Advancements and challenges in the fluidized bed gasification system A comprehensive review

Abstract

Keywords: Gasification; Bubbling Fluidized Bed Gasifier; Design Parameters; Process Parameters; Efficiency

Introduction

Global warming mainly due to the increased carbon emission that is caused by the use of non-renewable energy sources has become an important concern for the

environmentalists and scientists across the globe. It is observed that thermal power plants, industries and transport vehicles make a major contribution to increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere [1]. Globally more than 36 billion tons of CO2 is emitted and it is growing continuously, as reported by Ritchie and Roser [2]. Therefore, the use of clean energy sources needs promotion for the

*Corresponding author. *E-mail address: sa.antil01@gmail.com This paper was recommended for publication in revised form by Regional Editor Pravin Katare Published by Yıldız Technical University Press, İstanbul, Turkey Copyright 2021, Yıldız Technical University. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).

potential to mitigate the current challenge of global warming, carbon emission, scarcity of the conventional fuels etc. Biomass derived from the forestry waste, agricultural waste, municipal waste, industrial waste etc. is commercially available and is being used for the generation of heat, electricity and bio fuel production i.e. bio-diesel, bioethanol etc. The conversion of biomass into a usable form can be managed using various technologies such as gasification, combustion, liquefaction, hydrogenation, fermentation etc. [4]. In a gasification technology, solid biomass when partially burned in the presence of air, produces gaseous fuel of high calorific value. Thermodynamically, the gasification process is 80 to 85% proficient in converting volatile organic compounds into flammable gases [5]. The gasifiers produce syngas which is used to generate power in a combined cycle engine, generate power. The technology is 6 to 8% more efficient in comparison to the conventional power generation techniques [6]. Gasification comprises mainly four processes i.e. drying, pyrolysis, oxidation and reduction [7] as discussed further: Drying: The feedstock particles typically have 10 to 35% moisture content that reduces the efficiency of gasification. To remove moisture in the feedstock particles, a drying process is used wherein the feedstock particles are heated between 100-150°C to convert moisture into steam. The process is represented by Eq. (1) [7]. Biomas(CHO) Heat  → Moisture(H 2O)

Pyrolysis: In this process, the dry feedstock is continuously burnt without air supply and get transformed into charcoal and tar. It is done at more than 250°C temperature [7]. The Eq. (2) describes the process.

Figure 1. Global energy utilization from primary energy sources (modified from [3]).

Reduction: This process occurs at high temperature when no sufficient O2 is available. The volatile substance and charcoal formed during the pyrolysis is partly combusted in air and it makes producer gas. Chemical reaction occurring in the reduction process is presented in Eqs. (3-5) [6]. The process is endothermic, thus lowers the temperature of producer gas as it exits the gasifier. C + CO2 → 2CO – 246.7 kJ/mol

Oxidation: It is the burning of biofuel and charcoal in air that produce CO2, water etc. as shown in Eq. (6) [6]. C + O2 → CO2 + 406.3 kJ/mol

The gasification technologies are mainly of the fixedbed type, fluidized-bed type and entrained flow & plasma type [9]. All these gasification technologies are briefly discussed as under: • Fixed-bed technology- A fixed-bed gasifier is usually a cylindrical shell in which the feedstock particles are kept on the bed; and a gasification agent, like air, is supplied either upward or downward. The producer gas exits in the direction of the supply of the gasification agent [9]. Fixed-bed gasifiers are mainly classified as downdraft (both air and feedstock flow in the same direction), updraft (air and feedstock flow is in the opposite flow), and cross-draft (air passes in one side of the reactor) [7]. The operating temperature of the fixed-bed gasifier is around 700-900 °C [9]. This type of gasifier can manage large size feedstock particles (about 5–20 mm) in comparison to any other gasification technology. • Entrained flow technology- This type of technology is preferred for Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Plants (IGCC). The entrained flow biomass gasifier is a co-current flow biomass gasifier, in which both biomass fuel (powder form or fuel slurry) and oxygen flow in the same direction as reported by Dai et al. [10]. The operating temperature and pressure range are about 1400°C and 20 to 70 bar respectively. It decomposes tar, oil, phenol during the pyrolysis of coal into H2, CO and other hydrocarbon gases. [11]. The entrained flow gasification technology is of two types- slagging and non-slagging. In the non-slagging type, the ash formed during gasification process is released from the reactor by separating it downstream

in the process; but in the slagging type ash collapses on the reactor walls while the reaction occurs [11]. • Plasma torch type- The gasifiers based of plasma torch technique is the most reliable one in improving the product gas quality. It uses a plasma electrode in which the torch forms an arc when a strong current jumps the gap between the electrodes. The arc produces heat; and the temperature of the combustion chamber of reactor reaches more than 1000°C. This type of gasifier does not require air, so the pressure of the reactor remains negative, due to some air leakage [12]. • Fluidized bed type – This gasifier is very efficient and has many good things like large- and small-scale

application, efficient heat and mass transfer rates due to its fuel flexibility, low capital and operating costs, higher carbon conversion rate, good quality of product gas etc. [13-17]. The gasification process is carried out in the fluidized bed into which the compressed air is supplied through the holes of the channel of the distributer plate and the compressed air is then heated. It reacts with the biomass feedstock particles after passing through a bed of hot sand particles as shown Figure 2 [18]. In the fluidization process, the grinded particles behave as a fluid and it is passed with the moving fluid. In the bubbling fluidized bed gasifier, the feedstock is supplied at top of the bed of reactor but the oxidation agent is supplied beneath the bed. At the starting, the bed reactor is heated up to 400 °C using gas or coal burners [18]. The gasification is maintained by supplying air and biomass in a defined stoichiometric ratio [18]. Many researchers [19-22] studied the influence of process parameters, but a few focused on the effects of feedstock characteristics and design parameters of the bubbling fluidized bed gasifier. The effects of various design and process parameters of a small-scale bubbling gasifier are tabulated in Table 1.

Gasification Variables

Figure 2. Bubbling fluidized bed gasifier layout (modified from [18]).

Broadly there are three factors that affect the performance of any gasifier i.e. feedstock characteristics, process

Figure 3. Classification of the factors affecting gasifier performance.

variables and design parameters. These factors are further classified as shown in Figure 3 [23-70]. Feedstock Characteristics The size of the feedstock particles and its moisture content strongly affect the quality of producer gas as discussed below: Biomass particles size: The size of feedstock particles can vary between 0.5 to 5mm [23]. Mallick et al. [24] studied on co-gasification of coal and biomass and they observed that when the size of the fuel particles is reduced to 0.5 mm, the gas yield got increased to 1.91Nm3/kg and the tar yield decreased to 5.61g/kg. Inayat et al. [25] reported that the heating value as well as gas yields was increased with the reduced size of wood chips particles. The percentage of CO, CH4, H2 and CO2 in the gas composition was found to decrease while using the large feedstock particles. The maximum percentage of CO, CH4 and H2 was 25.60%, 2.79% and 10.91% respectively using 5-10 mm size of fuel particles. Ghani et al. [26] obtained more HHV of the product gas with the biomass (Malaysia agricultural waste) size less than 1 mm. Moisture content: The moisture content in the biomass strongly affects temperature in the reactor. The feedstock with high percentage moisture content decreases the heating value of product gas because of the incomplete pyrolysis process amid gasification [27]. The greater the amount of moisture content in biomass, the lower the temperature of the gasifier, higher the by-products such as tar, ash, coke etc., and reduction of the organic material. Thus a gradual decline in the carbon conversion efficiency happens with the high moisture content. Chaurasia [28] examined the same and found that lower heating value of the producer gas was increased to 4.65 MJ /m3, when the moisture content of the feedstock particles was decreased to 8%. Cold gas efficiency is calculated using equation (7) [30]. Morita et al. [29] found similar outcome and reported that lowering the moisture content up to 5%, increased the cold gas efficiency by more than 75%. Cold gas efficiency = (Flow rate)Product gas × (LHV )Product gas (Mass flow rate)Fuel × (HHV )Fue

Bronson et al. [31] studied the influence of physical pretreatment of the moisture content biomass and its effect on the system capacity. Higher heating value (HHV) The quality of producer gas is also affected by the HHV of the biomass feedstock. HHV can be determined by

proximate and ultimate analysis. The proximate analysis is determining the physical quantities like moisture content, volatile mater, fixed carbon and ash content of the biomass feedstock. The ultimate analysis determines elements such as percentage of Carbon %, Hydrogen %, Sulphur %, Nitrogen % and Oxygen % of the biomass feedstock [32]. The HHV is different for different biomass feedstock and it can be calculated directly by bomb calorimeter [33]. The HHV of biomass feedstock is determined using Eq. (8) [30]: (HHV )Biomass = 33823 ∗ %C + 144249  %H − %0  + 9418 ∗ %S  8 

Process Parameters Equivalence ratio, gasification temperature, steam to fuel ratio and feedstock consumption rate are the main process parameters. The effect of these parameters on the fluidized bed gasifier is discussed as under: Equivalence ratio The equivalence ratio (ER) is defined as the ratio of actual air supply (m3/hr) used for the combustion of fuel (kg/hr) to the stoichiometric air fuel ratio. Equivalence ratio mainly affects the gasification temperature, producer gas composition, calorific value (CV) and cold gas efficiency The equation (9) describes the equivalence ratio [6]. Equivalence Ratio =

The lower heating value (LHV) is determined using eq. (10) [6]. 282.99 × V (CO) + 802.34 × V (CH 4 ) + (LHV )Pr oducer gas =

The effect of ER on CV of producer and gas yield is shown in figure 4 [34]. It is observed that when the equivalence ratio is decreased from 0.33 to 0.23, the CV of producer gas is enhanced to 4.6MJ/m3 and the gas yield is decreased to 3.9 m3/h. In this study, woodchips had been used as feedstock. [34]. Meng et al. (2019) [20] reported that the heat value of the product gas increased to 12.5 MJ /m3, when ER was decreased to 0.20 with oxygen as the gasification agent. It was also found that increasing the ER, enhanced the gasification temperature and gas composition when wood dust was used as a feedstock.

Gasification temperature Gasification temperature strongly affects efficiency of the gasification process. Makwana et al. [35] obtained 3.75 MJ/m3 calorific value of the product gas at the temperature of 780°C, and it decreased with the increase in gasification temperature. The amount of tar particles of the product gas was decreased from 7.2 g/Nm3 to 0.85 g/Nm3 with the rise in temperature from 720°C to 860°C. Zhang et al. [36]

Figure 4. Equivalence ratio on LHV and Gas yield (modified from [34]).

found that the H2 and CO amount is enhanced with the rise in the temperature of reactor bed, but the percentage of CH4 and CO2 is decreased due to the endothermic reaction (as shown in the Eq.3-5) with the increase in gasification temperature from 700°C to 800°C. The gasification temperature is mainly affected by the ER and it increases with the rise in equivalence ratio. Steam to fuel ratio (S/F) To improve the gas composition and heating value of the producer gas, steam to biomass ratio needs to enhance. Karatas et al. [37] reported the increase in lower heating value of the product gas from 10 MJ/m3 to 12 MJ/m3 with the steam to fuel ratio varying from 0.40 to 0.70 using pistachio shells as a feedstock. Vélez et al. [38] studied the co-gasification of coal and biomass and reported that at constant air-to-biomass mixing ratios, the concentration of H2 and CO are increased with the increase in steam-to-biomass. Design Parameters Design parameters can be classified as biomass feeding technique, air supply method, recirculating system and tar removal method. Sub-classification of these parameters is shown in the figure 5 [39-70].

Figure 5. Design parameters of the bubbling fluidized bed gasification system.

Feeding System The feeding system design affects efficiency of the gasifier. Feeding systems include screw, pneumatic and belt conveyors. The feeding rate of the biomass to the hopper is managed by motor speed. It is a function of the density of feedstock [39]. Various feeders used to carry feedstock particles from the hopper to the reactor or the conveyor belt are briefly described as under: Bulk biomass feeder Bulk feedstock feeder can carry a large amount of feedstock from hopper to the container of biogas plant. Belt conveyer system and screw conveyer system are the two important type of bulk biomass feeders. The screw type conveyor system transfers feedstock material from hopper to the gasifier reactor by rotating the screw [40]. Some important features of this type conveyor system are low initial cost, easy to operate, can deliver fuel even at high inclination, small space required etc. [40]. Pneumatic conveyor system In pneumatic conveyor system, the feedstock material is conveyed from hopper to the gasifier reactor by compressed air [40]. The discharge rate and cross-section area of ​​this system depend on the fuel feeding requirement. [41]. This type of conveying system is used for low density feedstock. Some important features of the pneumatic conveyor system are quick response, easy to maintain and operate, simple construction, low power consumption, etc. [40]. High pressure feed vessels (HPFVs) This is a kind of feeder vessel in which feedstock particles are stored at high pressure. The working is almost

similar to the pneumatic conveyor system but high fluid pressure is used in this system. A lock hopper is connected with the blow tank and the feeding rate is controlled by the revolutions of the screw feeder [40]. Simple construction and easy handling of pneumatic element, easy maintenance, high pressure capacity, speed and force etc. are some of the benefits of rotary type system [40]. Rotary valve feeder In this type of conveyor system, the feedstock material is conveyed from hopper to the gasifier reactor by the rotor and drive shaft. The system consists of a shaft, housing, head plate, rotor, and bearing [40]. The main objective of this type of feeder is to maintain the pressure difference and this is done by making an air seal using a multi-way rotor. Low cost, long life, high locking air rate, simple construction etc. are some of the advantages of rotary type system [42]. Hydraulic feed system In this type of system, the feedstock particles are transported from hopper to the reactor by a hydraulic cylinder. The system consists of hydraulic motors, pumps, directional valves, and power amplifiers. This type of system is capable of carrying heavy loads and also provides more force than others conveyor systems [43]. Distributer Plates The air distributor is a system through which the gasification agent is supplied and controls as well as improves the performance of the fluidized bed gasification system, as shown Figure 2. Some types of air distributers are briefly discussed as below [44].

Figure 6. (a): Perforated distributer plate (modified from [45]), (b): Nozzle type distributer plate (modified from [46]).

Normal angle type Gasification agent in this kind of distributor enter normal to the rector bed; some important type is perforated distributer, sparger and metal distributer. A perforated distributor plate is a circular plate [45], in which holes are made to supply the gasifying agent in the gasifier reactor as shown in Figure 6 (a). Lateral direction type The gasification agent enters the reactor bed in the lateral direction: examples are nozzles and multi-vortex. In

the nozzle type distributor plate, as shown in Figure 6(b), it is often used to manage flow rate, speed, direction, mass, pressure of the gasification agent, as well as to increase the mixing rate of the gasification agent and feedstock [46]. Inclined angle type This type of distributor plate supplies the gasifying agent to the reactor bed at certain angles like angular tilt blades and helical nozzles distributer. The toroidal distributer plate type is an example of this type of distributer which is shown in Figure 7. It increases mixing of air and feedstock, thereby increases quality of the product [47]. Gasifying Agent Supply System Saleh et al. [48] reported that with the use of multistage air gasification system, the producer gas tar content is decreased up to 30% whereas, the H2 and CO composition is increased. Ependi et al. [49] found that the cold gas

Table 1. Comparison of different design and process parameters of small-scale bubbling fluidized bed gasifiers Different design and process parameters

– Reactor: 20 kW thermal capacity, internal diameter 0.15 meter in gasification zone and 0.2 meter in the freeboard above, and a total height of 3.5 meter.

– Tar quantity of the product gases is reduced from 15 - 28 gm m-3to below 6 gm m-3 by addition of calcined limestone with inert silica sand bed.

– Biomass Feedstock: dried sewage sludge, straw pellets and wood pellets

– The optimum composition of producer gas with a mole fraction of 40% H2, take after 32% CO2, 20% CO and 6% CH4

– Feedstock Feed Rate(kg/h): 4 and 7 – Air supply rate (meter/second.):0.4 – Equivalence ratio: 0.25 – Gasification agents: oxygen, steam and nitrogen – Gasification Temperature Range (°C): 800-920. – Reactor: 50 kg/h capacity – Biomass Feedstock: rice husk – Biomass Feedstock system: biomass hopper, screw feeder – Discharge system: cyclone separator, bag filter, water scrubber – Air Supply System: air blower, distributer plate – Equivalence ratio:0.25, 0.35 and 0.45 – Gasification agents: air – Gasification Temperature Range(°C): 600–800 – Reactor: ID of 200 mm, a total height of 1500 mm – Biomass Feedstock: Chinese herb residues – Biomass Feedstock system: two feeding augers – Discharge system: Cyclone – Air Supply System: air compressor, Air blower – Equivalence ratio: 0.20-0.32 – Gasification agents: air and steam – Gasification Temperature Range (°C):600-800.

– The Higher Heating Value (HHV) of product gas increased from 5.130 MJ/Nm3 at 600°C to 5.280 MJ/Nm3 at 750 °C and at E.R. of 0.35

– The maximum HHV of prod. gas approached 6.50 MJ/Nm3 at 0.25 ER and 725°C temperature – The higher heating value of producer gas and gas yields growth reduced with the rise Equivalence ratio (ER) – H2 and CO increases, CH4 and CO2 reduces with rise in bed temperature – CV and gasification efficiency are more than

8. MJ/m3 and 75% respectively at gasification

temperature from 750 and 800°C with ER of 0.230.26 and steam to biomass ratio 0.4-0.6. – Percentage of H2, CO2 is increased and CO decreased gradually with the rise in moisture percentage of feedstock – The amount of CO2 improves gradually, and CO decreases slightly, CnHm and CH4 remained smoothly as with the increase of steam to fuel ratio

– The cold gas efficiency increases from around 59% to 66% with decrease the air to coal ratio from approximate 1.75- 1.5.

– Biomass Feedstock: coal – Biomass Feedstock System: screw conveyor feeder and variable speed DC motor – Biomass particles size (mm): 2.5-3 and 2-3 – Discharge system: ash collector, three-layer sand bed filter with 2,1 and 0.5mm hole diameter, water scrubber – Air Supply System: air compressor and distributor plate – Biomass Feed Rate (kg/h):20.2 and 16.2 – Air supply rate (Nm3/h): 23.2-40 – Steam Flow rate (kg/h): 2.4-4.0

Maximum Gas calorific value is 4.81 MJ/Nm3 with ER 0.25 and average bed temp. of 951°C

– Calorific value of the producer gas reduces with the growth in the air to coal supply rates ratio. – Total carbon conversion grows with a reduce in the air to fuel ratio – Cold gas efficiency grows from 63.6% to 77.70% with increase the steam to fuel ratio from 0.150 to 0.250

– Air to Fuel ratio: 1.23-2.0 – Steam to Fuel ratio :0.15-0.25 – Equivalence ratio: 0.35,0.30 and 0.20 – Gasification agents: air and steam – Reactor: inner diameter 750-millimeter, height 3500 millimeter

– N2 and CH4 contents of product gas are vary in ranges between 6.7–7.8% and 4.0–4.6%

– Biomass Feedstock system: Coal Hopper, Screw feeder – Biomass particles size (mm):0.5 and 1 (diameter and length) – Discharge system: cyclone separator and ash collector – Air Supply System: wind box and the distributor plate with 4 nozzles – Biomass Feed Rate(kg/h):80–83 – Air supply rate (Nm3/h) :10

– Cold gas efficiency slightly decreases with increase steam – The H2 content is proportional to the steam to coal ratio but inversely proportional to the ER – The range of carbon monoxide content in product gas is varies between 18.6 and 22.0%

– Oxygen supply rate (Nm3/h) :21-28 – Steam Flow rate (kg/h): 100 -140 kg/h. – steam to Carbon ratio(S/F):2.0 and 2.8 – E.R. value:0.25–0.33 – Gasification agents: air, steam, O2 and CO2 – Gasification Temperature Range (°C): 850 -920. – Reactor: Overall height of 2.29 meter and an ID of 82 millimeters, made of the AISI 310S stainless steel

– For the Orhaneli, Kale-2 and Kale-1, LHV of producer gas are 5.44, 5.39 and 5.23 MJ/Nm3 with ER of 0.28. – Biomass Feedstock: different type Turkish coals, Kale-1, Kale2, Orhaneli and Goynuk – For the Kale-1 coal, the LHV of the producer gas is observed from 4.36 to 6.16 MJ/Nm3 with – Biomass Feedstock system: biomass hopper, two screw equivalence ratio limit of 0.44 to 0.17. feeders – Biomass particles size (mm):1.0 and 2.0 – Discharge system: ash collector and cyclone separator – Air Supply System: air compressor, distributor plate – Biomass Feed Rate (kg/h):0.85 – Equivalence ratio: 0.15-0.45 – Gasification agents: Air and N2 – Gasification Temperature Range(°C): 720-890

– The concentration of CO is obtained between 12 and 19% within equivalence limit of 0.44 to 0.17. – The lower heating value raises with decrease equivalence for all coal samples.

– Reactor:100 kW thermal capacity, an ID of 304 millimeter and height of 2.35 meter

Method

• Such cracking is carried out by high temperatures up to 1000to 1400 o C, resulting in large size tar particles of the product gas being converted into smaller non-condensing gases. • This type of cracking has a lower temperature range than thermal cracking. After passing through catalytic media such as Ni-based, metalbased, mineral-based and iron-based catalysts, large-sized tar particles of product gas are converted into smaller-sized particles.

• Tar removal rates are up to 80 times more, depending on initial concentrations

• The catalytic cracking method has a higher process control rate than thermal cracking. • The yield rate of product gas is better by using nickelbased catalysts and it is mostly used in industry. • The tar removal rate of metal-based catalysts is efficient as compared to Ni and mineral based catalysts.

• In this process plasma (which is produced by the effect of a high collision electron particle) is used to decompose tar particles. Some important types of plasma are microwave plasma, pulsed corona, RF plasma, dielectric resistor discharge and others,

• The initial cost of plasma technology is much higher than others.

• In this type of cracking, a lower temperature range is used and scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators are some important examples of this type of cracking.

• In the physical separation, tar particles can decompose at a temperature of about 450°C.

efficiency reaches up to 5.13% and simultaneously reduces the tar content of product gas by 34.39 mg/Nm3. In this study wood pallets were used as feedstock. Tar Removal and Discharge System Tar or ash in a product gas is of concern when it is used in an I.C. engine. The maximum allowed tar content in

• Pulse corona plasma is the most relevant technique through which tar particles can be decomposed at a temperature of about 400°C.

• The partial cooling necessity of gas flow limits the use of mechanical separators at high temperatures.

product gas for an I.C. engine is 0.1 gm/Nm3 [50]. So as to limit its content during engine operation and to increase the performance of gasifier, it is essential to decrease the tar in the producer gas. The technique of reducing tar or ash can be classified as hot gas tar cleaning and cold gas tar cleaning [51]. The cold gas cleaning methods consist of spray scrubber, dynamic wet scrubber, cyclone scrubber and others as

shown the Table 2, whereas, hot gas cleaning methods consist of thermal cracking, catalytic cracking, plasma cracking and others as shown in the Table 3. Catalysts are also used for hot gas tar removal wherein tar particles of the product gas are removed by passing gas into a catalytic media [51]. Bio-oil scrubber and char filter are equally effective in reducing tar [61]. Recirculating System Gasifier design van be improved by an attachment of the producer gas recirculating system. It allows the producer gas to circulate in the drying area or the biomass feed hopper. The heat of producer gas removes moisture of the biomass fuel. No direct contact is there between the producer gas and the feedstock in drying zone [69]. Additionally, the system does cooling of the gas before exiting the biomass gasifier. Cooling modifies efficiency of the gasifier-engine system when producer gas is used to fuel the engine [70].

Conclusions

The producer gas is a high calorific value gaseous fuel, which extracts from biomass with the help of the gasification process. The quality of producer gas is affected by biomass feedstock characteristics, process and design parameters of the bubbling fluidized gasifier. Some important mentions of the present study are as under: • The present worldwide scenario of bioenergy is reviewed. • Investigating various types of gasification technologies used for the gasification process. • Demonstrates techno-economic feasibility of gasification process for various types of gasification technologies. • Presented various clean-up technologies employed for conditioning of product gas. • The selection of gasification system relies upon several parameters such as characteristics of biomass, process parameters and design parameter. The quality of producer gas is increases by using inclined type distributer plate as compared to others and the tar composition of producer gas is reduced up to 30% by using a multi-air supply system. The cold gas efficiency of a gasifier reactor is more than 75% when the moisture content of fuel is less than 8% and air equivalence ratio is about 55%. The heating value of the producer gas increases when the size of the feedstock particles is less than 1 mm. When the ER value is less than 0.25, the calorific value of the producer gas increases by more than 4.5 MJ/m3. The tar particles of the product gas are decreased from 7.2 g/Nm3 to 0.85 g/Nm3, with temperatures increasing from 720°C to 860°C. During the study it was found that the performance of the gasifier can be increased at the optimum value of

ER, gasification temperature, size of feedstock particles and moisture content in the fuel. Even proper selection of design parameters such as distributer plates as well as different type of air supply system can improve the performance of a gasifier.

Data Availability Statement

The authors confirm that the data that supports the findings of this study are available within the article. Raw data that support the finding of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.

Conflict Of Interest

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethics

There are no ethical issues with the publication of this manuscript.

References

1. Speight JG. Handbook of Gasification Technology: Science, Processes, and Applications. 1st ed. New co-gasification using a lab-scale fluidized bed gas- York: John Wiley & Sons; 2020. [CrossRef] ifier. Int J Hydrog Energy 2022;47:40613-40627.
2. Zhan H, Wang Y, Chen M, Chen R, Zhao K, Yue W. [CrossRef] An optical mechanism for detecting the whole pyrol- [20] Meng F, Ma Q, Wang H, Liu Y, Wang D. Effect of ysis process of oil shale. Energy 2020;190:116343. gasifying agents on sawdust gasification in a novel [CrossRef] pilot scale bubbling fluidized bed system. Fuel
3. Sansaniwal SK, Pal K, Rosen MA, Tyagi SK. Recent 2019;249:112–118. [CrossRef] advances in the development of biomass gasifica- [21] Wang C, Zhu L, Zhang M, Han Z, Jia X, Bai D, et tion technology: A comprehensive review. Renew al. A two-stage circulated fluidized bed process to Sustain Energy Rev 2017;72:363–384. [CrossRef] minimize tar generation of biomass gasification for
4. Dai G, Zheng S, Wang X, Bai Y, Dong Y, Du J, et fuel gas production. Appl Energy 2022;323:119639. al. Combustibility analysis of high-carbon fine slags [CrossRef] from an entrained flow gasifier. J Environ Manage [22] Nguyen NM, Alobaid F, May J, Peters J, Epple B. 2020;271:111009. [CrossRef] Experimental study on steam gasification of torre-
5. Pang S. Fuel Flexible Gas Production: Biomass, fied woodchips in a bubbling fluidized bed reactor. Coal and Bio-Solid Wastes. In: Oakey J, edi- Energy 2020;202:117744. [CrossRef] tor. Fuel flexible energy generation. 1st ed. [23] Zhou T, Yang S, Wei Y, Hu J, Wang H. Impact of Sawston:Woodhead Publishing; 2016. p. 241–269. wide particle size distribution on the gasification [CrossRef] performance of biomass in a bubbling fluidized bed
6. Paulino RF, Essiptchouk AM, Silveira JL. The use gasifier. Renew Energy 2020;148:534–547. [CrossRef] of syngas from biomedical waste plasma gasifica- [24] Mallick D, Mahanta P, Moholkar VS. Co–gasifica- tion systems for electricity production in internal tion of coal/biomass blends in 50 kWe circulating combustion: Thermodynamic and economic issues. fluidized bed gasifier. J Energy Inst 2020;93:99–111. Energy 2020;199:117419. [CrossRef] [CrossRef]
7. Rahimpour MR, Dehghani Z. Membrane Reactors for Methanol Synthesis from Forest-Derived Effect of fuel particle size and blending ratio on syn- Feedstocks. In: Figoli A, Cassano A, Basile A, edi- gas production and performance of co-gasification. tors. Membrane technologies for biorefining. 1st ed. J Mech Eng Sci 2016;10:2188–2200. Sawston: Woodhead Publishing; 2016. p. 383–410. [26] Ghani WAWA, Moghadam RA, Salleh MAM. Air [CrossRef] Gasification of Malaysia Agricultural Waste in
8. Higman C. Gasification Processes and Synthesis A Fluidized Bed Gasifier: Hydrogen Production Gas Treatment Technologies for Carbon Dioxide Performance. In: Nayeripour M, Kheshti M, editors. (CO2) Capture. In: Maroto-Valer MM, editor. Sustainable growth and applications in renewable Developments and innovation in carbon diox- energy sources. 1st ed. London: Intechopen; 2011. p. ide (CO2) capture and storage technology. 1st ed. 227–242. Sawston: Woodhead Publishing; 2010. p. 243–279. [27] Chen Y, Yi L, Yin J, Jin H, Guo L. Sewage sludge [CrossRef]
9. Meng F, Ma Q, Wang H, Liu Y, Wang D. Effect of gasification in supercritical water with fluidized gasifying agents on sawdust gasification in a novel bed reactor: Reaction and product characteristics. pilot scale bubbling fluidized bed system. Fuel Energy 2022;239:122115. [CrossRef] 2019;249:112–118. [CrossRef] [28] Chaurasia A. Modeling of downdraft gasification
10. Wang D, Liu YQ, Li WP, Wei MM, Ye YY, Li SR, et process: Part II-Studies on the effect of shrink- al. Study on the gasification of pine sawdust with ing and non-shrinking biomass geometries on dolomite catalyst in a pilot-scale fluidized bed gas- the performance of gasification process. Energy ifier. Energy Sources A Recovery Util Environ Eff 2020;207:118186. [CrossRef] 2020;42:1132–1139. [CrossRef] [29] Morita H, Yoshiba F, Woudstra N, Hemmes K,
11. Hu C, Luo K, Wang S, Junjie L, Fan J. The effects of Spliethoff H. Feasibility study of wood biomass gas- collisional parameters on the hydrodynamics and ification/molten carbonate fuel cell power system— heat transfer in spouted bed: A CFD-DEM study. comparative characterization of fuel cell and gas Powder Technol 2019;353:132–144. [CrossRef] turbine systems. J Power Sources 2004;138:31–40. [CrossRef]
12. Erakhrumen AA. Biomass gasification: Documented information for adoption/adaptation and further al. Experimental investigation on gasification char- improvements toward sustainable utilisation of acteristic of food waste using supercritical water J Ther Eng, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 233–246, January 2023 245 for combustible gas production: Exploring the way [44] Shukrie A, Anuar S, Oumer AN. Air distributor to complete gasification. Fuel 2020;263:116735. designs for fluidized bed combustors: A review. Eng [CrossRef] Technol Appl Sci Res 2016;6:1029–1034. [CrossRef]
13. Bronson B, Gogolek P, Mehrani P, Preto F. Experimental investigation of the effect of physical bed heat transfer at minimum gas-solid fluidization. pre-treatment on air-blown fluidized bed biomass J Powder Technol 2014;4:163469. [CrossRef] gasification. Biomass Bioenergy 2016;88:77–88. [46] Abdul Rasool AA, Hamad FA. Flow structure and [CrossRef]
14. Huang YF, Lo SL. Predicting heating value of lig- cooling behavior of air impingement on a target nocellulosic biomass based on elemental analysis. plate. Cent Eur J Eng 2013;3:400–409. [CrossRef] Energy 2020;191:116501. [CrossRef] [47] Shu J, Lakshmanan VI, Dodson CE. Hydrodynamic
15. Dashti A, Noushabadi AS, Raji M, Razmi A, Ceylan study of a toroidal fluidized bed reactor. Chem Eng S, Mohammadi AH. Estimation of biomass higher Process Process Intensif 2000;39:499–506. [CrossRef] heating value (HHV) based on the proximate [48] Saleh AR, Sudarmanta B. Experimental investigation analysis: Smart modeling and correlation. Fuel on multi-stage downdraft gasification: Influence of 2019;257:115931. [CrossRef] air ratio and equivalent ratio to the gasifier perfor-
16. Hai IU, Sher F, Yaqoob A, Liu H. Assessment of bio- mance. In: Suwarno, Djanali VS, Pramujati B, Yartys mass energy potential for SRC willow woodchips VA, editors. Proceedings of the 3rd International in a pilot scale bubbling fluidized bed gasifier. Fuel Conference on Mechanical Engineering (ICOME 2019;258:116143. [CrossRef] 2017); 2017 Oct 5-6; Surabaya: Indonesia; AIP
17. Makwana JP, Pandey J, Mishra G. Improving the Publishing; 2017. 020026. [CrossRef] properties of producer gas using high temperature [49] Ependi DR, Saleh AR, Sudarmanta B. The experi- gasification of rice husk in a pilot scale fluidized bed mental study of the effect of air preheating in MSW gasifier (FBG). Renew Energy 2019;130:943–951. pellet multi-stage downdraft gasifier. J Technol Sci [CrossRef] 2019;30:36–40. [CrossRef]
18. Zhang Z, Pang S. Experimental investigation of biomass devolatilization in steam gasification in a analysis of a dual fuel variable compression ratio dual fluidised bed gasifier. Fuel 2017;188:628–635. (VCR) CI engine utilizing producer gas derived from [CrossRef] walnut shells. Energy 2020;192:116725. [CrossRef]
19. Karatas H, Akgun F. Experimental results of gasifi- cation of walnut shell and pistachio shell in a bub- Perkins G. A review on the production of renewable bling fluidized bed gasifier under air and steam aviation fuels from the gasification of biomass and atmospheres. Fuel 2018;214:285–292. [CrossRef] residual wastes. Bioresour Technol 2020;312:123596.
20. Vélez JF, Chejne F, Valdés CF, Emery EJ, Londoño [CrossRef] CA. Co-gasification of Colombian coal and bio- [52] Schmid M, Beirow M, Schweitzer D, Waizmann G, mass in fluidized bed: An experimental study. Fuel Spörl R, Scheffknecht G. Product gas composition 2009;88:424–430. [CrossRef] for steam-oxygen fluidized bed gasification of dried
21. Nevill JD. Biomass gasification feed system design sewage sludge, straw pellets and wood pellets and and evaluation. Doctoral dissertation. Texas Tech the influence of limestone as bed material. Biomass University. Bioenergy 2018;117:71–77. [CrossRef]
22. Mills D. Pneumatic Conveying Design Guide. Kindle ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2013. Investigation of fuel gas generation in a pilot scale
23. Oladimeji I, Abdulrahman OO, Akorede MF, fluidized bed autothermal gasifier using rice husk. Abdulkarim A, Abdullateef AI, Ogunbiyi O. Fire Fuel 2013;111:584–591. [CrossRef] and explosive risk assessment for combustible [54] Guan H, Fan X, Zhao B, Yang L, Sun R, Li C, et al. powder pneumatic conveyor system. Ann Fac Eng An experimental investigation on biogases pro- Hunedoara 2020;18:73–81. duction from Chinese herb residues based on dual
24. Dong F, Li Y. Parameter simulation and analysis circulating fluidized bed. Int J Hydrog Energy of rotary feeder. 3rd International Conference on 2018;43:12618–12626. [CrossRef] Frontiers of Materials Synthesis and Processing; [55] Sharma V, Agarwal VK. Three-dimensional full- 2019 Nov 9-10; Sanya,China: IOP Publishing; 2019. loop hydrodynamic simulation of a circulating 012105. fluidized-bed gasifier: A quantitative assessment of
25. Hydrolic system for a working machine. U.S. drag models. Arab J Sci Eng 2019;44:9837–9850. [CrossRef] Patent Application 16/619,608.Wiktor, R., Volvo Construction Equipment AB, 2020.doi: [56] Gul S, Akgun F, Aydar E, Unlu N. Pressurized gas- US20210123206A1. ification of lignite in a pilot scale bubbling fluidized 246 J Ther Eng, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 233–246, January 2023 bed reactor with air, oxygen, steam and CO2 agents. Conversion into fuels, chemicals and power. 1st ed. Appl Therm Eng 2018;130:203–210. [CrossRef] New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2019. p. 125–174. [CrossRef]
26. Karatas H, Olgun H, Akgun F. Coal and coal and calcined dolomite gasification experiments in a bub- [64] Karmakar MK, Chandra P, Chatterjee PK. A review bling fluidized bed gasifier under air atmosphere. on the fuel gas cleaning technologies in gasifica- Fuel Process Technol 2013;106:666–672. [CrossRef] tion process. J Environ Chem Eng 2015;3:689–702. [CrossRef]
27. Kern S, Pfeifer C, Hofbauer H. Gasification of lignite in a dual fluidized bed gasifier—Influence of bed technologies for biomass-derived syngas. Biomass material particle size and the amount of steam. Fuel Bioenergy 2013;52:54–84. [CrossRef] Process Technol 2013;111:1–13. [CrossRef] [66] Chen P, Xie Q, Du Z, Borges FC, Peng P, Cheng
28. Cordiner S, De Simone G, Mulone V. Experimental– Y, et al. Microwave-Assisted Thermochemical numerical design of a biomass bubbling fluidized Conversion of Biomass for Biofuel Production. In: bed gasifier for paper sludge energy recovery. Appl Fang Z, Smith RLJ, Qi X, editors. Production of Energy 2012;97:532–542. [CrossRef] biofuels and chemicals with microwave. Kindle ed.
29. Miccio F, Ruoppolo G, Kalisz S, Andersen L, Morgan Dordrecht: Springer; 2015. p. 83–98. [CrossRef] TJ, Baxter D. Combined gasification of coal and [67] Islam MW. A review of dolomite catalyst for bio- biomass in internal circulating fluidized bed. Fuel mass gasification tar removal. Fuel 2020;267:117095. Process Technol 2012;95:45–54. [CrossRef] [CrossRef]
30. Rios MLV, González AM, Lora EES, del Olmo OAA. Reduction of tar generated during biomass gasifica- plasma as a promising route for the removal of tar tion: A review. Biomass Bioenergy 2018;108:345– from the product gas of biomass gasification–
31. [CrossRef] A critical review. Chem Eng J 2020;382:122761.
32. Courson C, Gallucci K. Gas Cleaning for Waste [CrossRef] Applications (Syngas Cleaning for Catalytic [69] Hernández JJ, Saffe A, Collado R, Monedero E. Synthetic Natural Gas Synthesis). In: Materazzi M, Recirculation of char from biomass gasification: Foscolo PU, editors. Substitute natural gas from Effects on gasifier performance and end-char prop- waste. 1st ed. Cambridge: Academic Press; 2019. p. erties. Renew Energy 2020;147:806–813. [CrossRef] 161–220. [CrossRef] [70] Ramalingam S, Rajendiran B, Subramiyan S. Recent
33. Dayton DC, Turk B, Gupta R. Syngas Cleanup, advances in the performance of Co-Current gasifi- Conditioning, and Utilization. In: Brown RC, cation technology: A review. Int J Hydrog Energy editor. Thermochemical processing of biomass: 2020;45:230–262. [CrossRef]

Share and Cite