Gasification of Tri-fuel Blends to Syngas Production

Nur Khadijah Binti Mohamad Najib

Msc Std, Chemical Engineering Department Universiti Teknologi Petronas Tronoh, Perak nurkhadijah86@yahoo.com
Abstract This study is conducted to utilize the various types of fuel such as coal, biomass and refinery residue to produce a synthetic natural gas (syngas) which is a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen-rich gas. The gasification behavior of blended triple fuels was conducted using Bubbling Atmospheric Fluidized Bed Gasifier (BFBG) at TNB Research Sdn Bhd. The three fuels were also characterized using calorific value determination, proximate analysis (moisture, volatile matter, fixed carbon, and ash) and ultimate analysis (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and sulfur). The gasification tests using BFBG were conducted at constant equivalence ratio (ER) of 0.3, bed height of 150mm and air as the gasifying agent. H2=25.8 mol.%, CO=3.1 mol.% and CH4=0.7 mol.% (LHV=3.5 MJ.Nm-3) were released at blending ratio of coal: petroleum coke: EFB (80:10:10). Other blending ratios will be tested in future work. Keywords-component; gasification, Bubbling Atmospheric Fluidized Bed Gasifier, blended fuels, equivalence ratio.

Dr S Chandra Mohan
Senior Researcher, Chemical Engineering Department Universiti Teknologi Petronas Tronoh, Perak chandro@petronas.com.my one efficient energy extracting process using the waste as energy source. The producer gas that consists of mainly volatiles from pyrolysis process can be used as gaseous fuel in internal combustion engines to generate power. But the inert gases are not reactive, so the producers gas benefits are limited to the amount of CO, H2, and CH4 produced from the process. Rezaiyan and Cheremisinoff, (2005) have reported that the producer gas seem to have lower calorific value (LCV) of 4.55.0 MJ/Nm3. Char which is a solid unreacted material that have high carbon content is also one byproduct from the gasification process. The various gasifying condition used in gasification process are air, oxygen and steam. But in some application, the combination of steam and air is used. After initial fuel combustion, the flame is shut off with the oxidation medium still flowing through the reactor. This will start series of chemical reactions that occur in sub-stoichiometric conditions. Basically, the reactions that take place in the gasifier are divided into exothermic and endothermic reaction. (Rezaiyan and Cheremisinoff, 2005). Rather than that, power generation through gasification also can be done by thermal conversion of solid fuels. The gasification process produces volatile gases from solid fuels which can be utilized in internal combustion engines or coupled to turbines to generate power. It gives high efficiencies to produce electricity, liquid fuels, and chemicals. One of the most efficient ways of generating electricity for both fossil fuels and solid waste is by Integrated Gasification Combined Cycles (IGCC) (Overend, 2000). Gasification may be conducted in different types of reactors; the most widely used reactors are fixed bed reactor (updraft and downdraft configurations) and fluidized bed (bubbling or circulating configurations). The process selected for this study is atmospheric bubbling fluidized bed reactor. This was selected because of its capability to handle variety of feedstocks. This is applicable to our present research objective since multiply feedstock cocktail are used.

I.

INTRODUCTION

ost of the countries in the world are now taking serious in aiming to reducing their dependency on fossil fuel (i.e. energy derived from coal, petroleum and natural gas). The main purpose to deviate from these fuels are basically to reduce the greenhouse gas emission that will lead to global warming and at the same time, a reduction in the exposure to economic risk associated with the rising prices of increasing scarce natural resources. A cost effective solution to meet this target requires implementing energy efficiency particles and also giving priority to low carbon technologies which includes renewable energies sources (del Ro, 2009; San Miguel et al., 2010)

Gasification is a thermo-chemical process in which carbonaceous (carbon-rich) feedstocks such as coal, petrocoke (hydrocarbons) or biomass are converted into a gas known as synthesis gas or syngas consisting of hydrogen and carbon monoxide (and lesser amounts of carbon dioxide and other trace gases) under oxygen depleted, high pressure, highheat and/or steam conditions. The process will also produce nitrogen and its oxides, carbon dioxide, methane and other light hydrocarbons. The product gas from the gasification process is called producer gas and the method producing it is

978-1-4577-1884-7/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE

II.

EXPERIMENTAL SET UP A laboratory scale fluidized bed gasifier located in TNBR, bangi (as illustrated in figure 1) was used as a testing platform to test the gasification process. The reactor is a bubbling type gasifier with diameter of 0.25m and the bed height is 1.0m. The laboratory scale fluidized bed gasifier consists of seven main parts: a) Fluidized bed gasifier b) Screw feeder c) Steam generator d) Air blower e) Electric heater f) Cyclones g) Gas sampling ports During the starting period, the gasifier is heated up using three electric heaters in the chambers with an initial air flow rate controlled at 20 hz. The feed is introduced into the gasifier reactor via a screw feeder once the upper bed reaches a steady state of 400 C. The electric heater is then switched off; the temperature is then increased by combustion of the feedstock until it reaches gasification temperature between 650 to 750 C. The temperature is then maintained at an isothermal condition at around 750C by adjusting the air flow and feed rate. This is to ascertain the fluidizing and gasification process is stable inside the reactor bed. Samples can then be taken from the sampling port and will be analyzed using an on-line gas chromatography. III. RESULTS & DISCUSSION

A. Sample Preparation The samples to be used in this study are a mixture of coal, petroleum coke, and biomass with different blend ratios. Size of the samples to be used is around 600 m and the preparation of samples involves crushing, grinding, and sieving. The sample particles will be analyzed using Particle Size Analyzer in order to categorize them by the size. B. Ultimate Analysis The ultimate analysis can be defined as the determination of the elemental composition of organic fractions; it refers to carbon (C), hydrogen (H), nitrogen (N), sulfur (S) and oxygen (O) content. CHN analysis and sulfur determination was conducted by using Leco 3839 and Eltra CS500 instruments, respectively. Normally for oxygen contents are calculated by difference of the mole fraction. There were two references used as references in this analysis which are ASTM D5373-93 and ASTM 4239-97 methods. C. Proximate Analysis The proximate analysis is used to measure inherent moisture content (MC), volatile matter (VM), fixed carbon (FC) and ash content (AC) in the feedstock. For proximate analysis, the standard test method used is ASTM D5412-90 and the equipment used to determine all the values was Pyris 6TGA. D. Heating Value Heating value for all the fuels were analyzed by using Leco automatic calorimeter (AC 350). On the other hand, for the producer gas analysis, the heating values were calculated based on fraction mole of the GC results. For this analysis, the method ASTM D3286-96: Standard test method for gross calorific value of coal and coke using isoperibol bomb calorimeter was used as reference. Low heating value for the producer gas analysis was calculated by using calculation from Skoulou et al. (2008), the equation as follow: LHVpg =(30*CO+25.7*H2+85.4*CH4+151.3*C2Hx)*0.0042 MJ/Nm3 E. Gasification

A. Proximate Analysis Preliminary results on the moisture content, volatile matter, fixed carbon and ash content for Adaro coal, petroleum coke, biomass (EFB) and sludge are shown in Table 1. Table 1. Characterization results for proximate analysis Sample Proximate Analysis (%) Sample Proximate Analysis (%) Volatile Fixed Moisture Matter Carbon 8.65 0.32 7.32 5.73 46.49 10.48 80.29 69.53 37.14 89.12 11.54 5.34

Ash 7.7 0.07 1.46 19.39

Adaro Coal Petroleum Coke Biomass (EFB) PPMSB Sludge

f a g e b e f g

c d

Figure 1: Lab scale Fluidized Bed Gasifier System

Adaro coal has the highest moisture content compared to other fuel, and petroleum coke has the lowest moisture content. EFB moisture content (7.32%) was in agreement with previously reported result, 7.95% [1]. Volatile matter for EFB was detected very high (80.29%), followed by Sludge, Adaro coal and petroleum coke. Abdullah and Gerhauser (2008) was reported 83.86% for volatile matter of their EFB, which is slightly higher from the measured result. Volatile matter of petroleum coke from the literature was found 9.6% (Fermoso

et al. 2009), this result was a bit lower from the result measured. Higher volatile matter content usually will promote higher combustible gases (H2, CO and CH4) contents in the producer gas during the gasification tests. Low moisture content and high volatile matter are favourable in order to get a better gaseous product. Petroleum coke has the highest fixed carbon (FC) content (89.12%) compared to Adaro coal (37.14%), EFB (11.54%) and Sludge (5.34%). FC for EFB reported by literature was 10.78% [1]. On the other hand, petroleum coke also has the lowest ash content (0.07%) compared to the other fuel, followed by EFB, Adaro coal and sludge. From the literature, ash content for petroleum coke was detected around 0.3% [2], it reveals that Malaysian petroleum coke has a lower ash. High FC and low ash content will give a better syngas quality. Adaro coal has the highest moisture content compared to other fuel, and petroleum coke has the lowest moisture content. EFB moisture content (7.32%) was in agreement with previously reported result, 7.95% [1]. Volatile matter for EFB was detected very high (80.29%), followed by Sludge, Adaro coal and petroleum coke. Abdullah and Gerhauser (2008) was reported 83.86% for volatile matter of their EFB, which is slightly higher from the measured result. Volatile matter of petroleum coke from the literature was found 9.6% [2], this result was a bit lower from the result measured. Higher volatile matter content usually will promote higher combustible gases (H2, CO and CH4) contents in the producer gas during the gasification tests. Low moisture content and high volatile matter are favourable in order to get a better gaseous product. Petroleum coke has the highest fixed carbon (FC) content (89.12%) compared to Adaro coal (37.14%), EFB (11.54%) and Sludge (5.34%). FC for EFB reported by literature was 10.78% [1]. On the other hand, petroleum coke also has the lowest ash content (0.07%) compared to the other fuel, followed by EFB, Adaro coal and sludge. From the literature, ash content for petroleum coke was detected around 0.3% [2], it reveals that Malaysian petroleum coke has a lower ash. High FC and low ash content will give a better syngas quality. B. Ultimate Analysis The ultimate analysis for all fuels were analysed by measuring the Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Sulfur and Oxygen contents. The results as tabulated in Table 2 below. Table 2. Ultimate analysis of the feedstock Sample C Adaro Coal Petroleum Coke Biomass (EFB) PPMSB Sludge 68.65 86.3 49.4 52.2 Ultimate Analysis (%) H 5.23 3.77 6.6 6.47 N 0.29 1.03 0.99 6.96 S 0.1 5.87 0.03 1.84 O* 18.01 2.93 41.5 13.13

This result was in agreement with the fixed carbon result, which showed petroleum coke has the highest fixed carbon content. In comparison with the reported value, carbon content in petroleum coke was detected 87.6% [2]. There was no significant difference between measured and reported result elsewhere. Apart from that, hydrogen content was high in EFB, coal and Sludge compared to petroleum coke. The higher carbon and hydrogen contents usually will gives higher syngas production (CO and H2). Nitrogen content for Adaro coal was found lowest compared to others. Sulfur and oxygen contents were found low for EFB and petroleum coke, respectively. The lower nitrogen and sulphur contents in the feedstock will give a clean syngas, in which will produce good quality gas. Fermoso et al. (2009) reported 6.2% of sulphur content in their petroleum coke, it reveals that Malaysian petroleum coke has a low sulfur contents compared to Spain petroleum coke. C. Heating Value Heating value analysis was conducted by using bomb calorimeter. The feedstock heating value varies from 4341 to 8903 Kcal/Kg, in which petroleum coke gives the highest value. In order to compare with other publication, the unit in MJ/Kg were also given in Table 3. Table 3. Heating value of the feedstock Sample Adaro Coal Petroleum Coke Biomass (EFB) PPMSB Sludge 5966 8903 4341 5254 HV (Kcal/Kg) (MJ/Kg) 24.96 37.25 18.16 21.98

The heating value for EFB was found the lowest compared to other feedstock. This may cause by the lower content of carbon and also higher content of volatile matter. From the literature, it shows that the heating value for EFB ranging from 17.2 to 19.35 MJ/Kg [1]. Due to lower heating value of EFB, probably for the blending ratio, EFB does not contribute much. Approximately, 10% of the total blending is the maximum amount can be put out of other feedstock. This ratio in line with reported result by Fermoso et al. (2009), in which biomass blending with the ratio of 0%, 5% and 10%. The heating value for petroleum coke from literature was found about 35MJ/Kg [2], it is a bit lower compared to measured result 37.25MJ/Kg. From the overall result of the petroleum coke, shows that Malaysian petroleum coke has a better quality comparing with reported result in Spain.

D. Producer Gas Analysis Producer gas analysis for Adaro coal, petroleum coke and the blending fuels were shown in Table 4. Hydrogen gas

As refer to the table above, carbon content in petroleum coke (86.3%) is higher than Adaro coal (68.65%).

produced for Adaro coal (31.72%) is higher compared to petroleum coke (4.26%), but for CO2 and N2, it seems that higher in petroleum coke rather than Adaro coal. The quality of the producer gas (i.e. concentration of combustible species) was improved in all cases by decreasing the equivalence ratio and increasing the process temperature [5]. An increase of equivalence ratio will enhance the tar formation, it was suggested an activity of tar removal of the carbon present in the reactor by adding steam rich atmosphere [7]. Apart from that, high equivalence ratios would cause an increase of the reaction temperature because of the greater amount of oxygen, favoring the combustion phase [6].

an impact to the production of syngas. Comparing with reported result, the hydrogen and CO ratio for 10% biomass blending was detected around 1.8%[2]. This is probably due to different biomass will give different results.

IV.

CONCLUSIONS

Table 4. Producer gas analysis for Adaro coal, petroleum coke and blending of fuels
Producer Gas Composition s (mol %) H2 O2 N2 CO2 CO CH4 C2H4 C2H6 C2H2 H2/CO CO/CO2 LHV (MJ.Nm-3) Coal Petcoke Coal : Petcoke (50:50) 38.35 0 48.79 6.92 4.92 0.84 0.14 0.01 0.01 7.78 0.71 5.16 4.26 6.57 79.41 8.43 0.61 0.67 0.02 0 0 6.98 0.07 0.79 0.74 15.78 80.41 2.82 0.22 0.1 0 0 0 3.36 0.07 0.11 Coal : Petcoke (80:20) 37.7 0.44 49.67 6.53 4.28 1.14 0.17 0.01 0 8.81 0.65 5.15 Coal: Petcok e:EFB (80:10 :10) 25.87 5.78 58.86 5.51 3.14 0.7 0.09 0.01 0 8.24 0.57 3.51

From this study, it shows that there are great potentials of exploiting blended fuels (coal and energy value waste) in the gasification system. By manipulating the flexibility of fuel stock for the bubbling gasifier system, a lot more blends ratio can be study using the test rig. REFERENCES
Abdullah, N and Gerhauser, H. 2008. Bio-oil derived from empty fruit bunches. Fuel 87: 2606-2613. [2] Fermoso, J., Arias, B., Plaza, M. G., Pevida, C., Rubiera, F., Pis, J. J., Garca-Pea, F., Casero, P. 2009. High-pressure co-gasification of coal with biomass and petroleum coke. Fuel Processing Technology 90: 926 932. [3] Gmez-Barea, A., Vilches, L.F., Leiva, C., Campoy, M. and FernndezPereira C. 2009. Plant optimization and ash recycling in fluidized bed waste gasification. Chemical Engineering Journal 146: 227236. [4] Hughes, R. W., Wang, J. and Anthony, E. J. 2004. Design, process simulation, and construction of an atmospheric dual fluidized bed combustion system for in situ CO2 capture using high-temperature sorbents. Fuel Chem. 49 (1): 312-313. [5] Miccio, F., Moersch, O., Spliethoff, H. and Hein, K.R.G. 1999. Gasification of two biomass fuels in bubbling fluidized bed. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion. [6] Ramirez, J. J., Martinez, J. D. and Petro, S. L. 2007. Basic design of a fluidized bed gasifier for rice husk on a pilot scale. Latin American Applied Research 37: 299-306. [7] Ruoppolo, G., Cante, A., Chirone, R., Miccio, F. and Stanzione, V.2009. Set up of a pilot scale catalytic fluidized bed reactor for biomass gasification. Istituto di Ricerche sulla Combustione CNR. [8] Skoulou, V., Koufodimos, G., Samaras, Z. and Zabanitou, A. 2008. Low temperature gasification of olive kernels in a 5 Kw fluidized bed reactor for H2 rich producer gas. Internattional Journal of Hydrogen Energy 33: 6515-6524. [9] Usn, S., Valero, A., Correas, L. and Martnez, A. 2004. Co-gasification of coal and biomass in an IGCC power plant: gasifier modeling. International Journal Thermodynamics 7: 165-172. [10] Wan Ab Karim Ghani, W. A., Moghadam, R. A., Mohd Salleh, M. A. and Alias, A. B. 2009. Air gasification of agricultural waste in a fluidized bed gasifier: hydrogen production performance. Energies: 2:258-268. [11] Yusoff, L. and Ani, F. N. 2006. Down-draft gasification of biomass/coal Blends. International Conference on Energy and Environment. [1]

The blending fuel result (50:50) shows that the adding of petroleum coke will decrease the hydrogen content, which also gives lower heating value (LHV). The more Adaro coal exists in the blending of feedstock, the higher LHV were detected. The number was rising from 0.11, 3.16 and 5.15 for blending of 50:50, 60:40 and 80:20, respectively. The result for triple fuel blending (80:10:10) reveals that hydrogen production and LHV results were lower than 100% Adaro coal and 80:20 blending, but it is slightly higher if compared to 60:40 blending. The hydrogen and CO ratio of the blending fuel (80:10:10) was found higher compared to Adaro coal and petroleum coke. The addition of EFB to the blending feedstock has given