International Conference on Applied Energy

ICAE 2013, Jul 1-4, 2013, Pretoria, South Africa

Paper ID: ICAE2013-454

BIO-METHANE PRODUCTION THROUGH DIFFERENT BIOMASS GASIFIERS

1
Guilnaz Mirmoshtaghi , Hailong Li, Erik Dahlquist, Eva Thorin
School of Business, Society & Engineering, Mälardalen University, Box 883, SE-721 23 Västerås, Sweden
Email address: guilnaz.mirmoshtaghi@mdh.se
Phone number:+46-21-101490

ABSTRACT 1. INTRODUCTION
th
Considering sustainability of energy resources and In the end of 18 century, for the first time,
environmental concerns have led to activities all over combustible gas was produced from solid fuels (coal
the world seeking alternatives for current methods or wood) through pyrolysis in large scale. Because of
of fuel production. Gasification of biomass to supply the dramatic increase in the energy price and
bio-methane is one of those options. Bio-methane is demand, gasification started to be developed as an
carbon neutral and meets the needs of combustion alternative technology to provide heating and
engines in vehicles. lighting for household [3]. Till 1930, the study was
Focusing on vehicle fuel production reveals the more on an empirical level while in 1930 to 1950
need for wide research to understand different types scientists started to learn about the process in a
of gasifiers in order to find the possibilities for more more theoretical and fundamental way. Around 1970
methane production. the first oil crisis appeared and brought interest to
In this paper data collected from different gasification again. Since the 1990s driving force has
experimental setups are summarized and analyzed. been changed to the sustainable development. Lots
Fluidized bed gasifiers show higher methane of industrial and scientific efforts have been put in
concentrations in the produced gas while entrained developing and using this technology. Greve in
flow and downdraft gasifiers may be the least Chianti, Värö in Sweden, Lahti in Finland, Corenso in
suitable types for high methane yields. Finland, Gussing in Austria are examples of existing
Heating value of the product gas and cold gas gasification plants in different scales with different
efficiency are also studied as the important end products.[8] .
parameters for evaluating the characteristics of the The transportation sector, with one of the biggest
product gas. This analysis shows that by increasing share of energy consumption in the world, needs to
the equivalence ratio, the heating value of the be developed towards sustainability as well. Even
product gas decreases while the efficiency may not though fossil fuels are highly efficient for internal
follow the same trend. combustion engines, different alternatives of energy
Keywords: biomass, gasification, bio-methane sources and fuel production technologies need to be
studied, for instance methane produced from
NOMENCLATURE gasification.
Abbreviation Bio-methane can be produced from different
ER Equivalence ratio renewable sources through various methods, such as
LHV
3
Lower heating value (MJ/Nm ) for anaerobic digestion of organic matters or gasification
produced gas and (MJ/kg) for of lignocellulosic biomass where the latter seems to
biomass be more promising in large scale methane
CGEF Cold gas efficiency production.
Symbols ER(Equivalence ratio) is one of the most important
CR Ratio shows contribution of CH4 to effective parameters on product gas composition
LHV and gasifier efficiency. Therefore only those types of
Gy
3
Gas yield (Nm product gas/kg gasifiers operating with air or oxygen were
biomass) considered in the scope of this work. However, in
MC Biomass moisture content some cases steam was also present partly in the
(Weight%) oxidizing agent.
The purpose of this study is to identify the
potential for producing as much methane as
 Paper ID: ICAE2013-454

1
possible. Process efficiency and heating value of the Table 1. List of different gasifiers [4]
produced gas are also important parameters taken -Updraft
into account for any evaluation of the gasifiers. Moving or fixed
-Downdraft*
Different types of gasifiers with different operating bed gasifier
-Cross draft
conditions have been tested to understand the -Bubbling fluidized bed
effects of temperature and equivalence ratio (BFB)*
changes on methane content, lower heating value Fluidized bed
-Circulating fluidized bed
(LHV) of the produced gas and the cold gas gasifier
(CFB)*
efficiency. 2
-Spouted-fluid bed *
Entrained flow -Entrained flow-down flow*
2. GASIFICATION TECHNOLOGIES AND gasifier -Entrained flow-up flow
METHODOLOGY -Char indirect, two phase
There are different types of gasifiers being tested with steam reforming
Indirect gasifiers
for several years. This work is conducted based on -Gas indirect, single stage
the review of experimental data collected from with steam reforming
different air-oxygen gasification test rigs which are Non-conventional Cyclone gasifier*
classified in six categories of gasifiers, including gasifiers
bubbling fluidized bed, circulating fluidized bed,
spouted bed, downdraft fixed bed, entrained flow In most studies of gasification, equivalence ratio is
and cyclone. In Table 1, there is a list of different used to represent the air/oxygen fed into the
categories of gasifiers and their subdivisions. From gasifier. ER is the ratio between air mass to biomass
this general list, only the ones shown with asterisk in the real system divided by the same ratio in
mark are considered in this study due to limitations stoichiometry system. This is shown in Equation
in available data. All test rigs use biomass as 1 [21].
feedstock.
The data about LHV, cold gas efficiency and the 𝒂𝒊𝒓(𝒐𝒙𝒚𝒈𝒆𝒏)
𝒅𝒓𝒚 𝒃𝒊𝒐𝒎𝒂𝒔𝒔
CH4 concentration in the product gas have been 𝐄𝑹 = (𝟏)
𝒂𝒊𝒓(𝒐𝒙𝒚𝒈𝒆𝒏)𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒊𝒄𝒉𝒊𝒐𝒎𝒆𝒕𝒓𝒚
collected considering the oxygen or air as oxidizing 𝒅𝒓𝒚 𝒃𝒊𝒐𝒎𝒂𝒔𝒔
agent. Even though many experiments have been
conducted, the published data were limited. In In order to evaluate the performance of a gasifier
addition, in some cases calculations were done to the two most important factors are: the heating
provide missing data, for example in some papers value of the produced gas and the cold gas
either the product gas heating value was presented efficiency. The first one shows the usable energy
as HHV or it was not given and in some papers the level of the gas while the second one presents the
cold gas efficiency was not calculated or was given efficiency of the gasifier to convert the feedstock to
based on HHV. The gasifiers were compared based gas.
on the collected data in order to find out the suitable In most of the collected data, LHV of the product
gasification technology regarding CH4 production. gas was given by the author. However in some cases
In air or oxygen gasification one of the most either HHV was given or the LHV change for different
important parameters for the performance of the ER values was not reported. Therefore equation 2 is
gasifier and the quality of the product gas is the used to calculate the LHV of the product gas for the
amount of the oxygen being consumed in partial
cases in which it is missing [21].
oxidation reaction, which provides necessary heat
for further gasification reactions. Therefore this 𝟒. 𝟐
factor controls the temperature of the system as 𝑳𝑯𝑽𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒅𝒖𝒄𝒆𝒅 𝒈𝒂𝒔 = × (𝟑𝟎𝑪𝑶 + 𝟐𝟓. 𝟕𝑯𝟐
𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎
well. + 𝟖𝟓. 𝟒𝑪𝑯𝟒 + 𝟏𝟓𝟏. 𝟑𝑪𝒏 𝑯𝒎 ) (𝟐)

1
Data have been found for the types marked with * and
analyzed in this study.
2
Spout–fluid bed reactor is a combination of a fluidized
bed and a spouted bed .The spouted bed has the central
opening while fluidization would be added by the distributed
plate. This make an additional fluid flow to the conventional
spouted bed.[11]

2
 Paper ID: ICAE2013-454

that the CH4% is in a range of 1-10mol%, and low ER

3
CO, H2, CH4 and CnHm are in vol% and LHV is MJ/Nm . favors the production of methane.

Cold gas efficiency (CGEF) stands for the ratio

between the LHV of the product gas without tar to
the biomass heating value. This parameter can show
how energy efficient a gasifier can convert the solid
fuel to the gas. In equation 3, the calculation of cold
gas efficiency which stands for the produced gas
without tar is shown [21]

𝑳𝑯𝑽𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒅𝒖𝒄𝒕 𝒈𝒂𝒔 × 𝑮𝒚
𝑪𝑮𝑬𝑭 = (𝟑)
𝑳𝑯𝑽𝒃𝒊𝒐𝒎𝒂𝒔𝒔

In a few cases, the heating value of the feedstock

was either reported in HHV or not given, the Dulongs
formula is used for the LHV calculation of the
biomass [7].

𝑳𝑯𝑽𝒃𝒊𝒐𝒎𝒂𝒔𝒔 = 𝟑𝟑. 𝟒𝑪 + 𝟏𝟑𝟗. 𝟕𝑯 − 𝟏𝟓. 𝟔𝑶 − 𝟏𝟒. 𝟔𝑵 Figure 1. CH4 concentration versus ER and Temperature
− 𝟐. 𝟔𝑴𝑪 (𝟒)
Concentration changes in different ER values are
more clearly shown in Figure 2. The first
C, HO and N are in weight percent of the dry
interpretation of these results is that regardless of
biomass.
the type and size of gasifiers, and the type and
In this specific work, since the focus is more on
amount of the feedstock, in all of the presented
methane than other components in the produced
setups CH4 concentration decreases by ER increase.
gas, it would be interesting to see the contribution of
The main difference comes from individual trends of
CH4 to the product gas heating value. Therefore a
variation versus ER.
new parameter, CR, is defined as the ratio of
In entrained flow gasifiers, for example, ER has the
produced methane lower heating value to the total
least effect while the most dramatic change appears
LHV of the gas.
in CFB and BFB. In cyclone gasifiers, there are some
𝑪𝑯𝟒 × 𝑳𝑯𝑽𝑪𝑯𝟒 extreme values for CH4 concentration (around 8%) in
𝑪𝑹 = (𝟓) ER OF 0.25 to 0.3 which seems inconsistence with
𝑳𝑯𝑽𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒅𝒖𝒄𝒕 𝒈𝒂𝒔
other points found for this type. In order to have
better understanding and analysis, more data
3. RESULTS
needed to be found.
Javier Gil et al. concluded that at least 20 Fluidized bed gasifiers in the lower ER range (0.15-
operating parameters can affect the product gas 0.3) seem to mostly suit the methane production.
quality and performance of the gasifier [5]. However, For instance, the highest CH4 concentration is around
some are more important such as temperature and 10% from CFB in ER of 0.2 while the least amount is
ER. around 1% produces in entrained flow gasifier with
In this study the focus is mostly on the oxidizing the ER around 0.35..
agent that influences the operating temperature as
well. The reviewed experiments are shown in Table 2
stating the feedstock and size of each reactor. In
most of the cases the oxidizing agent is air while in
some cases it can be steam as well.

3.1 CH4 concentration

Figure 1 presents the methane concentration at
0
different ER (0.15-0.75) and temperatures (600 C to
0
1100 C) measured in different gasifiers. It is shown

3
 Paper ID: ICAE2013-454

Figure 2. CH4 concentration versus ER

Table2. Gasifier list considered in this study

Type of gasifiers Feedstock diameter (mm) height (m) Oxidizing agent Ref
BFB Pine sawdust 60 0.7 Air [14]
Pressurized BFB Crushed wood pellets 100 1 Air [19]
BFB Pine sawdust 60 1.4 Air and steam [17]
CFB Gum wood 400 5 Air [20]
CFB Leached Orujillo 200 6.5 Air [16]
3
CFB Different woody biomass 100 6.5 Air [22]
Pressurized CFB Sawdust 250 4.2 Air and steam [9]
Spouted bed Rice husk - Max bed height: Air [6]
0.315
4
Spouted bed Saw dust 50.8 to 300 3 Air [11]
Downdraft fixed Wood pellets 100 0.5 Air [1]
bed
Downdraft fixed Hazelnut shell Oxidation:450 0.81 Air [10]
bed Dry:305
Throat:135
Downdraft fixed Wood chips 600 2.5 Air [24]
bed
Entrained flow – Rice husk 40 1 Oxygen [25]
down flow Sawdust
Entrained flow – Rice husk 100 1.9 Air [23]
down flow
Entrained flow – Pulverized wood 255 2 Oxygen [15]
down flow
Cyclone Bagasse 200 0.7 Air and steam [13]
5
Cyclone BMF from pine sawdust 300 0.9 Air and steam [21]
Cyclone Wood powder 200 1.3 Air [18]
3
Cypress and Hemlock
4
It does not have a uniform cross section. It consists of two
main zone; distributor and enlargement.
5
Biomass Micron Fuel with particle size of less than 250µm

4

3.2 Lower heating value
Figure 3 shows the variation of the LHV with ER
and temperature. The ranges of ER and temperature
are the same as described in Section 3.1. LHV varies
3
between 2 to 9 MJ/Nm . The decrease of LHV with
the increase of ER can be clearly noted.
Figure 3. LHV versus ER and temperature
Figure 4 shows that the heating value of the
product gas drops with increased ER for all gasifier
types.
Spouted bed gasifier shows the lowest level of
heating value while the other fluidized bed gasifiers
have the highest LHV in ER < 0.3.
Figure 4. LHV versus ER
5
Paper ID: ICAE2013-454
For cyclone gasifier, no direct relation with ER is
shown. Due to the very scattered data for this
gasifier, it is not considered in the heating value
analysis.
As ER < 0.3, BFB shows slightly better results for
LHV than CFB while methane concentration is higher
in CFB than in BFB. This shows that higher methane
concentration in the product gas does not
necessarily mean a higher heating value for the
syngas.
Due to the high level of biomass oxidation which
causes high CO2 content in the product gas, the
lowest level of heating value is expected for
downdraft gasifier among all other types. [4]
However the product gas LHV from this type of
3
gasifer is between 3.5 to 5.5 MJ/Nm which is lower
than the fluidized bed gasifiers and more than other
types.
According to the presented figure, entrained flow
gasifier has a low level of heating value (3.5 to 4.5
3 3
MJ/Nm ), but it can also reach 14-16 MJ/Nm when
o
the gasifier operated at 1200 and 1300 C [25].
 Paper ID: ICAE2013-454

This would happen due to different reasons such According to Figure 5, for the downdraft gasifier, the
as using oxygen instead of air as oxidizing agent or methane contribution to the LHV of the product gas
smaller gasifier which leads to shorter residence time (CR) increases with an increase in ER, while all the
for the gas which prevents further oxidation and other types of gasifier show the opposite trend. This
reforming of volatiles. However one of the clear could be interpreted in higher ER, due to more CO2
parameters is temperature. In such gasifiers high production, LHV of the product gas decreases and
temperature results in the increases of hydrogen and therefore the share of CH4 in the total heating value
CO production and therefore higher LHVs could be of the gas increases.
achieved [2] In the case of cyclone gasifier, the CR value shows
This difference in values makes the analysis of some extream values for lower ER which miss
entrained flow gasifier less precise and more data matches with the trend of other points. In order to
collection is needed to achieve higher accuracy. make any precise evaluation for CH4 contribution to
Figure 5 gives a better view of the methane role the LHV of the product gas in this type of gasifier,
for the product gas LHV. This figure shows CR at more data are needed.
different ER values. The CR value in this study lies
between 10% to 50%.
Since the main components of product gas forming
LHV are hydrogen, carbon monoxide and methane,
high level of CR means that either CH4 is high or the
other components have low vol%. Therefore, from a
process integration point of view, if the contribution
of CH4 to the LHV (CR value) is low (without dramatic
decrease in CH4 amount), the rest of produced gas
even after methane separation, could be accounted
for its high LHV value and could be used easily in
internal process integration.

Figure 5. CR versus ER

6
 Paper ID: ICAE2013-454

3.3 Cold gas efficiency Figure 7 illustrates the changes of CGEF at different
ERs. Except for the Entrained-flow gasifier which
The CGEF in this study is in the range of 18% to
shows a sharp drop in efficiency with the increase of
90% which is rather large.
ER, CGEF of other gasifiers rises with the increase to
According to Figure 6, most data are available in
o o ER until it is around 0.3 and then a decrease
the temperature range of 800 C to 1000 C, while
afterwards. The peak of efficiency for each gasifier
the ER values are in the range of 0.15 to 0.3. It could
may occur due to either high gas yield or high LHV of
be seen that by increase in temperature, CGEF
the product gas. The reason that LHV decreases by
increases in most of the cases. However in some
ER, is that more gas is yielded at ER around 0.25 to
cases due to the temperature control no trend could
0.3. For CFB gasifier, there are some big values for
be seen. When the test runs in the condition that
CGEF in ER > 0.6 which could be due to more gas
gasification temperature is controlled in a certain
production. However any kind of analysis on this
level at any change in the system, then it no longer
range of ER needs more data and experimental
could be studied as a variable affecting the gas CGEF.
results.

4. DISCUSSION
Besides the methane concentration of the product
gas, LHV and cold gas efficiency at different ERs and
temperature levels, there are more issues to
consider when selecting a gasifier. In Table 3, some
probable practical issues for each type of gasifier are
presented, for example, High ash content in the
produced gas which may cause slagging, and the low
capability of handling high temperatures which may
cause bridging and clinkering.
.

Figure 6. CGEF versus ER and Temperature

Figure 7. CGEF versus ER

7
 Paper ID: ICAE2013-454

Table 3. Practical issues in gasifiers [12] general idea is to check the possible combining
Types of Practical issues alternatives for the objective of such a work.
gasifier Another challenge is the methane separation
Fixed bed, -Limited ash content for the techniques that if would be proved to be efficient
downdraft biomass then it may may put some constraints on the gasifier
-Scale up capacity is limited selection.
-Bridging and clinkering may The results and analysis in this work have some
happen uncertainty factors due to:
1. Limited number of experimental setups
Bubbling -High tar and fine particles in
included in the work
fluidized bed the gas content
2. Not fully accurate ER, LHV and efficiency
-Ash clinkering may happen in
calculations done by the author in the cases
high temperature
which could not be found in the papers,
-High product gas temperature
3. Trend line fitting on the scattered data
-High carbon content in the fly
ash may appear
Circulating -Corrosion and attrition
fluidized bed -Operational control is harder 5. CONCLUSION
Entrained flow -Limitation on the size of Based on the results presented in this paper, it is
biomass found that regardless the type and size of the gasifier
-Ash slagging and the other effective parameters, methane
-Complexity in operating concentration decreases when the equivalence ratio
-Carbon loss through ash increases and LHV of the produced gas drops. Cold
Cyclone -Fuel pretreatment is needed gas efficiency, for most of the gasifier types, first
6
gasifier (torrefaction or pelletization) increases and then drops.
-High char production and low Equivalence ratio around 0.15 to 0.3 is the feasible
reactivity range for methane production through gasification
-Still in the evaluation level and CFB seems to give the highest methane yields
and also produces gas with high LHV and CEFG.
Considering these issues and also the discussed The LHV of the gas is higher for BFB and CFB in
changes in gas quality and gasifier performance comparison with the other types of gasifiers. These
confirms most of the available ideas for the gasifiers also have the highest CR in ER < 0.35. The
operating purpose of different types of gasifier based lowest level of LHV and CGEF are for spouted bed
on product gas using area [4] It also present almost while its CR value is higher.
the same performance for each gasifier type as The entrained flow gasifier is found to be one of
the most sensitive gasifiers to parameters other than
mentioned in the literature [26]. However it would
ER such as feed type, load, gasifier size and
give a new clue to novel designs which may be the
dimension. This can be understood looking at the
combination of different types of gasifiers. For
figure 4 showing that the product gas LHV in specific
example a reactor which is partly fixed bed and 3
ER, shows high values such as 14 to 16 MJ/Nm in
partly fluidized bed may help separation between
some test rigs whilein other setups the LHV is around
pyrolysis and gasification region, so volatiles such as 3
3.5 to 4.5 MJ/Nm .
CH4 can get out of the system before further
Cyclone gasifier presents very scattered data
gasification; or even dual bed gasifiers which are the
points which make the LHV analysis hard while it
combination of BFB and CFB together and eliminate
shows more focused points for CR and CGEF analysis.
the gas dilution by nitrogen from air. Cyclone gasifier
In the case of down draft gasifier, an interesting
may have better compatibility with entrained flow
outcome is in the LHV analysis. Even though in this
gasifier, but there is also the alternative of combining
type of gasifier the condition for more oxidation and
the fluidized bed or fixed bed gasifier with it. The
CO2 production (which causes LHV decrease) is
proper at ER < 0.35, it shows rather high LHV. .
6
This part only comes from a report written in Umeå
university and Mid Swedish university in 2005 [4].
- In some literature, this type of gasifier is considered as a
kind of entrained flow gasifier.

8

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The financial support on this study which is a part
of research work on “Methane production via
biomass gasification” received from Swedish Energy
agency together with the collaboration of industrial
partners.
REFERENCES
[1] Maria Barrio. Experimental investigation of
small scale gasification of woody biomass-
Doctoral Thesis. The Norwegian university
of science and technology, Norway, (2002).
[2] Rikard Gebert. Entrained flow gasification –
Lecture notes for the summer school in
biomass gasification. Luleå, Luleå university,
Summer 2012.
[3] Christopher Higman, Maarten vand der
Burgt. Gasification Gulf professional
publishing, (2008).
[4] Ingemar Olofsson, Anders Nordin,Ulf
Söderlin. Initial Review and Evaluation of
Process Technologies and Systems Suitable
for Cost-Efficient Medium-Scale Gasification
for Biomass to Liquid Fuels. Umeå University
and Mid Swedish University, 2005.
[5] Javier Gil, Jose Corella, Maria P.Aznar,
Miguel A. Caballero. Biomass gasification in
atmospheric and bubbling fluidized bed:
Effect of the type of gasifying agent on the
product distribution. Biomass and Bioenergy
17 (1999). 389-403.
[6] K.G.Mansaray, A.E.Ghaly, A.M.Altaweel,
V.I.Ugursal, F.Hamdullahpur. Mathematical
modelling of a fluidized bed rice husk
gasifier:part III- model verification. Energy
sources 22 (2000). 281-296.
[7] Ayhan Demirbas, Dogan Gullu, Atila Caglar,
Fikret Akdeniz. Estimation of the calorific
values of fuels from lignocellulosics. Energy
sources 19, (1997),765-770
[8] H.A.M Knoef. Handbook biomass
gasification. BTG biomass technology group,
(2005).
[9] Esa Kurkela,P. Ståhlberg, J Laatikainen.
Pressurized fluidized bed gasification
experiments with wood, peat and coal at
VTTin, Test facilities and gasification
experiments with sawdust. Espoo, Finland:
VTT publication, (1991-1992)
[10] M.Dogru, C.R.Howarth, G.Akay, B.Keskinler,
A.A.Malik. Gasification of hazelnut shells in
9
Paper ID: ICAE2013-454
a downdraft gasifier. Energy 27 (2002): 415-
427.
[11] Maitri Thamavithya, Sompop
Jarungthammachote, Animesh Dutta, Prabir
Basu. Experimental study on sawdust
gasification in a spout-fluid bed reactor.
International journal of energy research 36
(2012): 204-217.
[12] Peter McKendry. Energy production from
biomass (part 3): gasification technologies.
Bioresource Technology 83 (2002): 55-63.
[13] Mohamed Gabra, Esbjörn Pettersson,
Rairner Backman, Björn Kjellström.
Evaluation of cyclone gasifier performance
for gasification of sugar cane residue-Part
1:gasification of bagasse. Biomass and
Bioenergy 21 (2001). 351-369.
[14] Ian Narvaez, Alberto Orio, Jose Corella,
Maria P. Aznar. Biomass gasification with air
in a bubbling fluidized bed. effect of six
operational variables on the quality of the
produced raw gas. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 35,
no. 7 (1996). 2110-20.
[15] Nobuske Kobayashi, Miku Tanaka, Guilin
Piao, Jun Kobayashi, Shigenobu Hatano,
Yoshinori Itaya, Shigekatsu Mori. High
temperature air blown woody biomass
gasification model for the estimation of an
entrained down flow gasifier. Waste
Management 29 (2009). 245–251 .
[16] P.Garcia-Ibanez, A.Cabanillas, J.M.Sanchez.
Gasification of leached orujillo (olive oil
waste) in a pilot plant circulating fluidised
bed reactor. Preliminary results. Biomass
and bioenergy 27 (2004). 183-194.
[17] P.M.Lv, Z.H.Xiong,J.Chang, C.Z.Wu,Y.Chen,
J.X.Zhu. An experimental study on biomass
air steam gasification in a fluidized bed.
Bioresource Technology 95 (2004). 95-101.
[18] Shaozeng Sun, Yijun Zhao, Hongming Tian,
Feng Ling, Fengming Su. Experimnetal study
on cyclone air gasification of wood powder.
Bioresource technology 100 (2009). 4047-
4049.
[19] Wiebren de Jong, Ömer Unal, Jans Andries,
Klaus R.G.Hein, Hartmut Spliethoff. Biomass
and fossil fuel conversion by pressurised
fluidised bed gasification using hot gas
ceramic filters as gas cleaning. Biomass and
Bioenergy 25 (2003). 59-83.
[20] Wu Jianzhi, Xu Bingyan,Luo Zhenfang, Zhou
Xiguang. Performance analysis of a biomass
 Paper ID: ICAE2013-454

circulating fluidized bed gasifier. Biomass

and bioenergy 3, no. 2 (1992). 105-110.
[21] X.J.Guo, B.Xiao,X.L.Zhang,S.Y.Luo,M.Y.He.
Experimental study on air-stream
gasification of biomass micron fuel (BMF) in
a cyclone gasifier. Bioresource Technology
100 (2009). 1003-1006.
[22] X.T.Li, J.R.Grace, C.J.Lim, A.P.Watkinson,
H.P.Chen, J.R.Kim. Biomass gasification in a
circulating fluidized bed. Biomass and
Bioenergy 26 (2004). 171-193.
[23] Yijun Zhao, Shaozeng Sun, Hongming Tian,
Juan Qian, Fengming Su, Feng Ling.
Characterisitics of rice husk gasification in
an entrained flow reactor. Bioresource
Technology 100 (2009). 6040-6044.
[24] Z.A.Zainal, Ali Rifau, G.A.Quadir,
K.N.Seetharamu. Experimental investigation
of a downdraft biomass gasifier. Biomass
and bioenergy 23 (2002). 283-289.
[25] Zhou J, Chen Q, Zhao H, Cao W, Mei Q, Luo
Z, Cen K. Biomass-oxygen gasification in a
high-temperature entrained-flow gasifer.
Biotechnology Advances 27 (2009). 606-611.
[26] James W. Cousins, William H.Robinson,
Gasification of sawdust in an air-blown
cyclone gasifier. Ind.Eng.Chem. Process des.
Dev. 24 (1985). 1281-1287

10