4.7 Article

Ten residual biomass fuels for circulating fluidized-bed gasification

Journal

BIOMASS & BIOENERGY
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages 45-56

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0961-9534(00)00045-3

Keywords

CFB; gasification; biomass; cacao shells; sewage sludge; paper sludge; ash

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In co-operation with a Dutch company (NV Afvalzorg) and the Dutch agency for energy and environment (Novem), ECN has successfully tested 10 different biomass residues in its 500 kW(th), circulating fluidized-bed gasification facility. Among the fuels used are demolition wood (both pure and mixed with sewage sludge and paper sludge), verge grass, railroad ties, cacao shells and different woody fuels. Railroad ties turn out to contain very little (heavy) metals. initially, fuel feeding problems often impeded smooth operation. Contrary to feeding systems, the circulating fluidized-bed gasification process itself seems very flexible concerning the conversion of different kinds of biomass fuels. The fuel moisture content is one of the most important fuel characteristics. More moisture means that more air is needed to maintain the process temperature resulting in better carbon conversion and lower tar emission but also lower product gas heating value and lower cold gas efficiency. So, for a good comparison of the gasification behaviour of different fuels, the moisture content should be similar. However, the moisture content should be defined on an ash-free basis rather than on total mass (the usual way). Some of the ashes produced and retained in the second cyclone were analysed both for elemental composition and leaching behaviour. It turned out that the leaching rate of Mo and Br, elements only present in small concentrations, are preventing the ash to be considered as inert material according to the Dutch legislation for dumping on landfill sites. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available