CFB Gasification of Biomass

CHRISGAS Workshop
Linneaeus University, Växjö (S)
Thursday, February 18th 2010

ir. Marcin Siedlecki

TU Delft, 3mE Faculty - Process & Energy Department
Energy Technology Section
the Netherlands
1

Vermelding onderdeel organisatie

 Contents
(Circulating) Fluidized Bed Gasification:
• Some background (short)
• Why (C)FB gasification?
• Problems & challenges
• Our test rig, ongoing research & results

2
Background - biomass conversion routes

3
 Background to this work
CHRISGAS: Production of
Methanol
secondary fuels from biomass
Biomass and waste
DME
FP6, 2004-2010 (60+6 months)
Gasification H2

Reforming Synthesis Gas

Fischer-Tropsch

Natural Gas

4
 About biomass
Biomass (plants/animal derived materials):
• practically CO2 neutral, often low in S content;
• renewable;
• potentially sustainable;
• contributes to restructuring rural area’s & agriculture;
but: availability can be challenging

Some (physical) properties of biomass:

• appearance: solid
• varying particle size distribution
• related to previous: fibrous so difficult to grind
• low energy density compared to FF
5
 About biomass

Miscanthus pellets
Miscanthus pellets

6
 Why (C)FB gasification?
So we need a process:
• that will be able to convert solid biomass into a liquid or
gas with well-defined and predictable composition
ranges GASIFICATION

• that is being able to accept a variety of feedstock with

respect to size and composition (e.g. moisture content,
ash)
• that can be integrated in a process chain at moderate or
large industrial scale (CIRCULATING) FLUIDIZED BED

7
 Why (C)FB gasification?
Because of:
• Good scale-up opportunities to order of magnitude 100
MW (especially CFBs)
• Fuel flexibility (type, larger particle sizes O[cm] )
• Good mass and heat distribution characteristics –
excellent mixing
• In-situ, in-bed catalysts can be applied for product gas
cleaning/upgrading
• Limited thermodynamic losses due to relatively low T
in gasifier
• Fluidization technology already well known
8
 The other side…
Problems:
• gas not of syngas quality
• tar: pollutes downstream equipment
(condensation/deposition), significant HV content
• alkali (agri-fuels): agglomeration, defluidization and
fouling phenomena

Challenges:
• “boosting” the gas composition (with respect to H2)
• gas filtration at process temperature
• in situ capture of contaminants (e.g. S)

9
 Chemical composition of biomass
(woody & agri)

C H N S O SiO2 K2O Cl total ash (analysed)

100 14
Quantity d.a.f [% w/w]

Quantity dry [% w/w]

12
80
10
60 8
5,7 5,7 5,7 5,8

40 6
51,4 51,7 51,3 50,2 4
20
2
0 0
A wood B wood Miscanth. Straw '97 A wood B wood Miscanth. Straw '97
Fuel Fuel

10
 The practice

Tar on a flame arrestor Agglomerate in the CFB

Salts deposited on a F.M. Agglomerated sand

11
 Fluidization
Fluidization: the art of making solids behave like fluids

Figure source: Kunii & Levenspiel, “Fluidization Engineering”

12
 The CFBG test rig at TU Delft
830°C 1000°C 400°C

850°C

350°C

13
 Experiments with the CFBG
• Fuels: A- (clean) and B- (demolition) wood, miscanthus
• Bed materials: sand, magnesite, fresh and pre-treated
olivine (900oC and 1000oC) + possibly additives
• Conditions and parameters:
o λ=0.3-0.35
PROCESS
o Steam/Biomass ~ 1
o T=800-850 oC VARIABLES
o P= 1 atm
• Gas composition analysis (incl. BTX): μ-GC, FTIR, NDIR
• Tar measurements: SPA (PAH and phenolics)
• Water measurements: gravimetric analysis
14
 “Base case” results
Fuel A-wood

Bed mat. sand

Lambda 0,27-0,37 -

CO 24-35 vol%, dnf

H2 19-25 vol%, dnf

CO2 28-38 vol%, dnf

CH4 7-9 vol%, dnf

tar (PAH &

4-8 g/mn3, raw
Phenolics)

H2:CO <1 -

15
 Beyond state of the art

Some ideas to tackle the problems and face the challenges:

• optimization of process parameters (λ, S/B, O2 staging…)
• improvements in reactor design
• use of in-bed additives (alkali capture and tar reduction)
• agglomeration monitoring & early warning
• application of “active” bed materials
• (catalytic) hot gas filtration (Pall Schumacher)
• gas upgrading by reforming and WGS (Univ. of Bologna,
Växjö University)

16
Bed materials investigations

17
 Bed materials investigations

Possible enhanced effects of treated olivine on in-situ tar

reduction (L. Devi, FPT 86, 2005)

Fe Fe Fe
Fe
Fe Fe Fe Fe
Fe
Fe Fe Fe
Fe
Fe

Untreated olivine Treated olivine particle,

particle T=900°C, ca. 10h
18
 Gas composition – recent results

• Magnesite
results in
higher H2,CO2
Magnesite Olivine
& lower CO
conc. than CO2
olivine
• Higher CH4 and H2
CO
C2H4 with
olivine

CO + H2O ↔ CO2 + H2

19
Tar concentration

Magnesite Olivine

20
 Counteracting agglomeration

• combination of alkali-rich fuels with silica-rich bed

materials required the use of an additive (alkali getter)
• kaolin performs very well for that purpose (13h stable
run with miscanthus / olivine + kaolin)
• magnesite doesn’t require additive: no agglomeration
with B-wood and miscanthus…
• …but straw does cause problems. There is enough
silica in the ASH to form sticky deposits on magnesite
particles.

21
Filtration at process temperature
• Pall HT filter unit
• Particle removal with efficiency
over 99%
• Effect on gas composition
• effect of the filter cake
• extra residence time
• Optimization of filter pulsing
strategies
• Catalytic filtration (tar cracking) to
be tested in the slip stream

22
 Conclusions

• CFB gasification of biomass is one (of few) processes

with high techno-economical potential

• Scientific & Technical Research addressed:

• Bed material – fuel interaction; problems can be overcome by
proper choice of additive/bed materials.
• Gas upgrading (H2 yield increase) and tar reduction can be
achieved using magnesite as bed material in CFB gasification.
• Filtration at process temperature demonstrated; further
investigations (incl. catalytic filtration) going on.
• Full integration demonstration of all process units from biomass
to hydrogen-rich gas is underway.

23
 Acknowledgement

CHRISGAS is a Sixth Framework Integrated Project

supported by the EC and the Swedish Energy Agency

www.chrisgas.com

24

Vermelding onderdeel organisatie

Thank you for your attention!

25
Fluidization

Geldart’s particle classification

26
Fluidization

increasing flow velocity →

27
 Reactor control 6

T7
7

4th level

Main process control parameters: 5

T6

• Input flows
T 8
T5

• Pressure drop 4
T4

• Temperature distribution
9
3 level T
rd
9

• Absolute pressure 3 T3

2
T2
fuel flow
T10 1
10 T1

PR
Tfl
2nd level
28
fluidization flow
 Pressure drop

Monitoring of fluidization using pressure drop signals

29

Vermelding onderdeel organisatie

 Fluidized bed gasifiers

30

BFB CFB ICFB