9.9.

2015
M.M.
Ene-47.5123 CGT / Fall 2015 / Model Solution Homework 1 V01

Kindly note that the model solutions are intended to help and complement the learning process. The
prepared solutions are not to be used as detailed descriptions of grading principles. Therefore, most
answers are provided more comprehensively, additional examples are illustrated and far more details are
explained than what is required and expected from a graded “good” homework solution.

Problem 1

Part (a)

Miscanthus x Giganteus, MxG is an agricultural energy crops that has contracted greater interest within
academic and industrial circles in the last decades. Although being a tropical crop in origin, MxG has even
been grown commercially in the European Union, this mainly due to its exceptional cold weather
tolerance. The first sample was introduced from a Japan grown species into the relatively colder climate
of Denmark in 1935, and found to maintain productivity in such conditions.

From a biological perspective, MxG is herbaceous crop that is considered a naturally occurring triploid
hybrid from parent crops Miscanthus Sacchariflorus and Miscanthus Sinensis. Crosses between both
parent cultivars lead to a triploid hybrid with contributing genomes of vigorous growth, yet sterile, thus
no seeds are produced and no risk of weed growth or proliferation. MxG adaptability could be also seen
from its cultivation capability in different types of ground, and especially in industrial waste lands. It is a
large perennial grass that could grow up to 4 meters height and yields as high as 30 t ha-1 year-1 have been
recorded in central and southern Europe climates. However, yields and crop properties vary and are
dependent on climatic conditions, seasonal harvesting practices and soil type. (Lewandowski et al., 2003)

From an energy crops perspective, the advantage of MxG could be distinguished by its C4 photosynthesis
characteristics, which allows for greater efficiencies in terms of solar energy conversion to stored chemical
energy in the biomass, as well as efficient utilization of water and nutrients. In terms of energy generation
applications, MxG has been successfully burned in Denmark using a 78 MW circulating fluidized-bed
combustor (50% co-firing with coal) and 160 MW powered fuel combustor (20% co-firing). Miscanthus is
now being grown on a large scale by Anglian Straw Co. for use alongside wheat straw at the Elean Power
Station in the UK, the world’s largest straw fired power station. (Heaton et al., 2004) Also wider
applications for MxG have been investigated more recently in lab-scale runs as pelletized combustion
(Collura et al., 2006) , torrefaction (Gucho et al., 2015), pyrolysis (YORGUN, 2003), gasification (Michel et
al., 2011a, 2011b; Xue et al., 2014) and bio-ethanol production (Brosse et al., 2012).

However, the varied factors that affect the cultivation and harvesting of MxG lead to discrepancies in the
reported chemical composition and elemental properties, as shown in tables 1-6, which provide collected
data sets from reported experimental results in literature. Table 7 presents average values for the
elemental analysis data collected. Table 8 shows the detailed ultimate analysis on all fuel analysis basis
and shall be used in further fuel properties calculation.
Table 1. MxG Elemental Analysis adapted from (Michel et al., 2011a),
Proximate Analysis values are normalized to an as received basis.
Ultimate Analysis values are normalized to a dry basis.
Proximate analysis, wt.% a Ultimate analysis, wt.% b,c
Ash content 2.0838 Carbon 46.0167
Moisture 9.4000 Hydrogen 5.6959
Volatiles 72.6612 Oxygen a 45.4266
Fixed carbon 15.8550 Total Sulphur 0.0586
Total 100 Nitrogen 0.4299
Chlorine 0.0723
Ash 2.3000
Total 100
a
Proximate analysis was not specified on which basis in the publication, thus the provided data was
assumed as following: moisture is on as received basis, ash content and volatiles are on dry basis and fixed
carbon “not provided” is calculated as balance in dry basis.
b
Ultimate analysis was also not specified on which basis in the publication, thus it is assumed that
elemental components C, H, N, S are provided on dry ash free basis, while O was calculated as balance in
dry ash free basis.
c
Flourine was reported as below 0,005 wt.% and thus ignored in this calculation.

Table 2. MxG chemical composition and ultimate analysis adapted from (Michel et al., 2011b)
Chemical composition are provided as reported.
Proximate analysis was not reported except for a 9.4 wt.% moisture content.
Ultimate Analysis values reported are normalized to a dry basis.
Composition of dry matter, wt.% Ultimate analysis, wt.%
Cellulose 43 Carbon 48.6785
Hemicellulose 27 Hydrogen 5.5410
Lignin 24 Oxygen b 42.5074
Ashes <4 Total Sulphur 0.4501
Nitrogen 0.0400
Chlorine 0.0230
Ash 2.7600
Total 100

Table 3. MxG Elemental Analysis of non-pelletized fuel adapted from (Xue et al., 2014)
Proximate analysis was reported on an as received basis and normalized.
Ultimate Analysis was reported on dry ash free basis and normalized to a dry basis
Proximate analysis, wt.% Ultimate analysis, wt.%
Ash content 2.7800 Carbon 46.4762
Moisture 8.7600 Hydrogen 5.9882
Volatiles 77.7800 Oxygen 44.1043
Fixed carbon 10.6800 Total Sulphur a 0.0097
Total 100 Nitrogen 0.6414
Chlorine Not reported
Ash 2.7800
Total 100
a
Sulphur was reported < 0.01 wt.%, while it was assumed to be 0.01 in the normalized calculations
b
Gross HHV on dry basis is 17.13 (MJ/kg)

Table 4. MxG chemical composition and ultimate analysis adapted from (Brosse et al., 2012)
Chemical composition are provided as reported.
Proximate analysis was normalized to as received basis.
Composition of dry matter, wt.% Proximate analysis, wt.%
Seasonal harvest time November February November Febraury
Cellulose 50.34 52.13 Ash 2.5866 2.5677
Hemicellulose 24.83 25.76 Moisture 4.2000 4.9000
Lignin 12.02 12.58 Volatiles 73.9106 72.7040
Ash 2.67 2.74 Fixed carbon 19.3028 19.8284
Total 100 100

Table 5. MxG Elemental Analysis adapted from (Collura et al., 2006)

Proximate analysis was normalized to as received basis.
Ultimate Analysis was reported on dry ash free basis and normalized to a dry basis.
Proximate analysis, wt.% Ultimate analysis, wt.%
Ash content 2.0792 Carbon 46.0840
Moisture 9.6000 Hydrogen 5.2639
Volatiles 72.5008 Oxygen a 45.7905
Fixed Carbon a 15.8200 Sulphur 0.0587
Total 100 Nitrogen 0.4305
Chlorine 0.0724
Ash 2.3000
Total 100
a
fixed carbon was first calculated as balance on dry basis then normalized on an as received basis.
b
calculated on dry ash free basis, Gross HHV is 17.744 MJ/kg

Table 6. MxG Elemental Analysis adapted from (“Phyllis2 - ECN Phyllis classification,” n.d.)
Proximate analysis was normalized to as received basis.
Ultimate Analysis was reported on dry ash free basis and normalized to a dry basis.
Proximate analysis, wt.% Ultimate analysis, wt.%
Ash content 1,2900 Carbon 48.5692
Moisture 14,2000 Hydrogen 6.3257
Volatiles 70,4400 Oxygen a 43.4197
Fixed carbon 14,0700 Total Sulphur 0.2965
Total 100 Nitrogen 0.0988
Chlorine Not Reported
Ash 1.2900
 Total 100
a
calculated as dry ash basis, Gross HHV is 19.89 MJ/kg

Table 7. Calculated average of normalized MxG elemental analysis on dry basis

Proximate analysis, wt.% (as received basis) Ultimate analysis, wt.% (dry basis)
Ash content 2.2312 Carbon 47.1649
Moisture 8.5100 Hydrogen 5.7629
Volatiles 73.3328 Oxygen a 44.2497
Fixed carbon 15.9260 Total Sulphur 0.3677
Total 100 Nitrogen 0.1352
Chlorine 0.0335
Total 100

Table 8. Detailed MxG ultimate analysis on mass basis (adjusted after the exclusion of Chlorine content)
As received Dry basis Dry and ash free basis
Carbon 43.10 47.11 48.28
Hydrogen 5.27 5.76 5.90
Sulphur 0.12 0.14 0.14
Nitrogen 0.34 0.37 0.38
Oxygen 40.43 44.20 45.30
Ash 2.23 2.44 0
Moisture 8.51 0 0
TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00

In order to formulate an average chemical formula for MxG, the average number of moles for each
element must be determined as shown in table 9. The formula used is 𝑛𝑖 = 𝑚𝑖 /𝑀𝑖 , where n is the
number of moles, m is the average mass percentage and M is the molar weight for each element i. The
chemical formula is C3.943H5.789O2.755N0.026S0.004Cl0.001, which is equivalent to C1H1.466O0.699N0.007S0.001Cl0.0002.

Table 9. Calculated chemical formula subscript for MxG

Element wt.% M Number of moles
Carbon 47.31 12 3.9425
Hydrogen 5.78 1 5.7809
Oxygen 44.09 16 2.7553
Total Sulphur 0.14 32 0.0042
Nitrogen 0.37 14 0.0264
Chlorine 0.04 35 0.0010
To calculate the higher heating value of the MxG feedstock, data are based on Table 8, we follow the
estimation model developed by Gauer and Reed in 1995 (Boundy, 2011) as shown:

HHVwet basis = (0.35*XC + 1.18*XH + 0.1*XS – 0.02*XN – 0.01*XO – 0.02*Xash) = 17.216 MJ/kg

Where X represents the weight percentage of each elemental constituent of biomass, and the HHV value
is in MJ/kg. The estimated value could be seen that it falls close to that experimentally measured of 17.13
(Xue et al., 2014) and 17.744 (Collura et al., 2006), and thus assumed to be representative of the fuel.
Another formula for the higher heating value estimation is the Milne formula (not shown here).

The lower heating value of feedstock, LHV on dry basis could then be calculated from the formula;

LHV = HHV- (mH2O/mfeed)hfg - (8.936* XH) hfg = 15.856 MJ/kg

The second part of the equation on the right accounts for the effect of the moisture content, where
(mH2O/mfeed) is the moisture content of the feedstock from the proximate analysis and hfg is the standard
latent heat of vaporization of water at 25 ⁰C, which is 2.447 MJ/kg. The third part of the equation accounts
for the effect of hydrogen content, which is combusted into water vapor in the product flue gas. The
estimated value is considerably close to the HHV due to the lower average moisture content calculated of
8.51 wt. %, which in practice would be a dried feed compared to the reported values of 15 to 20% moisture
content found in MxG. (Lewandowski et al., 2003)

** The students are not required to follow the similar approach of calculating average values, it should
be sufficient to use only one set of elemental data analysis collected from literature.
Problem 1

Part (b)

- The fuel flow rate is estimated based on the boiler load required with respect to the specific heat
generated by one mass unit of fuel, in other words, the net heat value which is the lower heating
value of that fuel.

Fuel flow rate = Boiler load (MW)/ LHV of feedstock on dry basis (MJ/kg)

= 40/15.856 = 2.52 kg/s

- In order to calculate the combustion air flow rate, stoichiometric combustion conditions are
assumed. The amount of air flow required theoretically is that necessary to convert all the carbon
content into CO2, hydrogen to H2O and Sulphur to SO2 under the assumption that nitrogen is inert
throughout the combustion process.

Table 10. Calculated amount of oxygen needed

Mass Molecular Moles Reaction Molecular Oxygen
fraction mass product mass needed
[ ] [kg/kmol] [kmol/kgF] [kg/kmol] [kmol/kgF]
C 0.4310 12.01 0.03589 CO2 44.01 0.03589
H 0.0527 2.02 0.02607 H2O 18.02 0.01303
S 0.0012 32.06 0.00004 SO2 64.06 0.00004
N 0.0034 28.01 0.00012 N2 28.01
O 0.4043 32.00 0.01264 -0.01264
Ash 0.0223
Moisture 0.0851 18.02 0.00472 H2O 18.02
TOTAL 1.0000 0.03632

Based on the calculated moles of oxygen needed and under the assumption that the air composition is
assumed to be on molar basis of 0.21 O2 and 0.79 N2. Mass flow rate of combustion air per kg of fuel or
the stoichiometric air is calculated as;

massO2/kgf = (n*MW)O2 = 0.03632*32 = 1.16234 kg/kgf

massN2/kgf = (nO2*0.79/0.21) * MWN2 = (0.03632*0.79/0.21) * 28.01 = 3.82740 kg/kgf

massair/kgf = 1.16234 + 3.82740 = 4.98973 kg/kgf

massairstoic = 12.574 kg/s

However in a more practical approach, due to heterogeneous mixing of fuel in air within the combustion
section of the boiler, additional air is needed to ensure complete combustion takes place. This is defined
by a set stoichiometric fuel to air ratio – λ, in our calculation, a value of 1.3 will be used. (Borman and
Ragland, 1999)

So the adjusted mass of air is as following, massair = 1.3 * 12.574 = 16.346 kg/s

- To calculate the mass flow rate of the flue gas we sum the mass flow rates of each combusted gas

massCO2 = (n*MW)CO2 = 0.03589 * 44.01 = 1.5795 kg/kgf = 3.98 kg/s

massH2O = (nH + nMoisture)*(MW)H2O = (0.02607+0.00472) * 18.02 = 0.55487 kg/kgf = 1.398 kg/s

massSO2 = (n*MW)SO2 = 0.00004* 64.06 = 0.00247 kg/kgf = 0.006 kg/s

massN2 = (0.77* (massair - massairstoic))N2 in air + ((n*MW)N2 in biomass *massfuel) = 12.512 + 0.0085 = 12.572 kg/s

Where 0.77 is the mass composition of nitrogen in air.

massO2 = 0.23* (massair - massairstoic) = 0.23*(16.346-12.574) = 0.868 kg/s

massfluegas = 18.824 kg/s

- The mass composition of the flue gas is then calculated simply as the ratio of each component
over the total mass.

CO2 wt.% = 21.143 %

H2O wt.% = 7.426 %

SO2 wt.% = 0.0003 %

N2 wt.% = 66.787 %

O2 wt.% = 4.611 %

Problem 2

The students are expected to discuss the basic fundamentals and analyze the technical, economic and
social barriers that face the wide scale deployment of MxG within a selected energy generation
application.
References:

Borman, G.L., Ragland, K.W., 1999. Combustion Engineering. McGraw-Hill.

Boundy, B., 2011. Biomass Energy Data Book, 4th ed.
Brosse, N., Dufour, A., Meng, X., Sun, Q., Ragauskas, A., 2012. Miscanthus: a fast-growing crop for biofuels
and chemicals production. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefining 6, 580–598. doi:10.1002/bbb.1353
Collura, S., Azambre, B., Finqueneisel, G., Zimny, T., Weber, J.V., 2006. Miscanthus × Giganteus straw and
pellets as sustainable fuels. Environ. Chem. Lett. 4, 75–78. doi:10.1007/s10311-006-0036-3
Gucho, E.M., Shahzad, K., Bramer, E.A., Akhtar, N.A., Brem, G., 2015. Experimental Study on Dry
Torrefaction of Beech Wood and Miscanthus. Energies 8, 3903–3923. doi:10.3390/en8053903
Heaton, E.A., Long, S.P., Voigt, T.B., Jones, M.B., Clifton-Brown, J., 2004. Miscanthus for Renewable Energy
Generation: European Union Experience and Projections for Illinois. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob.
Change 9, 433–451. doi:10.1023/B:MITI.0000038848.94134.be
Lewandowski, I., Scurlock, J.M.O., Lindvall, E., Christou, M., 2003. The development and current status of
perennial rhizomatous grasses as energy crops in the US and Europe. Biomass Bioenergy 25, 335–
361. doi:10.1016/S0961-9534(03)00030-8
Michel, R., Rapagnà, S., Burg, P., Mazziotti di Celso, G., Courson, C., Zimny, T., Gruber, R., 2011a. Steam
gasification of Miscanthus X Giganteus with olivine as catalyst production of syngas and analysis
of tars (IR, NMR and GC/MS). Biomass Bioenergy 35, 2650–2658.
doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.02.054
Michel, R., Rapagnà, S., Di Marcello, M., Burg, P., Matt, M., Courson, C., Gruber, R., 2011b. Catalytic steam
gasification of Miscanthus X giganteus in fluidised bed reactor on olivine based catalysts. Fuel
Process. Technol. 92, 1169–1177. doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2010.12.005
Phyllis2 - ECN Phyllis classification. URL https://www.ecn.nl/phyllis2/Browse/Standard/ECN-
Phyllis#miscanthus%20giganteus (accessed 9.10.15).
Xue, G., Kwapinska, M., Horvat, A., Kwapinski, W., Rabou, L.P.L.M., Dooley, S., Czajka, K.M., Leahy, J.J.,
2014. Gasification of torrefied Miscanthus × giganteus in an air-blown bubbling fluidized bed
gasifier. Bioresour. Technol. 159, 397–403. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2014.02.094
YORGUN, S., 2003. Fixed-Bed Pyrolysis of Miscanthus x giganteus: Product Yields and Bio-Oil
Characterization. Energy Sources 25, 779–790. doi:10.1080/00908310390207828