4.7 Article

Investigation of Natural and Synthetic Bed Materials for Their Utilization in Chemical Looping Reforming for Tar Elimination in Biomass-Derived Gasification Gas

Journal

ENERGY & FUELS
Volume 28, Issue 6, Pages 3833-3840

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ef500369c

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Swedish Gasification Center
  2. Chalmers Energy Area of Advance

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The removal of condensable hydrocarbons or tars from raw gas derived from biomass gasification presents an obstacle in the widespread application of biomass gasification. Hot catalytic tar cleaning as a secondary tar removal strategy is discussed as a tar cleaning technology. This can be realized in a dual-fluidized-bed reactor system, in which a catalytically active bed material is continuously regenerated. Such a process is termed chemical looping reforming (CLR). In such a process, it has been suggested that oxygen carrier particles employed for chemical looping combustion may be used, with the oxygen transfer from the particles to the gas promoting tar decomposition. Experiments were conducted in a small-scale, batch-wise fluidized-bed reactor with the aim of investigating a variety of bed materials for this process. The purpose of the present work is thus to conduct a screening study of a variety of bed materials based on the transition metals Fe, Mn, Ni, and Cu. The experiments were conducted in a batch fluidized bed, where the particles are exposed to reformer and regenerator conditions alternatingly. The conversion of ethylene from a synthetic gasification gas mixture was used as an indicator for the suitability of the materials for tar conversion. It was found that the natural material bauxite and the synthetic bed materials NiO/alpha-Al2O3, CuO/MgAl2O4, and La0.8Sr0.2FeO3/gamma-Al2O3 exhibit high ethylene conversion rates and, thus, possess promising properties for their application in CLR

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