSION BEHAVIOUR OF DIFFERENT BIOMASS FEEDSTOCKS: PYROLYSIS AND GASIFICATION

Year 2016, Volume: 3 Issue: 3, 731 - 746, 08.01.2017

Işıl Gülsaç , Yeliz Çetin Berrin Engin Parvana Aksoy Hakan Karataş Alper Sarıoğlan

https://doi.org/10.18596/jotcsa.287307

Cited By: 1

Abstract

n this study, a bench-scale bubbling fluidized bed (BFB) gasifier and thermogravimetric analyzer (TGA) were applied for the determination of the thermochemical conversion reactivity of biomass fuels under both gasification and pyrolysis conditions. Six different biomass feedstocks, namely; straw pellet (SP), softwood pellet (WP), torrefied wood chips (TWC), pyrolysis char (PC), miled sunflower seed (MSS) and dried distillers’ grains and solubles (DDGS) were investigated. TGA of biomass feedstocks were carried out under pyrolysis conditions at four different heating rates (2-15 °C/min). Raw data obtained from the experiments were used to calculate the kinetic parameters (A, E_a) of the samples by using two different models; Coats-Redfern and Isoconversional Method. TGA analysis showed that pyrolysis char was the only sample having decomposition temperature above 800 K since it was the pre-pyrolized sample before the gasification. According to DTG profiles, two peaks and two shoulders at around 450-650 K were observed for DDGS whereas no peaks were detected for pyrolysis char as the indication of absence of volatiles/cellulosic components. It was seen that the highest devolatization rates and devolatization temperatures (associated mainly with cellulose decomposition) were obtained for softwood and torrefied wood samples, which had the least char yields among the other biomass feedstocks. It was seen that WP was more reactive for thermochemical conversion and less prone to agglomeration. Furthermore high ash content and agglomeration index of MSS were the potential drawbacks in front of its utilization via thermochemical conversion. During the air gasification of these feedstocks (except DDGS), the product syngas was characterized in terms of main gas composition, tar and sulfur compounds. It was shown that the highest cold gas efficiency, carbon conversion and calorific value were obtained for the gasification of SP. On the other hand, SP had some drawbacks regarding its high agglomeration tendency and low deformation temperature. Among all feedstocks, gasification reactivity of MSS was found to be quite poor. MSS seemed to expose to pyrolization instead of gasification. WP and TWC were gasified with acceptable conversion values and efficiencies when compared with SP. It was understood that WP is the preferred choice for the thermochemical conversions.

References

• Fang Z, Sato T, Smith R, Inomata H, Arai K, Kozinski J. Reaction chemistry and phase behaviour of lignin in high temperature and supercritical water. Bioresource Technology. 2008; 99: 3424-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2007.08.008.
• Kirubakaran V, Sivaramakrishnan V, Nalini R, Sekar T, Premalatha M, Subramanian P. A review on gasification of biomass. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2009; 13:179-86. DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2007.07.001.
• McKendry P. Energy production from biomass (part 3): gasification technologies. Bioresource Technology. 2002;83:55-63. DOI: 10.1016/S0960-8524(01)00120-1.
• Gabra M, Pettersson E, Backman R, Kjellstrom B. Evaluation of cyclone gasifier performance for gasification of sugarcane residue-Part 1: gasification of bagasse. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2001; 21:351-69. DOI: 10.1016/S0961-9534(01)00043-5.
• Boateng A A, Walawender W P, Fan L T, Chee C S. Fluidized-bed steam gasification of rice hull. Bioresource and Biotechnology. 1992; 40: 235-39. DOI: 10.1016/0960-8524(92)90148-Q.
• Lv P M, Xiong Z H, Chang J, Wu C X, Chen Y, Zhu J X. An experimental study on biomass air-steam gasification in a fluidized bed. Bioresource Technology. 2004; 95: 95-101. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2004.02.003.
• Rapagna S, Jand N, Kiennemann A, Foscolo P U. Steam-gasification of biomass in a fluidized-bed of olivine particles. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2000; 19: 187-97. DOI: 10.1016/S0961-9534(00)00031-3.
• S. Rapagna S, A. Latif A. Steam gasification of almond shells in a fluidized bed reactor: The influence of temperature and particle size on product yield and distribution. Biomass and Bioenergy. 1997; 12: 281-88. DOI: 10.1016/S0961-9534(96)00079-7.
• Ergudenler A, Ghaly A E. Agglomeration of alumina sand in a fluidized-bed straw gasifier at elevated temperatures. Bioresource Technology. 1993; 43: 259-68. DOI: 10.1016/0960-8524(93)90039-E.
• Ko M K, Lee W Y, Kim S B, Lee K W, Chun H S. Gasification of food waste with steam in fluidized bed. Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering. 2001; 18: 961-64. DOI: 10.1007/BF02705626.
• Kumabe K, Hanaoka T, Fujimoto S, Minowa T, Sakanishi K. Co-gasification of woody biomass and coal with air and steam. Fuel. 2007; 86: 684-89. DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2006.08.026.
• Gates B C, Huber G W, Marshall C L, Ross O N, Sirolla J, Wang Y. Catalysts for emerging energy applications. MRS Bull. 2008; 33: 429-35. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1557/mrs2008.85.
• Demirbas A. Combustion characteristics of different biomass fuels. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science. 2004; 30: 219-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.pecs.2003.10.004.
• Raveendran K, Ganesh A, Khilar K C. Pyrolysis characteristics of biomass and biomass components. Fuel. 1996; 75: 987-98. DOI: 10.1016/0016-2361(96)00030-0.
• Schuster G, Loffler G, Weigl K, Hofbauer H. Biomass steam gasification – an extensive parametric modeling study. Bioresources Technology. 2000; 77: 71-79. DOI: 10.1016/S0960-8524(00)00115-2.
• Yang H, Yan R, Chen H, Lee H D, Zheng C. Characteristics of hemi-celulose, cellulose, and lignin pyrolysis. Fuel. 2007; 86: 1781-88. DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2006.12.013.
• Kezhong L, Zhang R, Bi J. Experimental study on syngas production by co-gasification of coal and biomass in fluidized bed. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 2010; 35: 2722-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.04.046.
• Herguido J, Corella J, Gonzalez-Saiz J. Steam gasification of lignocellulosic residues in a fluidized bed at a small pilot scale Effect of type of feedstock. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. 1992; 31: 1274-82. DOI: 10.1021/ie00005a006.
• Biedermann F, Obernberger I. Ash-related Problems during Biomass Combustion and Possibilities for a Sustainable Ash utilisation. http://www.bios-bioenergy.at/uploads/media/Paper-Biederman AshRelated-2005-10-11.pdf.
• Arvelakis S, Sotiriou C, Moutsatsou A, Koukios E G. Prediction of the behaviour of biomass ash in fluidized bed combustors and gasifiers. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 1999; 56: 1271-78. DOI: 10.1023/A:1010189919655.
• Durak-Çetin Y, Engin B, Sarıoğlan A. Thermogravimetric Behaviour of Different Biomass Feedstocks and Their Pyrolysis Kinetics. Papers of the 23rd European Biomass Conference held in Vienna Austria. 2015; 1236-1242.
• Gašparovič L, Koreňová Z, Jelemenský L. Kinetic study of wood chips decomposition by TGA. Proceedings of the 36th International Conference of Slovak Society of Chemical Engineering. 2009; pag. 178.
• Gunnar M, Grønli, Varhegyi G, Blasi C D. Thermogravimetric Analysis and Devolatilization Kinetics of Wood. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2002; 41: 4201-4208. DOI: 10.1021/ie0201157.
• Simon P. Isoconversional methods: fundamental, meaning and application. Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry. 2004;76, 1, 123-132,DOI: 10.1023/B:JTAN.0000027811.80036.6c.
• Sbirrazzuoli N, Vincent L, Mija A, Guio N. Integral, differential and advanced isoconversional methods: Complex mechanisms and isothermal predicted conversion–time curves. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems. 2009;96, 2, 219-226. DOI:10.1016/j.chemolab.2009.02.002.
• Ku X, Lin J, Yuan F. Influence of Torrefaction on Biomass Gasification Performance in a High-Temperature Entrained-Flow Reactor. Energy&Fuels 2016; 30; 4053-4064. DOI 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b00163.
• Palma C F. Modelling of tar formation and evolution for biomass gasification: A review. Applied Energy. 2013; 111; 129-141. DOI 10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.04.082.