Article

pubs.acs.org/EF

Gasication of Mixed Plastic Wastes in a Moving-Grate Gasier and

Application of the Producer Gas to a Power Generation Engine
Jeung Woo Lee,, Tae U Yu,, Jae Wook Lee, Ji Hong Moon,, Hyo Jae Jeong, Sang Shin Park,
Won Yang,, and Uen Do Lee*,,

Department of Green Process and System Engineering, Korea University of Science and Technology, 217 Gajung-ro, Yuseung-gu,
Daejeon, Republic of Korea 305-350

Energy System R&D Group, Korea Institute of Industrial Technology, 35-3, Hongcheon, Ipjang, Cheonan, Chungnam, Republic of
Korea 331-825

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Yonsei University, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodamun-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea 120-749
ABSTRACT: Production and utilization of producer gas from mixed plastic wastes were investigated in a pilot-scale movinggrate gasication process. A 500 kWth moving-grate gasier was developed, including a ame-assisted tar reformer and sequential
gas cleaning processes comprising a gas cooler, bag lter, and wet scrubber. The cleaned producer gas, composed mainly of
hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and methane, was used in a 30 kWe gas engine to generate power. Optimal operating conditions of the integrated system were investigated for various parameters. As a result, producer gas with a higher heating
value of greater than 10 MJ/(N m3) and a cold gas eciency of more than 55% was obtained under oxygen-blown conditions.
Due to the ame-assisted tar reforming with oxy-combustion of natural gas, the hydrogen content was signicantly increased,
resulting in an increase in the syngas caloric value and a decrease in the gas cleaning load downstream. In addition, the
performance of the syngas power generation engine was tested with the slipstream of the producer gas. A power output of greater
than 20 kWe and a power generation eciency of about 22% were obtained.
(e.g., coal and biomass).714 Gasication is a thermochemical
route for conversion of solids to fuel gas, which mainly consists
of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and methane.
Most combustible solid wastes can be used as feedstock for the
gasication process, and the producer gas can be used in various
conventional energy production systems, such as electric power
generation, poly generation, and synthetic fuel production systems.15 However, compared to combustion, gasication technologies have low long-term reliability and some technical
barriers to commercialization, including the low caloric value of
producer gas relative to energy production and operational challenges such as tar and dust impurities in the producer gas.16 The
tar content should be less than 100 mg/Nm3, and the dust size
should be less than 10 m.17 These are important criteria for
producer gas for use in a syngas engine.
Recent technical and economic studies have identied uidized
bed systems as the most promising technology for industrial
application of plastics-to-energy cogeneration systems.5,18 However, moving-grate systems have long been applied in conventional
incineration processes in the eld of thermal waste treatment
and have some advantages over uidized bed systems. For
example, the residence time of the solid fuel in the reactor is
relatively long and can be easily controlled based on reaction
characteristics, which is advantageous for waste fuel with varying
chemical properties. Moreover, lumped feedstock can be directly fed into the system, which is also convenient for waste fuel
with various physical properties; in other types of gasiers such

1. INTRODUCTION
Due to global climate change and the unstable price of fossil
fuels, current high-priority global energy issues include CO2
emissions and exible fuel sources for energy systems. Among
the many options, utilization of solid waste is a promising approach
to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and developing a recyclingoriented society. Moreover, according to the renewable energy
portfolio standard (RPS) recently announced in South Korea,
electricity suppliers in South Korea are required to include 2%
renewable energy by 2012 and 10% by 2022. Each renewable
resource has its own multiplier that equalizes the economic
dierences between these resource technologies. The multiplier
for waste utilization, including plastic wastes, has been set at 1,
the same as that for wind and tidal power.1
In general, plastics recycling can be divided into three methods:
mechanical recycling, chemical recycling, and energy recovery.24
Arena et al.5 categorized the recycling streams of plastic wastes
as follows: (1) materials primarily made of polyethylene (PE)
and polyethylene terephthalate (PET), which can be used in
environmentally and economically sustainable recycling processes;
(2) mixed plastic wastes, predominantly polyolens, which have
a very high caloric value and can be preferentially used as wastederived fuel; and (3) out of target materials, which cannot be
used in any recycling or energy recovery process. The energy of
plastic wastes can be recovered through three main thermochemical processes: combustion, pyrolysis, and gasication. Combustion
of plastic wastes presents severe constraints related to a very
low softening temperature with consequent high risk of sintering
in the combustion chamber.6 As an alternative to combustion,
gasication technologies have been extensively studied for energy
recovery from plastic wastes or in a mixture with other solid fuels
2013 American Chemical Society

Received: October 30, 2012

Revised: February 23, 2013
Published: March 15, 2013
2092

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef301758z | Energy Fuels 2013, 27, 20922098

Energy & Fuels

Article

Figure 1. Moving-grate gasication and utilization system. (a) Integrated process diagram of the system and (b) view of the overall process: (1)
moving-grate gasier, (2) gas cleaning system, (3) tar reformer, and (4) gas engine power generator.
South Korea. An integrated process diagram of the system and an
overview of the entire process are shown in Figure 1. The process
mainly consists of a moving-grate gasier, gas cleaning systems, and a
gas engine power generation system. The waste treatment capacity of
the gasier is greater than 80 kg/h, the gas cleaning system has a
treatment capacity of 300 N m3/h, and a syngas engine of 30 kWe is
equipped for power generation using the slipstream of the producer
gas. The remaining gas is fed into a cored oil boiler. The unreacted
char and ash are collected in a cooled residue container installed at the
end of the moving-grate gasier.
Figure 2 shows a schematic diagram of the moving-grate gasier.
The main component designs (e.g., grate and lining) were adapted
from a conventional grate-type incinerator. The gasication process
was designed for a multistage reaction divided into three stages: a
drying stage, a pyrolysis stage, and a char gasication stage. However,
in actual operation, the staging function is highly dependent on the
fuel characteristics (e.g., fuel type, size, and moisture content) and the
operational scheme. In contrast to the uidized bed reactors normally
used for waste gasication processes, the conversion steps for solid
waste in grate systems do not take place simultaneously in the bed but
along the length of the fuel ow path. Thermal treatment of plastic
wastes presents severe constraints related to the very low softening
temperature of the plastics, with the risk of plugging the feeding system.5

as entrained bed systems, the fuel size must be carefully controlled. Accumulated knowledge and experience in the industry
of construction methods and operation of the moving-grate system are another advantage. Retrotting or conversion from the
combustion mode to the gasication mode can be accomplished
without major modication of the hardware.19
Thus, the aim of this study was to develop an integrated gasication and syngas power generation system based on a movinggrate system and gas engine. Pure oxygen was used as the gasifying
agent to produce high heating value gas, and a ame-assisted tar
reformer was adapted as a dry syngas cleaning system. Optimal
operating conditions of the integrated system were determined
for the main parameters (e.g., waste feeding rate and excess
oxygen ratio) taking into account performance of the syngas power
generation engine.

2. EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
2.1. Gasication and Power Generation System. A 500 kWth
scale pilot moving-grate gasication system was recently constructed
and is operated by the Korea Institute of Industrial Technology (KITECH),
2093

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef301758z | Energy Fuels 2013, 27, 20922098

Energy & Fuels

Article

Table 1. Specications for the Gas Engine Power Generator

engine type
rotational speed
intake system
power generator
power generation capacity

four-cycle gas engine

1800 rpm
turbo charger
induction motor
maximum 30 kWe

temperature of the gas mixture to increase the volumetric eciency

of the mixer, and the turbocharger increases the output power of the
engine with producer gas that has a low caloric value compared to
natural gas or diesel, that is, the design fuel for this engine.
2.2. Feedstock Materials. Mixed plastic wastes are typically made
up of various kinds of plastics. For these experimental tests, refused
plastic fuel (RPF) from a commercial waste sorting facility was selected as the main feedstock material for evaluating the performance of
the gasication system and for characterizing the producer gas generated during gasication. The RPF was composed of plastic wastes
(polypropylene, polystyrene, polyvinylchloride, etc.) mixed with other
materials such as textiles and ceramics and was shredded into lumps of
about 50 mm. RPF has many economic benets and advantages compared to other fuels because it is manufactured from the remaining
residues after recycling waste plastics and in particular because of its
high caloric value. In the early stages of the experiments, wood chips
were used for stabilization of the gasier. The wood chips were a blend
of 50% pine and 50% r and were shredded to about 50 mm. The
results of the used feedstock analysis are presented in Table 2.

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the moving-grate gasier.

To avoid this problem, the waste feeding system consists of double
gate with a pusher sequentially operated by a hydraulic system. The
grates are composed of moving parts and stationary parts with several
tuyeres on the front of each grate. To control the residence time of
solid wastes in the gasier, the movement speed and sequencing of the
moving grates can be automatically controlled by a programmed logic
control system. The refractory lining inside the gasier was designed to
withstand high temperatures of less than or equal to 1100 C. The
lining was constructed of high alumina re bricks that are resistant to
reducing atmospheres as well as high temperatures. Pure oxygen is
used as the gasifying agent and is introduced to the gasier below the
grates. An auxiliary burner was installed in front of each stage for
preheating the inside of the gasier. The producer gas ow exit was
installed in the middle of the gasier at the top of the pyrolysis stage,
followed by a tar reformer. As noted above, the presence of tar in the
producer gas is one of the main technical barriers in gasication
systems. Tar can cause several problems, such as formation of coke,
plugging lters, and condensing in cold spots, resulting in serious
operational interruptions.20 Moreover, certain tar concentrations can
damage or lead to unacceptable levels of maintenance for engines and
turbines.
In the present study, the producer gas leaving the gasier contained
a signicant amount of tar, because the gas exit was located in the
pyrolysis stage. However, by using a ame-assisted tar reformer with
oxy-combustion of natural gas, most of the tar in the producer gas was
removed. The tar reformer is a cylindrical reactor (0.6 m i.d. 3 m
long) constructed of refractory and insulated materials, designed to
withstand up to 1300 C. An oxygen burner of natural gas was
installed to thermally crack the tar. The temperature distribution inside
the tar reformer was measured using an R-type thermocouple. The
reformed gas was cooled in a heat exchanger and was then cleaned
with several sequential gas cleaning processes, including a bag lter
and a wet scrubber. Because the gasier and gas cleaning system were
operated at ambient pressure, a buer tank and a ring blower were
used to increase the supplied pressure of the cleaned gas before being
fed to the gas engine system; supplementary gas was sent to the
cored boiler.
After passing through the gas cleaning system, the producer gas was
supplied to a gas engine to generate electric power. The specications
of the syngas engine are presented in Table 1. The gas engine used in
this study was equipped with a turbocharger and an intercooler to
increase the eciency of the engine. The intercooler lowers the

Table 2. Results of the Feedstock Analysis

refused plastic fuel
Proximate Analysis (wt %)
moisture
volatiles
xed carbon
ash
Ultimate Analysis (daf wt %)b
C
H
O
N
S
Cl
Lower Heating Value (MJ/kg)

wood chipsa

0.5
71.9
6.6
21.1

6.4
75.9
17.4
0.3

65.2
8.7
19.2
1.0
0.5
5.1

50.8
5.4
43.6

0.2

21.2

16.1

Used for stabilization of the gasier in the early stage of experiments.

b
daf = dry ash free.
2.3. Test Procedures and Measurements. Before the tests, the
gasier was heated up to 500 C with the auxiliary natural gas burner.
However, it was necessary to wait longer before beginning solid waste
feeding to avoid tar condensation in the bag lter. Once the
temperature upstream of the bag lter was 180 C, the gasier was
ready for waste feeding, and wastes were fed slowly into the rst stage,
the drying zone. Under excess oxygen conditions, the solid waste
oxidized, and the gasier rapidly reached the desired temperature. The
transition from combustion to gasication was eected by increasing
the solid waste feeding rate to decrease the excess oxygen ratio. Once
the process conditions were stable, continuous solid feeding was
conducted. To prevent explosion of entrained ambient air into the
gasier during negative pressure operation, the static pressure of the
gasier was maintained at a slight positive pressure of 00.5 kPa by
controlling the fan speed. The temperature of the wet scrubber outlet
was maintained at approximately ambient temperature by supplying
sucient scrubbing water. After the induction fan, the producer gas
was collected in a buer tank placed upstream of the gas engine power
generator. The volume of gas supplied to the gas engine was lower
2094

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef301758z | Energy Fuels 2013, 27, 20922098

Energy & Fuels

Article

traps, which were connected in series and maintained at 4 C by a

cooling system.

than the total volume of the producer gas to prevent inow of ambient
air. Thus, the pressure in the buer tank was held above atmospheric
pressure.
To evaluate the performance of the gasier and the gas engine power
generation system, the following variables were dened and determined.
The variables analyzed included gas composition, caloric value, cold
gas eciency (CGE), carbon conversion eciency (CCE), and power
generation eciency (PGE):

HHVproduct gas =

Table 4. Eect of the Excess Oxygen Ratio on Producer Gas

Composition

(12.75 H 2% + 12.36 CO% + 39.82 CH4%)

100
(1)

ER =

oxygen flow rate

stoichiometric oxygen flow rate

CCE =

CGE =

PGE =

(2)
a

C product gas
Cwaste

run

excess oxygen ratio

gas composition (dry vol %)
H2
CO
CO2
CH4
gas ow rate ((N m3)/h, dry)a

0.15

0.30

0.45

0.60

30.1
21.9
8.2
10.0
95

41.1
33.4
15.2
6.8
109

34.5
28.4
20.0
4.5
119

29.0
28.0
22.0
4.3
122

Measured after the demister system and can be regarded as dry base.

(3)

HHVproduct gas Vproduct gas

HHVwaste m waste + HHVNG m NG

(4)

Pe
LHVwaste Vproduct gas

(5)

Data for the operational parameters of the gasication system, including temperature, pressure, gasifying agent ow rate, and producer
gas ow rate, were automatically stored in a data acquisition system at
1 min intervals. The main producer gas components (H2, CO, CO2,
O2, and CH4) were analyzed every 2 s with an online gas analyzer
(model: AO2020; ABB Co. Ltd., Germany). Tar was sampled in the

Table 3. Main Process Parameters for Testing the Eect of

the Excess Oxygen Ratio
parameter

characteristics, value

feedstock
feeding rate
solid residence time in bed
gasifying agenta
excess oxygen ratio
auxiliary heat sourceb
auxiliary heat load
operating pressure

refused plastic fuel

80 kg/h
1 h
pure oxygen
0.150.65
natural gas
58.3 kWth
050 Pa

Injection position: char gasication zone. bBurner position: pyrolysis

zone, stoichiometric conditions.

Figure 4. Eects of the ER on the HHV of the producer gas, process

eciency, and temperature of the gasier.

Figure 3. Variations in the gas composition during the tests in terms of ER. (a) ER = 0.3 and (b) ER = 0.6.
2095

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef301758z | Energy Fuels 2013, 27, 20922098

Energy & Fuels

Article

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Performance of the Gasier. Prior to integrated
operation of the overall process, the performance of the gasier
was tested independently. The experimental conditions for integrated operation were determined based on single-run test
results for the gasier, performed by varying the excess oxygen
ratio (ER). The main process parameters are presented in Table 3.
Figure 3 shows the variations in gas composition during the
tests in terms of ER. Stable operation was achieved during the
tests. However, the producer gas composition uctuated because
the RPF was not fed into the bed continuously but intermittently
using a pusher type feeder.
Table 4 and Figure 4 show the gasication results in terms of
ER. An increase in the ER from 0.15 to 0.30 led to obvious
changes in the producer gas composition. Most producer gas
species (H2, CO, and CO2) increased other than CH4. Considering that the temperature was increased, H2 and CO in the
producer gas likely increased because volatile gases escaped more
rapidly and hydrocarbons including CH4 were reformed into
H2 and CO,2123 and char oxidation promoted CO2 generation.
An increase in the ER from 0.30 to 0.60 led to a slight increase
in carbon conversion but decreased the HHV and CGE. The gasier

temperature increased due to the promotion of char oxidation

as the ER increased.
There is a trade-o between the CCE and the caloric value of
the producer gas (Figure 4). To optimize both the caloric value
of the producer gas and the CCE, we assessed carbon conversion
and the amount of unreacted char in the residues. The experimental conditions used in these experiments were the same as
those presented in Table 3, except for the ER. As the ER was
varied, the weight of residues collected in the cooled residue
container was measured. The unreacted char in the residues
was analyzed using the standard test method for loss on ignition of solid combustion residues (ASTM D7348) and was
determined by eq 6:
unreacted char in the residues (%)
w
wash
= residues
100
wresidues wmoist

(6)

A decrease in the ER from 0.72 to 0.15 led to a clear increase

in the HHV of the producer gas but also an increase in the
amount of unreacted char in the residues and a decrease in
carbon conversion (Figure 5). On the basis of the amount of
unreacted char in the residues, the CCEs should have been
greater than 7595%. However, the CCEs based on the
product gas without the tar reforming process were 5788%,
according to eq 3. These results imply that the unconverted tar,
which should be transferred to the producer gas, decreased the
CCE and that tar reforming is necessary to improve the overall
system eciency.
Overall, the performance tests indicated that the average
HHV of the producer gas was greater than 10 MJ/(N m3), the
CGE was greater than 55%, and the CCE was 70% with an
ER of 0.30.4.
3.2. Tar Reforming. The tar reforming test was performed
under the same operating conditions shown in Table 3, except
for the ER. The ER was set at 0.1 to generate a large amount
of tar during the gasication process. The temperature of the
tar reformer was held at 1000 C using the auxiliary oxygen
burner by controlling the amount of auxiliary fuel (natural gas)
and oxygen to stoichiometric conditions. Figure 6 shows changes
in the amounts of the generated gas species before and after the tar

Figure 5. Unreacted char percentage in the residues and carbon

conversion eciency with variations in the ER.

Figure 6. Variations in the gas composition and HHV before and after the tar reformer (RPF = 80 kg/h, ER = 0.1, tar reformer was held at 1000 C).
2096

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef301758z | Energy Fuels 2013, 27, 20922098

Energy & Fuels

Article

waste plastics that decomposed into its monomer (styrene).10

Two- and three-ring aromatic compounds were primarily detected after the tar reformer. This implies that secondary tar species
such as naphthalene and biphenyl were formed during the hightemperature tar reforming process.25 Downstream, secondary tar
was removed from the producer gas in the gas cleaning system,
composed of a bag lter and a scrubber. However, fouling of the
bag lter and contamination of the scrubbing water could be an
issue after long operation; thus, additional gas treatment systems are needed to prevent downstream problems related to
the secondary tars.
3.3. Gas Engine Power Generation. Under optimal
operating conditions (ER = 0.30.4) for the gasication system,
the cleaned producer gas was fed into the gas engine, and power
generation tests were carried out. The main process parameters
for the tests are summarized in Table 6. Figure 7 shows the fuel
gas ow rate and power generation eciency according to each
case (dierent LHV of fuel gas) for producing certain electric
power. For these case studies, the power output of the engine
was set at 5, 10, 15, and 20 kWe. The consumed fuel gas ow rate
increased as the power generation load increased; with higher
LHV fuel gas, the fuel gas ow rate required to maintain the
same power output was reduced. A power output of greater than
20 kWe and a power generation eciency of 22% were obtained.

reformer. After thermal treatment, the percentages of most gas

species (H2, CO, and CH4) increased. Compared to the other
gas species, H2 and CH4 increased more in the producer gas
because higher molecular weight hydrocarbons decomposed
into H2 and CH4 at high temperatures.24 Figure 6 also shows
the change in HHV of the producer gas after thermal treatment.
Higher HHV was obtained due to the increases in H2 and CH4. The
tar samples were qualitatively analyzed using a gas chromatography/
mass selective detector. For simplicity, the tar compounds have
been grouped into three classes of compounds by the number
of aromatic rings. Table 5 shows the primary tar compounds
detected before and after the tar reformer. Styrene was detected
during the test, likely originating from polystyrene mixed with
Table 5. List of Tar Compounds before and after the Tar
Reformer
compd
before

1-ring

after

2-ring
3-ring
1-ring
2-ring
3-ring

toluene, ethylbenzene, benzene, o,p-xylene, styrene,

methylstyrene
nda
nda
toluene, ethylbenzene, benzene, o,p-xylene, styrene,
methylstyrene
indene, naphthalene, methylnaphthalene, biphenyl
phenanthrene

4. CONCLUSIONS
Production and use of fuel gas from mixed plastic wastes were
investigated in an integrated pilot-scale moving-grate gasication and power generation process, and the following results
were obtained:
For oxygen-blown gasication of RPF, the optimal ER was
0.30.4. Under these operating conditions, the higher heating
value of the producer gas was greater than 10 MJ/(N m3), the
cold gas eciency was greater than 55%, and a carbon
conversion eciency of 70% was obtained. However,
unconverted tar transferred to the producer gas decreased
the system eciency.
The producer gas from gasication of waste plastic contained substantial amounts of tar. With the ame-assisted
tar reformer, a high percentage of H2 and CH4 in the
reformed gas was obtained, resulting in a higher caloric
value producer gas. After tar reforming, secondary tar
species such as naphthalene and biphenyl, which were
not detected before reforming, were present. It was observed

nd = not detected.

Table 6. Main Process Parameters for the Power Generation

Tests

parameter

feedstock
feeding rate (kg/h)
gasifying agent
excess oxygen ratio
auxiliary heat load
gas composition (dry vol %)a
H2
CO
CO2
CH4
gas temperature (C)
lower heating value (MJ/(N m3))

refused plastic fuel

80
oxygen
0.4
58.3 kWth
28
25
19
5.0
52
8.0

0.35

0.3

26
24
19
6.6
29
8.2

24
20
18
10
25
8.7

Mean value in each case.

Figure 7. Electric power output set value vs consumed fuel gas ow rate and power generation eciency.
2097

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef301758z | Energy Fuels 2013, 27, 20922098

Energy & Fuels

Article

(2) Al-Salem, S.; Lettieri, P.; Baeyens, J. Waste Manage. 2009, 29,
26252643.
(3) Siddique, R.; Khatib, J.; Kaur, I. Waste Manage. 2008, 28, 1835
1852.
(4) Kim, J. W.; Mun, T. Y.; Kim, J. O.; Kim, J. S. Fuel 2011, 90,
22662272.
(5) Arena, U.; Di Gregorio, F.; Amorese, C.; Mastellone, M. L. Waste
Manage. 2011, 31, 14941504.
(6) Brandrup, J.; Bittner, M.; Michaeli, W.; Menges, G. Recycling and
Recovery of Plastics; Hanser Verlag: New York, 1996.
(7) Ray, R.; Thorpe, R. Int. J. Chem. React. Eng. 2007, 5, 114.
(8) Kantarelis, E.; Donaj, P.; Yang, W.; Zabaniotou, A. J. Hazard.
Mater. 2009, 167, 675684.
(9) Wu, C.; Williams, P. T. Fuel 2010, 89, 30223032.
(10) Ponzio, A.; Kalisz, S.; Blasiak, W. Fuel Process. Technol. 2006, 87,
223233.
(11) Pohorely, M.; Vosecky, M.; Hejdova, P.; Puncochar, M.; Skoblja,
S.; Staf, M.; Vosta, J.; Koutsky, B.; Svoboda, K. Fuel 2006, 85, 2458
2468.
(12) Mastellone, M. L.; Zaccariello, L.; Arena, U. Fuel 2010, 89,
29913000.
(13) Pinto, F.; Franco, C.; Andre, R. N.; Tavares, C.; Dias, M.;
Gulyurtlu, I.; Cabrita, I. Fuel 2003, 82, 19671976.
(14) Xiao, R.; Jin, B.; Zhou, H.; Zhong, Z.; Zhang, M. Energy Convers.
Manage. 2007, 48, 778786.
(15) Belgiorno, V.; De Feo, G.; Della Rocca, C.; Napoli, R. Waste
Manage. 2003, 23, 115.
(16) Arena, U.; Zaccariello, L.; Mastellone, M. L. Waste Manage.
2009, 29, 783791.
(17) Hasler, P.; Nussbaumer, T. Biomass Bioenergy 1999, 16, 385
395.
(18) Yassin, L.; Lettieri, P.; Simons, S. J. R.; Germana, A. Chem. Eng.
J. 2009, 146, 315327.
(19) Yang, Y. B.; Sharifi, V. N.; Swithenbank, J. Waste Manage. 2007,
27, 645655.
(20) Corella, J.; Orio, A.; Aznar, P. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1998, 37,
46174624.
(21) Gomez-Barea, A.; Leckner, B. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2010,
36, 444509.
(22) Moon, J. H.; Lee, U. D.; Ryu, C. K.; Lee, Y. M.; Bae, W. K. J.
Korean Soc. Combust. 2011, 16 (1), 814.
(23) Rath, J.; Staudinger, G. Fuel 2001, 80, 13791389.
(24) Pinto, F.; Franco, C.; Andre, R.; Miranda, M.; Gulyurtlu, I.;
Cabrita, I. Fuel 2002, 81, 291297.
(25) Morf, P.; Hasler, P.; Nussbaumer, T. Fuel 2002, 81 (7), 843
853.

that tar was eectively removed from the producer gas

through the gas cleaning system, which consisted of a bag
lter and a scrubber. To prevent problems related to
secondary tar in the future, secondary tar treatment systems
downstream are needed for long-term application of this
system.
The performance of the gas engine power generation
system was tested. Under the optimal operating conditions of the gasication system, a power output of greater
than 20 kWe and a power generation eciency of 22%
were obtained.
In summary, the technical feasibility of a moving-grate gasication system was demonstrated through integrated operation
at a pilot scale. The operating characteristics developed in this
study will be reected in the design of a commercial-scale system in the future.

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*Phone: +82-41-589-8574; fax: +82-41-589-8353; e-mail:

uendol@kitech.re.kr.
Author Contributions

The manuscript was written through contributions of all

authors. All authors have given approval to the nal version of
the manuscript.
Notes

The authors declare no competing nancial interest.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was supported by the project Development of
Renewable Resource Based Materials and Energy Production
System with Low Carbon Emission funded by the Korea
government Ministry of Strategy and Finance.

NOMENCLATURE

Abbreviations

CCE=Carbon conversion eciency

CGE=Cold gas eciency
ER=Excess oxygen ratio
HHV=Higher heating value (MJ/(N m3))
LHV=Lower heating value (MJ/(N m3))
MPW=Mixed plastic wastes
NG=Natural gas
PGE=Power generation eciency ()
RPF=Refused plastic fuel
RPS=Renewable energy portfolio standard
Symbols

C
m
P
V
w

Mass of carbon (kg)

Feeding rate of waste (kg/h)
Electric power (kW)
Flow rate of gas ((N m3)/h)
Weight of sample (g)

Subscripts

e Electricity output
N Normal state
th Thermal input/output

REFERENCES

(1) Moon, J. H.; Lee, J. W.; Lee, U. D. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102,
95509557.
2098

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef301758z | Energy Fuels 2013, 27, 20922098