Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Y.cao, y Bai and J. Du

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 10

Renewable Energy 188 (2022) 849e858

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Co-gasification of rice husk and woody biomass blends in a CFB


system: A modeling approach
Yan Cao a, *, Yu Bai b, Jiang Du b
a
School of Computer Science and Engineering, Xi'an Technological University, Xi'an, 710021, China
b
School of Mechatronic Engineering, Xi'an Technological University, Xi'an, 710021, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the present study, co-gasification behaviors of rice husk (RH) and blends of two woody biomasses,
Received 4 June 2021 sawdust (SD) and bamboo dust (BD) in a circulating fluidized bed (CFB) system were studied by using
Received in revised form ASPEN plus software. The gasifier performance was evaluated in respect of the gas yield and its higher
8 January 2022
heating value (HHV), in addition to the char conversion efficiency (CCE) and cold gas efficiency (CGE). The
Accepted 20 January 2022
Available online 17 February 2022
present study effectively showed that the blending of biomasses significantly improves the producer gas
quality in terms of H2 production and energy output, as well as the gasifier performance indicators.
RH þ SD blend showed both the highest higher heating value (4.79 MJ/Nm3) and H2 content (12.51 vol %)
Keywords: 

Rice husk
at 900 C and ER of 0.24. The simulation results also showed that the gas yield was the highest for
Sawdust RH þ BD blend (1.75 Nm3/kg) followed by RH þ SD blend (1.73 Nm3/kg) and then RH (1.41 Nm3/kg) at

Bamboo dust 900 C. The highest HHV of RH (4.71 MJ/Nm3), RH þ SD (5.17 MJ/Nm3) and RH þ BD (5.39 MJ/Nm3) were

Simulation also obtained at 800 C and ER of 0.19. Change in the steam/biomass (S/B) also showed a slight variation
ASPEN plus in gasifier performance parameters.
© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere because it is a carbon-


neutral energy source [3].
The greenhouse gas emissions from burning of fossil fuels are Recently, gasification has received growing interest as a clean
primarily responsible for global warming and subsequent human and efficient technique for biomass conversion because of its ability
health risks. According to a recent report by the US Environmental to produce syngas and energetic chemicals such as methanol [4].
Protection Agency (EPA), 65% of global greenhouse gas emissions Gasification is a multi-phase and multi-step thermochemical pro-
come from burning of fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas [1]. cess which converts the biomass materials to bio-syngas in the
Excessive dependence of developed countries on fossil fuel sources presence of a gasification agent such as air, oxygen and/or steam.
has led to a slowdown in emissions reductions. In recent decades, The products of the biomass gasification are divided into three
many efforts have been made to develop new energy systems not main categories: solid-char, condensible products (tars), and
only to minimize the environmental pollution and greenhouse gas gaseous products. The permanent gases mainly consist of H2, CO,
emissions, but also to minimize the dependence on fossil fuels [2]. CO2, CH4 and low-molecular-weight hydrocarbons [5], and minor
Due to its great environmental advantages and availability, amounts of H2S, NH3 and HCN. The quality and quantity of the
biomass has been considered as an alternative energy source to products gas mainly depends on the biomass properties, the reactor
fossil fuel sources. Biomass is a mixture of hemicellulose, cellulose, design and operating conditions. Tar is a mixture of polycyclic ar-
lignin, and minor amounts of other organics, which derived from omatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and aromatic compounds with up to
biological sources, such as agricultural residues, food waste, five rings, which is mainly formed in devolatilization process.
municipal waste and algae. Biomass can be converted to biogas Presence of tar in the produced gas is one of the main challenges
during biological processes as well as to bio-syngas and bio-oil via associated with the biomass gasification because it can cause se-
thermochemical processes. Biomass utilization does not add to the vere problems in the downstream processes [6]. Available tech-
niques to prevent tar formation are mainly divided into two
sections: (i) tar separation (condensation) and (ii) tar conversion
* Corresponding author. (thermal cracking and catalytic cracking) [7]. Among the common
E-mail address: jantonyz@163.com (Y. Cao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.01.083
0960-1481/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Cao, Y. Bai and J. Du Renewable Energy 188 (2022) 849e858

and blended biomasses. The development of such models not only


Nomenclature provides accurate information about the process mechanism, but
can also be used to simulate co-gasification of biomass and other
BD bamboo dust fuels such as coal, municipal solid wastes, etc. Here, an ASPEN Plus
C Carbon content in the feedstock (%) model is developed based on the reaction kinetics to compare the
CCE Carbon conversion efficiency (%) gasification characterstics of individual and blended biomasses
CFD Computational fluid dynamic using a circulating fluidized bed (CFB) system. The simulated re-
CGE Cold gas conversion efficiency (%) sults were compared with the experimental data obtained from a
HHVfeed Higher heating value of biomass (MJ/kg) CFB gasifier, and a good agreement was observed.
HHVgas Higher heating value of syngas (MJ/Nm3)
RH Rice husk
SD Sawdust
Ygas Gas yield (Nm3/kg)

2. Model development
techniques for tar elimination, thermal cracking has attracted more
attention due to its ability to significantly tar conversion as well as In particular, CFB gasifiers are feasible in small to large scale up
its economic advantages. The operation of thermal cracking is very from 1.0 MWth up to 100 100 MWth, even above 100 MWth, while FB
complex and mainly promotes several reactions such as water-gas gasifiers are suitable for small to medium scale up to 25 MWth [16].
reaction and tar cracking/reforming reaction, which leads to an The main advantages of CFB plants are improved heat and mass
increase in H2 content [8]. transfer due to high heat capacity of circulating particles, high char
Among different gasification agents, air is most common in conversion due to the recycling char particles, and a perfect gas-
biomass gasification but it produces a syngas with low caloric value solid contact due to high slip between gaseous products and solid
(3e7 MJ/Nm3) [9]. In general, a high H2/CO is required for pro- materials. Here, a chemical kinetic based simulation model of CFB
ducing methanol and dimethyl ether from produced syngas. In system for gasification of rice husk (RH), rice husk/sawdust
order to make syngas more viable and attractive for producing (RH þ SD) blend and rice husk/bamboo dust (RH þ BD) blend has
liquid fuels, optimal combination of air, steam, and oxygen as been developed using ASPEN plus simulator. The characteristics of
gasification agent is required. However, high capital costs and input fuels are shown in Table 1. Fig. 1 shows a 2D flowsheet of CFB
technical problems have limited the applications of steam/air and gasification plant in ASPEN plus environment.
steam/oxygen gasification at a commercial scale [10]. The descriptions and blocks involved in the model are described
A serious concern regarding gasification of high-ash biomasses in Table 2. In order to simplify the model, following assumptions
(like rice husk) is ash agglomeration in the bed which can lead to were used: (i) operation under steady-state condition; (ii) tar
the blockage of the gasifier. The use of biomass mixtures can (CH1$522O0.028) is considered as an inert species (iii) operation un-
decrease the overall ash content, and consequently prevent the ash der atmospheric pressure; (iv) decomposition is instantaneous; (v)
agglomeration. In addition to economic advantages for users, co- char is considered as 100% carbon; (vi) carbon loss in ash is
gasification of biomass blends can also lead to some synergistic assumed to be 2.0% of total carbon.
effects that play an important role in improving gasifier perfor- Biomass is considered as a non-conventional stream. HCOAL-
mance. Due to its complexity, simulation of co-gasification of GEN and DCOALIGT models are used to calculate the enthalpy and
biomass blends is still an emerging area of research. Approaches for density of input feed stream based on the chemical composition,
simulation of gasification process could be divided into three respectively. First, biomass with a fixed feed rate of 18.8 kg/h was
groups: equilibrium approach, kinetic approach and artificial neu- introduced into a RYIELD reactor (model ID: DECOM) in order to
ral network (ANN) approach. Due to considering reaction kinetics, convert non-conventional biomass into conventional components.
kinetic models are more suitable for accurately simulation of real The stage is implemented by a calculator block to specify the mass
behaviour of biomass gasification at relatively low temperatures flow of each component in the outlet stream “CHON”. The outlet
[11]. Currently, few studies have focused on simulation models for stream was introduced into a “SEP” block where ash was separated
H2 and syngas production from co-gasification of biomass blends. from the volatiles and char. The “ELEM” stream was fed to another
Pati et al. [12] develop an interesting thermodynamic model to “SEP” block, where char was split from the main fuel stream con-
simulate the steady state co-gasification of mixed Indian lignocel- sisting of C, H2, CO, CO2, O2, H2O, and N2. The char obtained from
lulosic biomasses using a using non-equilibrium model. Their biomass decomposition contains fixed carbon and ash, and its yield
model was able to predict the product gas composition and the calculated by specifying the yield distribution according to the ul-
energy and exergy efficiencies. Freda et al. [13] developed a detailed timate analysis of biomass. The char yield was set using a calculator
model using CHEMCAD software to predict the gas composition block, which in turn determines the mass flow of un-reacted char in
obtained from air-gasification of digestate and its co-gasification the block outlet stream “CHAR”. A RGIBBS reactor (model ID:
with residual biomass. Ong et al. [14] developed a detailed kinetic VOLAT) was used for volatile combustion by minimizing Gibbs free
model to predict the product gas composition and syngas yield energy. A RCSTR reactor (model ID: GASIF) was used to simulate the
obtained from co-gasification of woody biomass and sewage sludge char and volatiles gasification using kinetic parameters available in
in a fixed-bed downdraft. The predicted gas composition was the published literature. The list of reactions and kinetic parameters
compared with the experimental results and a good agreement was are presented in Table 3. The products generated in the RCSTR
observed. Galvagno et al. [15] developed a thermodynamic model reactor are further separated into gas and un-converted char
to simulate the product gas composition and gasifier performance through the block “SEP3”. “SEP400 was split the un-converted char
during co-gasification of wood and citrus peel blend at different stream into a recycle stream “RE-SOLID” and another stream
wood mass fraction (from 0.1 to 0.4 wt/wt). named “CWASTE” which represents the carbon lost in ash (2%). The
To the best of our knowledge, few models have been developed stream “RE-SOLID” was sent back through the “GASIF” block. The
so far to compare the gas composition produced from individual stream “CWASTE” also mixed with the ash in the block “TASH”.
850
Y. Cao, Y. Bai and J. Du Renewable Energy 188 (2022) 849e858

Table 1
Proximate and ultimate analysis of individual and blended biomasses [17].

Biomass sample Ultimate analysis (wt %, dry basis) (wt %, dry basis)Proximate analysis HHV (MJ/kg)

C H O N MC FC VM ASH

RH 38.50 4.79 36.10 1.01 8.70 12.01 60.21 19.70 15.61


RH þ SD 44.71 5.11 38.00 1.01 9.33 13.10 67.23 9.49 17.33
RH þ BD 43.00 4.62 42.16 0.98 9.10 13.30 67.20 10.15 17.12

Fig. 1. ASPEN plus model of gasification process.

Table 2
Description of ASPEN Plus flowsheet unit operation blocks used in the model.

User ID Block ID Description



DECOM RYIELD Biomass is decomposed into conventional components (char, tar, CO, CO2, H2, and CH4) based on ultimate and proximate analysis (T ¼ 500 C and
P ¼ 1.0 bar)
SEP1 SEP The inert ash is separated from the volatiles and un-converted char
SEP2 SEP The volatiles are separated from the un-converted char
SEP3 CYCLONE The produced syngas is separated from the remaining char
SEP4 SEP The un-converted char is split into two solid stream: RE-SOLID and CWASTE
MIX1 MIXER The un-converted carbon separated in block “SEP200 is mixed with the volatiles and air
MIX2 MIXER The carbon loss is mixed with the ash before leaving the system
VOLAT RGIBBS It simulates the volatile combustion by minimizing Gibbs free energy for applying chemical equilibrium at 900 C and P ¼ 1.0 bar (input species: Tar, CO,
CO2, CH4 and H2)
GASIF RCSTR It simulates the gasification process using kinetic data at 750e900  C and P ¼ 1.0 bar, depending on the simulation (input species: char, tar, CO, CO2,
CH4, H2 and N2)

851
Y. Cao, Y. Bai and J. Du Renewable Energy 188 (2022) 849e858

Table 3
Kinetic parameters in biomass gasification.

No. Stoichiometry Reaction rate Ref



R1 C þ H2O / CO þ H2 237000 [18]
r1 ðs1 Þ ¼ 2:62  108 exp  PH 0:57 ½bar
2O
RT

R2 C þ CO2 / 2CO 1 6
 215000 0:38 [18]
r2 ðs Þ ¼ 3:1  10 exp  PCO2 ½bar
RT

R3 CH4 þ H2O / CO þ 3H2  15035 [18]
r3 ðmol:m3 : s1 Þ ¼ 3  105 exp  CCH4  CH2O
T
  !
R4 CO þ H2O / CO2 þ H2 1510 CCO2 CH2 [18]
r4 ðmol:m3 : s1 Þ ¼ 2:78 exp  CCO CH2O  
T 3968
0:0265 exp
T

R5 C þ 2H2 / CH4 11161 [18]
r5 ðs1 Þ ¼ 16:4 exp  PH 0:93 ½MPa
T 2

R6 H2 þ 0.5O2 / H2O 3 1 9
13110 [19]
r6 ðkmol:m :s Þ ¼ 2:2  10 exp  ðCH2 CO2 Þ
T

R7 CO þ 0.5O2 / CO2 15155 [19]
r7 ðkmol:m3 :s1 Þ ¼ 1010 exp  ðCCO  CO0:5  CH0:5 Þ
T 2 2O

Fig. 2. Comparisons between experimental results [17] and model prediction.

852
Y. Cao, Y. Bai and J. Du Renewable Energy 188 (2022) 849e858

Table 4 vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Model validation against the numerical results of Miao et al. [8] (ER ¼ 0.26). uP  2
u n
t i¼1 yexp ;i  ysim; i
Miao et al. [8] Present model RMSE ¼ (3.1)
n
Gas composition, (vol %)
H2 7.96 8.79
CH4 9.01 11.07 Where, y and n are the molar fraction of the gas species i and the
CO 14.93 15.34 total number of gas species, respectively.
H2O 8.96 6.02 Fig. 2 shows the comparison between experimental results of
CO2 19.58 18.93 Mallick et al. [17] and model predictions. A maximum error of 10%
N2 39.56 39.85
was delimited within the dashed lines. The model was also vali-
RMSE ¼ 2.37. dated against the numerical results of Miao et al. [8], who devel-
oped a kinetic model of biomass gasification in a CFB gasifier
(Table 4). From Fig. 2, it can be observed that the predicted results
3. Results and discussion
are globally in good agreement with the experimental data; how-
ever, it is clearly evident that for CH4 content, the model shows a
3.1. Validation
slight under prediction, especially notable in the case of RH þ BD
blend gasification. For H2 content, however, the proposed model
In order to validate the simulation results, the concentrations of
over predicts the experimental values. The possible reason for the
major gaseous species, produced during air-gasification of (RH),
deviation between the reported and predicted gas compositions is
RH þ SD blend and RH þ BD blend were predicted and validated
failure to consider the catalytic behaviour of inorganic constituents
[17]. The validation was performed on a range of equivalence ratio,
 in ash contents [20].
ER (0.19e0.35) at 800 C and 0.1 MPa. ER is defined in the Appendix.
The deviation was quantified by calculating the root mean square
error (RMSE) as follows: 3.2. Parametric study

The effect of ER on gas composition resulting from air-


Fig. 3. Effect of equivalence ratio on product gas composition at 800 C.

853
Y. Cao, Y. Bai and J. Du Renewable Energy 188 (2022) 849e858

gasification of RH, RH þ SD blend and RH þ BD blend is shown in and RH þ BD blend (8.85 vol %) was obtained at ER of 0.19. For all
Fig. 3. ER was varied from 0.19 to 0.35, while all other parameters feedstocks, the CO2 content at ER of 0.35 was found to be more than
were kept constant. It can be inferred from Fig. 3 that the compo- CO2 content at ER of 0.19 because higher ER favors combustion and
sition of product gas significantly affected by varying ER. H2 content partial oxidation reactions to produce more CO2 content. It could be
in gas stream reduced from 7.64 to 6.54 vol% for RH, 9.45e8.71 vol% observed that the hydrogen content produced from RH þ SD blend
for RH þ SD blend and 8.85e8.17 vol% for RH þ BD blend with is higher than that produced from RH and RH þ BD. This is attrib-
increasing ER from 0.19 to 0.35. uted to greater hydrogen content and lesser ash content in RH þ SD
The concentration of CO also reduced by 19.34e15.38 vol% for blend as compared to RH and RH þ BD blend.
RH, 19.87e15.68 vol% for RH þ SD blend, 20.28e16.38 vol% for Fig. 4 (a)-(d) present the variation of the gas yield, HHV, CCE and
RH þ BD blend, when ER increased from 0.19 to 0.35. Similar trends CGE with varying ER from 0.19 to 0.35 for EH, RH þ SD blend and
have also been observed by other authors [21,22]. Karatas and RH þ BD blend. CCE and CGE are calculated as below:
Akgun [21] studied gasification characterstics of fruit biomasses at
an ER range of 0.19e0.37 and observed maximum H2 content of
2 3
h i h i
MJ
6HHVgas Nm Nm3 7
~5.6 vol% for gasification of pistachio shell at ER of 0.19. The rise in  Ygas
6 3
h i
kg 7
ER is found to decrease CH4 content for all biomass blends. While a CGE ð%Þ ¼ 6 7  100 (3.2)
4 HHVfeed MJ 5
significant reduction in CH4 content was observed between 0.19 kg
and 0.29, only a slight reduction was observed when the ER was
further increased (>0.29). These results can be attributed to
enhancing the oxidation of H2, CO and CH4 due to the higher oxy-  
12 Ygas CO þ CO2 þ CH4
gen content of the gasification agent. With increasing ER, the ox- CCE ð%Þ ¼  100 (3.3)
22:4  C
ygen flowing into the reaction mixture increases which leads to the
decrease of energetic species.
where Ygas and C% represent the gas yield and the mass percentage
As can be seen in Fig. 3, smaller ER is more favorable for H2
of carbon in the input feedstock obtained from the ultimate analysis
production because of reducing N2 dilution. The maximum H2
of biomasses. The gas yield slightly increased with an increasing ER
content produced from RH (7.64 vol %), RH þ SD blend (9.45 vol %)
and reaches a value of 1.43 Nm3/kg for RH, 1.64 Nm3/kg for RH þ SD


Fig. 4. Effect of equivalence ratio on gas yield, HHV, CCE and CGE at 800 C.

854
Y. Cao, Y. Bai and J. Du Renewable Energy 188 (2022) 849e858

blend and 1.68 Nm3/kg for RH þ BD at ER of 0.35. This is mainly due to decreasing contents of energetic species (H2, CO and CH4) with
to the high carbon-based gases present in the syngas produced increasing ER. The highest HHV of RH (4.71 MJ/Nm3), RH þ SD (5.17
from biomass blends. As mentioned earlier, larger ERs increase the MJ/Nm3) and RH þ BD (5.39 MJ/Nm3) were obtained at ER of 0.19.
char conversion, due to a greater extent of the oxidation reaction. From Fig. 4 (b), it can be observed that the HHV of the produced
These trends of gas yield for gasification of RH and blended biomass syngas from RH is lower than those of blended biomasses, probably
are consistent with the results reported by Liu et al. [23], who due to lesser hydrogen content and greater ash content in RH as
studied fluidized bed gasification of rice straw with air and with compared to blended biomasses. CCE increased continuously when
oxygen-enriched air. From Fig. 4 (a), it can be seen that air- ER increased in the range of 0.19e0.35, whereas CGE decreased
gasification of RH results in lower gas yields compared to with ER.
RH þ SD blend and RH þ BD blend, due to the lower carbon content The syngas production ways seem to be very different in
in RH compared to the blends of RH þ SD and RH þ BD. HHV is a biomass gasification. Moreover, syngas production ways could be
critical parameter to match with the end-use application of syngas, affected by operational conditions like ER, reaction temperature
such as for power generation by gas turbine and gas engines [24]. and steam addition. Among all the operational conditions, reaction
The gas HHV is calculated as follows [25]: temperature plays an important role due to the endothermic nature
of the process. The composition of the produced gas under various
 temperatures with ER set at 0.24 is shown in Fig. 5. The contents of
MJ
HHVgas ¼12:61½COþ12:75½H2 þ39:71½CH4 þ63:43 CO and H2 increased, while CO2 content declined with temperature
Nm3  
increasing from 750 C to 900 C. As can be seen in Fig. 5, by further
½C2 H4   
increasing the temperature from 850 C to 900 C, H2 content varied
(3.4) slightly. Nguyen et al. [26] in a fluidized bed gasifier and using
torrefied woodchips as feedstock, also showed a slight change in H2
 
content with temperature increasing from 850 C to 900 C. This
In contrast to the trend of gas yield, HHV dropped along with ER
trend is probably due to the complex mass transfer limitations of
for individual (RH) and blended biomass. Reduction in HHV of
endothermic reactions at high temperatures. The CH4 content also
produced gas stream for RH and both biomass blends is attributed

Fig. 5. Effect of gasification temperature on product gas composition at ER ¼ 0.24.

855
Y. Cao, Y. Bai and J. Du Renewable Energy 188 (2022) 849e858

declined due to the acceleration of cracking and reforming re- various temperatures and ERs. From Fig. 6, it can be also observed
actions with the increase of temperature. As temperature was the gas HHV increased from 4.1 MJ/Nm3 to 4.71 MJ/Nm3 and 4.44
 
increased from 750 C to 900 C, the CO2 content decreased. A MJ/Nm3 to 4.79 MJ/Nm3 for RH and RH þ SD blend, respectively,
reduction in the concentration of CO2 could possibly be due to an because of the increase of CO and H2 contents with temperature
 
increase in the Boudouard reaction, which converts the char and increasing from 750 C to 900 C. However, with an increase in the
 
CO2 to CO. The increase of syngas (CO þ H2) might be attributed to temperature from 750 C to 900 C, the gas HHV showed a slight
the acceleration of steam gasification of char with the temperature change. From analysis above, it can be concluded that the produced
increasing of in the range of 750e900  C. In general, high tem- syngas in this study is suitable for power generation by gas engines
perature is favorable for endothermic reactions which can lead to because its HHV is higher than 3.0 MJ/Nm3 [28]. As a feedstock is
an increased syngas formation. From Fig. 5, it can be observed that not fully converted to the gaseous products in gasification process,
the highest H2 content for RH, RH þ SD blend and RH þ BD blend some parts of feedstock in the form of char and ash remain

were obtained at 900 C (RH ¼ 9.1 vol%, RH þ SD ¼ 12.51 vol% and unreacted. In fact, as the reaction temperature increases, more
RH þ BD ¼ 9.39 vol%). H2 content was found to rise with the amounts of gaseous products along with lower unreacted chars

blending of biomasses, mainly due to a higher fraction of volatiles leave the reactor. By rising the reaction temperature from 750 C to

in blended biomasses. 900 C, CCE increased from 58.7% to 67.49% for RH, 60.46%e71.11%
The profiles of gas yield, gas HHV, CCE and CGE under different for RH þ SD blend and 62.43%e80.23% for RH þ BD blend, due to
temperatures with ER set at 0.24 are shown in Fig. 6. The gas yield the occurrence of char-steam gasification and Boudouard reactions
increased from 1.23 to 1.41 Nm3/kg for RH, 1.45 Nm3/kg to 1.73 which convert the solid char to the gaseous products. Fan et al. [29]
Nm3/kg for RH þ SD blend and 1.44 Nm3/kg to 1.75 Nm3/kg for also concluded the same results. CGE depended mainly on the gas
 
RH þ BD blend, as temperature varied from 750 C to 900 C. It can HHV as well as the biomass consumption rate. The increase of
be explained that the most of reactions involved in biomass gasi- temperature contributes significantly to the quality of product gas
fication are endothermic; therefore, more char will be converted to by increasing mainly the contents of H2 and CO and decreasing the
gas as the temperature rises. Similar trend reported by Hervy et al. content of CO2, which results in higher CGE. The highest CGE
[27], who studied air-gasification of solid recovered fuels under (42.45% for RH, 48.81% for RH þ SD blend and 48.75% for RH þ BD

Fig. 6. Effect of gasification temperature on gas yield, HHV, CCE and CGE at ER ¼ 0.24.

856
Y. Cao, Y. Bai and J. Du Renewable Energy 188 (2022) 849e858

Table 5

Effects of steam addition on gasification characterstics [T ¼ 800 C and ER ¼ 0.19].

RH RH þ SD RH þ BD

Gas species (daf, vol %) S/B ¼ 0 S/B ¼ 0.5 S/B ¼ 1.0 S/B ¼ 0 S/B ¼ 0.5 S/B ¼ 1.0 S/B ¼ 0 S/B ¼ 0.5 S/B ¼ 1.0

H2 7.64 12.81 14.14 9.45 12.28 14.04 8.85 10.27 12.83


CO 19.34 15.47 12.38 19.87 17.02 15.98 20.28 17.67 14.60
CO2 11.96 13.64 15.14 11.31 13.17 14.50 13.09 15.51 17.26
CH4 3.26 2.24 2.03 3.67 2.73 2.28 4.28 3.75 3.01
57.8 55.84 55.11 55.7 54.8 53.2 53.5 52.8 52.3

Gasification parameters
Gas yield (Nm3/kg) 1.21 1.31 1.33 1.49 1.52 1.54 1.46 1.47 1.49
CGE (%) 36.51 37.51 35.52 44.45 42.01 41.85 45.96 42.58 39.97
CCE (%) 58.18 57.14 56.90 62.21 59.95 60.44 61.04 67.63 64.72
HHV (MJ/Nm3) 4.71 4.47 4.17 5.17 4.79 4.71 5.39 5.02 4.65


blend) were obtained at 900 C. Conceptualization, Methodology, Conceptualization. Jiang Du:
Table 5 shows the variation in syngas composition and perfor- Writing e review & editing, Methodology.
mance parameters with the addition of steam. While S/B was varied
in the range of 0e1, other operating conditions were kept constant. Declaration of competing interest
H2 and CO2 content increased with the increase in S/B in the range
of 0e1, and CO and CH4 content decreased because of the combined The authors declare that they have no known competing
effect of water-gas shift reaction (R4) and CO oxidation reaction financial interests or personal relationships that could have
(R7). The decrease in CH4 content with increasing S/B can be caused appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
by the steam methane reforming reaction which utilizes CH4 and
H2O to produce H2 and CO. Similar trends were also reported by Acknowledgements
Adnan and Hossain [31]. The gas yield slightly increased with the
increase in S/B probably because of the slight change in the rate of This paper is supported by Xi'an Science and Technology Project
reactions involved in the process. From Table 5, it can be seen that (Grant: 2020KJRC0032), Yulin Science and Technology Project
the HHV of the produced syngas from rice husk and blended bio- (Grant: 2019-122), Science and Technology Planning Project of
masses slightly decreased with increasing S/B because of a reduc- Shaanxi Province (2020KW-017), Shaanxi Innovation Capability
tion in the concentration of CO and CH4. For both blended Support Plan (Grant: 2019PT-19), Shaanxi Key Research and
biomasses (RH þ SD and RH þ SD), CGE slightly decreased with Development Plan (Grant: 2020GY-147) and Project of Joint Post-
increasing S/B probably due to a slight reduction in the HHV. In the graduate Training Base of Xi'an Technological University.
case of rice husk gasification, CGE initially increased by 2.7% and
then decreased by 5.3% due to a significant increase in the gas yield
Appendix
in the range of S/B 0e0.5. CCE also showed a slight variation with
the increase of steam addition because of a slight change in the rate
Here, a sample for calculation of ER during gasification of
of char oxidation reaction.
RH þ SD is presented. ER is calculated as follows:
A

4. Conclusion
F actual
ER ¼ A
(4)
In the present study, ASPEN Plus modeling was conducted for F stoichiometric

the gasification of rice husk (RH), rice husk/sawdust (RH þ SD) Stoichiometric air-to-fuel ratio for complete combustion of
blend and rice husk/bamboo dust (RH þ BD) blend using air and air/ RH þ SD was calculated by a correlation suggested by Basu [30]:
steam as gasification agent. The validation was performed on a      

range of equivalence ratio, ER (0.19e0.35) at 800 C and 0.1 Mpa, A O%
¼ ð0:1153  C%Þ þ 0:3434  H%  ðkg=kgÞ
and a good agreement was observed. The results showed that the F st 8
char conversion efficiency (CCE) increased from 58.7% to 67.49% for (5)
RH, 60.46%e71.11% for RH þ SD blend and 62.43%e80.23% for

RH þ BD blend, as the reaction temperature increased from 750 C where, C, H and O represent the mass percentage of C, H, O in the

to 900 C. The maximum H2 content was produced when RH þ SD feed, according to ultimate analysis of biomass given in Table 1.
blend used as feedstock at optimum conditions, ER of 0.24 and
temperature of 900  C. The model also demonstrated a maximum References
syngas yield of 1.73 Nm3/kg for RH þ SD and 1.75 Nm3/kg for
RH þ BD at a temperature of 900  C, ER of 0.24. The highest HHV of [1] Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, US Environmental Protection Agency,
RH (4.71 MJ/Nm3), RH þ SD (5.17 MJ/Nm3) and RH þ BD (5.39 MJ/ 2020. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-
 data.
Nm3) were obtained at 800 C and ER of 0.19. In the case of air/ [2] A. Inayat, M.M. Ahmad, M.I.A. Mutalib, S. Yusup, Process modeling for para-
steam gasification, H2 and gas yield increased with increasing S/B; metric study on oil palm fruit bunch steam gasification for hydrogen pro-
however, an opposite trend was found for HHV. duction, Fuel Process. Technol. 93 (2012) 26e34.
[3] Y. Cao, Q. Wang, J. Du, J. Chen, Oxygen-enriched air gasification of biomass
materials for high-quality syngas production, Energy Convers. Manag. 199
CRediT authorship contribution statement (2019) 111628.
[4] D. Xiang, S. Liu, J. Xiang, Y. Cao, A novel path toward methanol and olefins
production fueled by syngas via a coupling of coke-oven gas reforming with
Yan Cao: Writing e review & editing, Conceptualization, pulverized coke chemical looping combustion, Energy Convers. Manag. 152
Conceptualization. Yu Bai: Writing e review & editing, (2017) 239e249.

857
Y. Cao, Y. Bai and J. Du Renewable Energy 188 (2022) 849e858

[5] J. Li, K. Xu, X. Yao, S. Chen, Prediction and optimization of syngas production [19] A. Gomez-Barea, B. Leckner, Modeling of biomass gasification in fluidized bed,
from steam gasification: numerical study of operating conditions and biomass Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 36 (2010) 444e509.
composition, Energy Convers. Manag. 236 (2021) 114077. [20] J. Pizkiana, G. Guan, W.B. Widayatno, X. Hao, X. Li, W. Huang, A. Abudula,
[6] S. Jia, S. Ning, H. Ying, Y. Sun, W. Xu, H. Yin, High quality syngas production Promoting effect of various biomass ashes on the steam gasification of low-
from catalytic gasification of woodchip char, Energy Convers. Manag. 151 rank coal, Appl. Energy 133 (2014) 282e288.
(2017) 457e464. [21] H. Karatas, F. Akgun, Experimental results of gasification of walnut shell and
[7] M.P. Gonzalez-Vazquez, R. Garcia, M.V. Gil, C. Pevida, F. Rubiera, Comparison pistachio shell in a bubbling fluidized bed gasifier under air and steam at-
of the gasification performance of multiple biomass types in a bubbling flu- mospheres, Fuel 214 (2018) 285e292.
idized bed, Energy Convers. Manag. 176 (2018) 309e323. [22] P.C. Kuo, B. Illathukandy, W. Wu, J.S. Chang, Plasma gasification performances
[8] Q. Miao, J. Zhu, S. Barghi, C. Wu, X. Yin, Z. Zhou, Modeling biomass gasification of various raw and torrefied biomass materials using different gasifying
in circulating fluidized beds, Renew. Energy 50 (2013) 655e661. agents, Bioresour. Technol. 314 (2020) 123740.
[9] H. Nam, D.A. Rodriguez-Alejandro, S. Adhikari, C. Brodbeck, S. Taylor, [23] L. Liu, Y. Huang, J. Cao, C. Liu, L. Dong, L. Xu, J. Zha, Experimental study of
J. Johnson, Experimental investigation of hardwood air gasification in a pilot biomass gasification with oxygen-enriched air in fluidized bed gasifier, Sci.
scale bubbling fluidized bed reactor and CFD simulation of jet/grid and Total Environ. 626 (2018) 423e433.
pressure conditions, Energy Convers. Manag. 168 (2018) 599e610. [24] M. Asadullah, Barriers of commercial power generation using biomass gasi-
[10] R. Swanson, A. Platon, J.A. Satrio, R.C. Brown, Techno-economic analysis of fication gas: a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 29 (2014) 201e215.
biomass-to-liquids production based on gasification, Fuel 89 (2010) S11eS19. [25] R. Xiao, M. Zhang, B. Jin, Y. Huang, H. Zhou, High-temperature air/steam
[11] D. Baruah, D.C. Baruah, Modeling of biomass gasification: a review, Renew. blown gasification of coal in a pressurized spout-fluid bed, Energy Fuels 20
Sustain. Energy Rev. 39 (2014) 806e815. (2006) 715e720.
[12] S. Pati, S. De, R. Chowdhury, Process modelling and thermodynamic perfor- [26] N.M. Nguyen, F. Alobaid, J. May, J. Peters, B. Epple, Experimental study on
mance optimization of mixed Indian lignocellulosic waste co-gasification, Int. steam gasification of torrefied woodchips in a bubbling fluidized bed reactor,
J. Energy Res. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1002/er.6052. Energy 202 (2020) 117744.
[13] C. Freda, F. Nanna, A. Villone, D. Barisano, S. Brandani, G. Cornacchia, Air [27] M. Hervy, D. Remy, A. Dufour, G. Mauviel, Air-blown gasification of Solid
gasification of digestate and its co-gasification with residual biomass in a pilot Recovered Fuels (SRFs) in lab-scale bubbling fluidized-bed: influence of the
scale rotary kiln, Int J Energy Environ Eng 10 (2019) 335e346. operating conditions and of the SRF composition, Energy Convers. Manag. 181
[14] Z. Ong, Y. Cheng, T. Maneerung, Z. Yao, Y.W. Tong, Y. Dai, C.H. Wang, Co- (2019) 584e592.
gasification of woody biomass and sewage sludge in the fixed-bed downdraft [28] R. Van Ree, A.B.J. Oudhuis, A. Faaij, A.P.W.M. Curvers, Modelling of a Biomass
gasifier, AIChE J. 61 (2015) 2508e2521. Integrated-Gasifier Combined-Cycle (BIG-CC) System with the Flowsheet
[15] A. Galvagno, M. Prestipino, V. Chiodo, S. Maisano, S. Brusca, R. Lanzafame, Simulation Programme ASPEN Plus, Study Performed within the Framework
Biomass blend effect on energy production in a co-gasification-CHP system, of the Extended Joule-Iiþ Programme of EC DGXII Contract JOU2-CT93-0397,
AIP Conf. Proc. 2191 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5138815. 1995. Netherlands.
[16] A. Bridgwater, Renewable fuels and chemicals by thermal processing of [29] X. Fan, L. Yang, J. Jiang, Experimental study on industrial-scale CFB biomass
biomass, Chem. Eng. J. 91 (2003) 87e102. gasification, Renew. Energy 158 (2020) 32e36.
[17] D. Mallick, P. Mahanta, V. Moholkar, Co-gasification of biomass blends: per- [30] P. Basu, Biomass Gasification and Pyrolysis: Practical Design and Theory, Ac-
formance evaluation in circulating fluidized bed gasifier, Energy 192 (2020) ademic Press, Elsevier, 2010.
116682. [31] M.A. Adnan, M.M. Hossain, Co-gasification of Indonesian coal and
[18] B. Hejazi, J.R. Grace, X. Bi, A. Mahecha-Botero, Kinetic model of steam gasifi- microalgaeeA thermodynamic study and performance evaluation, Chem. Eng.
cation of biomass in a dual fluidized bed reactor: comparison with pilot-plant Process: Proc Intensification 128 (2018) 1e9.
experimental results, Energy Fuels 31 (2017) 12141e12155.

858

You might also like