Proceedings of the ASME 2011 Sth International Conference on Energy Sustainability Es2011 August 7-10, 2011, Washington, DC, USA ES2011-54284 PLASMA GASIFICATION PROCESS MODELING AND ENERGY RECOVERY FROM SOLID WASTE Arnar S. Valmundsson Masdar Institute of Science and Technology P.O, Box 54224, Abu Dhabi, UAE avalmundsson@masdar.ac.ae ABSTRACT In recent studies, plasma gasification has shown great potential as an effective method for solid waste treatment and energy recovery. In this study, a plasma gasification process is simulated based on a chemical equilibrium model developed in Aspen Plus. The model takes into account the properties of different feedstock, used for gasification, and the input plasma energy and evaluates the output syngas composition following Gibbs free energy minimization approach. The model is used to evaluate plasma gasification of three types of feedstock ie. industrial waste (shredded tires), construction waste (plywood), and baseline bituminous coal. The process is optimized for two different types of plasma gas: air and steam, Process metrics are evaluated and compared for the considered feedstock. Results showed an obtained plasma gasification efficiency of 46.4% shredded tires and 41.1% for plywood and bituminous coal. Energy recovery potential is also evaluated using an integrated plasma gasification combined cycle (IPGCC) power plant model. Thermal efficiencies of the process are evaluated and compared for the different feedstock. Plasma gasification of waste tire material resulted in an energy eficieney of 28.5%, while the efficiency for coal and plywood was lower at 20.0% and 18.3%, respectively. 1. INTRODUCTION Disposal of solid waste in landfills presents a problem of contamination from hazardous waste and emission of greenhouse gases. Regulations and policy changes have also restricted the amounts and types of waste that can be put into landfills and landfilling has even been forbidden in certain Isam Janajreh Masdar Institute of Science and Technology P.O, Box 54224, Abu Dhabi, UAE ijanajteh@masdar.ac.ae cities, Waste incineration is a common altemative to landfilling ‘where waste is typically cofired with fossil fuel. Incineration plants require expensive flue gas cleanup to mect ‘environmental standards and generate toxie fly ash that must be disposed of properly. Another alternative for solid waste disposal is plasma gasification, Plasma gasification is a high temperature thermal process where the feedstock is completely decomposed into simple ‘compounds in @ partial oxidation environment. The organic part of the solid feedstock is converted into high quality syngas that ccan be used for chemical production or as fuel for electricity generation. The inorganic part of the feedstock is vitrified into nnon-leachable slag that can be disposed of safely into landfills, recycled, or reused as construction material [1,2] Plasma is commonly known as the fourth state of matter. This state occurs when charged electrons are forced into very high energy collisions with gaseous molecules. Plasma behaves significantly different from other solids, liquids or gases because of charged gaseous species present, making them highly reactive (3) Tn waste treatment, thermal plasmas are applied, They are characterized by a high energy density and extremely high temperatures, reaching several thousand degrees Celsius in the plasma core. Thermal plasma can be generated by passing an electric current through gas and using its electrical resistive nature to dissipate energy, resulting in high temperatures. At high enough temperatures, electrons dissociate from the molecules and an ionized plasma gas stream is obtained [1,4]. ‘The thermal plasma is used to completely decompose the organic fraction of the waste into simple species and the inorganic fraction into vitrified slag. The high temperature plasma breaks the chemical bonds of almost all matcrials Copyright © 2011 by ASMEresulting in large amounts of highly active radicals, electrons, ions and excited molecules in the system, These active species, and the high intensity radiation from the plasma, increase the rates of reactions significantly and allow reactions to proceed that are harder to achieve under lower temperature conditions (5.6) In plasma gasification of solid waste, direct current (DC) plasma torches are commonly used for plasma generation. These torches are already well developed and deployed in other industries and can be adapted easily for gasification (4). In DC plasma torches, an electrical are discharge is generated between two electrodes with plasma gas flowing in between them. The plasma gas is ionized and flows beyond the electrodes creating 1 plasma jet with high energy density and temperature, DC plasma torches can either be of the transferred are or the non- ttansferred arc type. Transferred arc torches have one electrode within the torch and the other electrode outside the torch body, typically the working material. In non-transferred are torches the two electrodes are contained within the torch body. These torches are typically water cooled to minimize high temperature crosion, but atthe cost of lower efficiency [1]. Thermal plasma reactors have multiple benefits. Because of high temperatures and high energy density, a fast reaction time ig obtained, This allows for a compact reactor with high material throughput compared to conventional thermal processes [1,4,7,8]. In plasma reactors no combustion is necessary to provide energy for the reactions, resulting in lower gas stream volume compared to conventional gasification processes [1.4.9]. The plasma torch is an independent heat source that can be easily controlled to regulate the process temperature within the reactor apart from the fluctuations in the quality of the feedstock [10]. ‘The reaction environment can also be controlled by selecting a proper plasma gas for the desired process. Pyrolysis can be performed using an inert gas, cr gasification by selecting an oxidizer as plasma gas [9,11]. A wide range of feedstock can be treated by plasma reactors including solids, liquids and gases. The very high temperature of the plasma leads to almost complete destruction of any kind fof waste, including hazardous waste, in a fast and reliable ‘manner [4,6,9]. The disadvantage of thermal plasma reactors is the high electric power requirement of the plasma torch and the low operation pressure of the reactor. Therefore, itis essential to design an energy efficient plasma gasification system that provides optimal conversion and operating conditions, There are multiple designs of plasma gasification reactors but typically they consist of a reactor chamber with an imbedded plasma torch that supplies energy for gasification. The reactor chamber walls consist of refractory material that is able to withstand diffused and convected heat due to the high temperatures supplied by the plasma torch, As the waste is fed into the reactor, it is decomposed due to the heat from the plasma and syngas is created from the organic part of the waste while the inorganic portion forms @ molten slag (4]. This slag is collected at the bottom of the reactor where it is periodically removed and quenched to form a vitrified slag that can be reused, recycled, or disposed of in landfills (7]. The synges, essentially CO and Hs, is subjected to a syngas cleaning and cooling process. Once cleaned, it can be used for chemical production or electricity generation through configurations of power cycles [2]. Multiple plasma gasification systems have been developed in the last decade. Various feedstocks have been considered in these developments ranging from biomass to hazardous waste. In several studies, solutions for waste destruction have been sought [4,7,9,12], while others put more emphasis on energy recovery and generating high quality syngas using a wide range of feedstock [13-18) In the field of plasma gasification, theoretical research has mainly focused on chemical equilibrium models. Mountouris et al. [2,19] developed a chemical equilibrium plasma gasification ‘model with the goal of predicting the produced syngas fom ‘waste, and perform energy and exergy analysis to optimize the plasma gasification process. Their results showed that a chemical equilibrium approach can be employed in numerical ‘modeling of plasma gasification Minutillo et al. [20] developed a thermochemical model based on a plasma are gasification reactor using air as plasma gas. They were able to assess the syngas composition and the energy required for the gasification reactions. Using the model, the reactor performance was optimized under different ‘operating conditions, The model was then integrated into an IPGCC to analyze the energy recovery potential from solid ‘waste streams, This study follows the previous work performed by the same authors [21] and the work of Minutillo et al. where @ plasma gasification equilibrium model was developed using Aspen Plus (22). In this study, the chemical equilibrium model is further developed and studied using air and steam as plasma gas, as well as their combination. The model takes into account the’ characteristics of different feedstocks and the electric energy input into the system, and gives the expected syngas yield of the process. Process metrics such as syngas ‘composition and efficiency of the process are evaluated. The tend use of the syngas for energy generation is also evaluated using an IPGCC power plant model. 2, MODEL DEVELOPMENT A non-stoichiometsic chemical equilibrium approach is, employed in the model to determine the concentration of syngas species in the gasification process, Minimization of Gibbs free energy is performed to determine the equilibrium state, The total Gibbs free energy (G) of an ideal gas system ccan be expressed as: nrTin(@) wD Where 1 is the number of moles of species i, AG's; is the standard Gibbs free energy of formation of species i, R is the ‘universal gas constant, Tis temperature, and ny is the total number of moles in the system. This function is minimized by solving for appropriate values of , while accounting for elemental balance [23]. The developed plasma gasification model is based on a plasma reactor using a non-transferred are DC plasma torch, Copyright © 2011 by ASMEdepicted in Fig, 1. The reactor is well insulated and therefore modeled as adiabatic, The model accounts for the following species: Hy, CO, CO, CHy, HzO, Na, Oz, NO, NO, 8, SO2, 05, Cl;, HCl, HCN, 1:8, COS, C:H, NHs, and C (solid), The process model flowshect for the plasma reactor is illustrated in Fig. 2. The feedstock is input as the non- conventional solid stream FEEDI, with properties determined ay the ultimate and proximate composition of the feedstock using the HCOALGEN and DCOALIGT property models for enthalpy and density, respectively. This stream flows through a heat exchanger, HX!, absorbing heat from syngas coming, out of the high temperature zone of the plasma reactor. The heat stream HEAT? supplies the heat from the syngas. The feedstock continues as the stream FEED2 into the DECOMP block where the organic part of the feedstock is decomposed ino its constituent elements based on its elemental composition given by the ultimate and proximate composition, ‘The energy required from this process is supplied by the heat steam HEATI ftom the HTR reactor block to maintain the energy balanee of the reactor, ‘The feedstock in the form of HO, C (solid), Hs, Op, No, 8, Ch, and ash, continues as the stream FEEDS into the separator block EVAP where water is separated from the feedstock, modeling evaporation of feedstock moisture that is subsequently carried out of the reactor with the syngas. The feedstock proceeds as the stream FEEDS and enters another separator block, SLAGSEP, where the ash is separated at a high temperature, ensuring thatthe ash is in a liquid slag form. The feedstock proceeds as the stream ORGS and enters the high temperature zone of the plasma reactor, modeled with the HIZ reactor block, where it mixes with plasma gas generated in the plasma torch. The plasma gas, in the form of air andior steam enters the HTZ, reactor after being heated up to 4000°C in the heat exchanger DC-ARC, modeling the plasma torch. The plasma torch efficiency is assumed 86% [24,25]. In the high temperature reactor block, HTZ, Gibbs [fee energy ‘minimization methods are performed to solve for the reactor output syngas composition at chemical equilibrium. To ensure complete feedstock decomposition, the temperature at the output of the HTZ, block is set at 2500°C by iterating on the amount of plasma gas flow into the reactor Table 1: Main block operation description The output stream SYNGASI of the HTZ, reactor flows through the heat exchanger HX2, elevating the heat of the incoming feedstock while lowering the syngas temperature 0 1250°C, The heat rejected by the syngas is passed on to the feedstock by the heat stream HEAT?, The syngas then enters the low temperature zone reactor LIZ where species distribution is determined assuming chemical equilibrium before the syngas mixes with evaporated water and passes out {fm Feedstock Ul Plasma gas A Electricity, Figure 1: A non-transferred are plasma reactor orcour ~ Te 0 . 6 evap. cao aie Block | Block mame: __| type: Description: ‘Knoa-ioichiometrc reactor model pecomp | RYIELD_| witha known yield distribution ‘A reactor model that uses Gibbs free “ TZ RGIBBS _| energy minimization to solve LIZ, RGIBBS | multiphase chemical equilibrium XT HEATER, XE HEATER | A single stream heat exchanger DC-ARC [HEATER 2 7 separator sing known outlet, i Evap__| sep. fractions SACO SLAGSEP_[ SEP, & MIX MIXER | Asieam mixer Figure 2: Plasma gasification reactor model flowsheet Copyright © 2011 by ASMEFor model validation, the refused derived fuel used by Minutllo ct al. is tested using pure air as the plasma gas. The reactor is operated at atmospheric pressure and the mass ratio of plasma gas to feedstock is 0.782. The composition of the refuse derived fuel is given in Table 2. A comparison between the model results and those obtained by Minutillo et al. are summarized in Table 3, showing agreeable results, Table : RDF composition Where ttsyngas ald tgeeg ate mnass flow rates of the syngas and feedstock, ‘respectively, LHVangs and LHVies are lower heating value of the syngas and feedstock, respectively, Wiss is the eleetrie power consumption of the plasma torch, and Mie is the average electric power plant efficiency for a fossil-based power plant, assumed here 31.6%. ‘Table 4: Feedstock higher hes ‘Tire | Plywood. Proximate analysis (wt): Proximate (iva Moisture 200 Moisture op or [17 Volatile matters inp 7595 Volatile matt (a) Bases sn Fixed carbon (dy) 023 Fixed carbon (dy) eso [ @s| 310 ‘Ash (dy) 130 Ash (dey) ss 271s Ultimate analpais G77) (Ore Ulimate WY) GRE c aa c ep ssa ise iH 637 i ex] se[ a9 N 1 N ox| oa [22 cr 1s aI Oh Cd S 07 S 1s[ 00 [10 o 2Ka8 o oo] ant [6a A 1Bar Aah ee] 2 Tis Table 3: Results comparison HY (SET: sea] 79 | soa remeron | Minutilo etal. | — Simulation The simulations are run using different mixtures of air and m Tai Toe steam as plasma gas (with mass flow rate iterated to reach co 03579 o3579 2500°C atthe exit ofthe high temperature zone). The result for coy 000 0000 the plasma gasification efficiency as a function of steam ratio is ® 0.2657 0.2686 sven in Fig. 3. The steam ratio (p) is defined as cil 0.0597 0.0555 10 0.1168 0.1169 Thsteam HCI 10,0032 0.0032 Mcean Mair ° TS, 0.0032 0.0032 Cos 0.0002 0.0002 Where tsteam and tig are mass flow rates of steam and air to HAV (Tg) 10.50 10.18 the plasma torch, respectively LH (Mrs) 95 9a 3. MODEL SIMULATION The model is used to analyze the output syngas for three different feedstocks: waste tire material, waste plywood, and bituminous RIC coal. ‘The ultimate and proximate composition, and heating Value of the feedstock comprise the input parameters to the model, a listed in Table 4 [26] ‘Two types of plasma gas are considered: air and steam, and their mixture, Air is selected because it is abundant and has a low specific heat resulting in a low energy input to reach the dosired high temperature. Steam is selected because it supplies additional hydrogen to the process and more oxygen, compared to air, but atthe cost of an additional energy input to the plasma torch because of the high specific heat and absorbed latent heat of evaporation, To evaluate the process, the cold gasification efficiency is defined as [27] jee LB era Worle Nee @ 2 25.0% z Plasma Gasifiaction Eficienc Piywood © 01 02 03 04 0S 06 07 08 09 1 ‘Steam ratio In plasma gas Cold gasification efficiency for different feedstocks The results clearly indicate that the choice and combination of plasma gas is critical and depends on the feedstock subjected to the plasma reactor. Tire waste achieves the highest cold gas efficiency of 43.9% using pure steam as plasma gas, while plywood reaches a maximum efficiency of 41.1% using pure Copyright © 2011 by ASMEair as plasma gas. Gasification of RTC coel yields a maximum efficiency of 41.1% using @ mixture of air and steam at 69% steam ratio in the plasma gas. To explain this trend, results for each feedstock are depicted, in Fig. 4 to 6, where cold gas efficiency along with the torch input power and syngas power (defined as mass flow rate of syngas multiplied by the lower heating value of the syngas) are given as a fonction of the steam ratio, From these results itis apparent how the power obtained from the syngas and the power added with the plasma effect the efficiency of the process, Steam ratio In plasma gas Figure 4: Cold gas efficiency and power for tires Steam ratio In plasma gas Figure 5: Cold gas efficiency and power for plywood Steam ratio In plasma gas Figure 6: Cold gas efficiency and power for RTC coal For tire waste material, as the steam ratio increases, the cfficiency rises because the added syngas power is greater than the additional necessary torch input power to gasily the feedstock. On the contrary, for plywood the efficiency gradually drops as the steam content is increased because the gain in the obtained syngas power is lower than the added power necessary for the plasma torch. A different behaviour is observed for RTC coal where the efficiency is minimum using pure air as plasma gas and rises, as the steam ratio is increased, ‘up to the maximum efficiency point after which it slowly drops This is observed because of the sudden decrease in the syngas power gradient after obtaining maximum efficieney. The syngas composition at the reactor model outlet provides more detail on the gasification behaviour for the different feedstocks and are illustrated for the major species in Fig. 7 10 9 When using tire waste material, it is observed that .sasification is not completed. This is indicated by the presence of solid carbon at the reactor outlet. To increase the conversion of solid carbon into syngas, more oxygen has to be added into the gasifier which is the case when the steam ratio is increased. Steam also has the additional value of introducing more hydrogen into the system, thereby increasing the quality of the syngas, but at the cost of more electric energy. When using ppure stcam as plasma gas, carbon conversion still remains uncompleted so in order to complete the gasification process a ‘moderator in the form of water is added to the feedstock before it enters the gasifier. The amount of water is increased up to the point where no solid carbon remains and at that point (0.06 kg water per kg feedstock) the cold gas efficiency reaches a new maximum of 46.4%. Increasing the water content beyond that point resulted in a decrease in the obtained efficiency, From the syngas composition trom the gasification of plywood it is observed that for any combination of plasma gas, carbon conversion is complete. This is apparent since solid carbon is always zero. By increasing the steam content in the plasma gas a higher concentration of water is obtained in the syngas, thereby penalizing process energy and decreasing the {gasification efficiency. Carbon conversion is completed sooner for plywood than tire waste due to the lower fixed carbon content and higher oxygen content in plywood. Therefore, a smaller amount of oxygen is necessary in the plasma gas. This Tow amount of carbon and high oxygen content in plywood implies a low heating value of the feedstock, demanding more plasma gas to reach the requited gasifier temperature For RTC coal, using pure air as plasma gas leads to a high amount of fixed carbon. However by increasing the steam ratio, solid carbon decreases until the maximum gasification clficieney point is reached. At that point, carbon conversion is completed and increasing the steam ratio beyond that only rosulis in excess water and decreased efficiency, Copyright © 2011 by ASMEox components and parameters taken fiom other literature [29- oss 32]. The main combined cycle parameters are listed in Table 5 ae a , sox Fl ome [eet | om] om | nae Zon ae —p| Site ‘Clamp ee a 01 02 03 04 0s as a7 OB se ans Stem ration plasma ges fe ve Figure 7: Syngas composition for tires = ow =e oe Figure 9: IPGCC power plant os Table 5: Combined cyte model parameters ge as turbine cyl fos Presure aio i x Turbine inlet temperature Tac go ‘Compressor sentropi eens 38% Fan Turbine isentropic efficiency 91.0% os Stack emperatire Tac ea Steam cycle: 7 High pressure Tevet Da bar So oe Intermediate pressure Teva 25.6 har nie Tow pressure level 2.36bar Condenser press Tos bar Figure &: Syngas composition for plywood Turbine feiropie cenay TOR gon Box Steam ration plasma gas Figure 8 Syngas composition for RTC coal 4. IPGCC MODEL To evaluate the potential of plasma gasification for electricity production, an IPGCC power plant model is developed. The TPGCC model consists of five different interconnected sections: plasma gasifier, cooling compression and cleanup, gas turbine, hheat recovery steam generator (HRSG), and steam cycle. The power plant is illustrated in Fig. 9. The model follows a previously developed integrated gasification combined cycle (GCC) model “by Shelton and Lyons [28] with some The plasma gasification model from this study is used in the IPGCC model. Electric power for the plasma torch is supplied from the combined cycle. The syngas passes from the plasma gasifier at approximately 1270°C and is subjected to cooling ‘compression and cleanup before entering the gas turbine of the combined cycle, The syngas passes through radiant syngas cooler, cooling it down to 900°C, followed by a convective ‘cooler where itis further caoled down to 450°C, The syngas is then removed of solid particulates using a candle filter and then further cooled and cleaned in a venturi and tray scrubber where ‘water soluble contaminant species are washed out using acidic and alkaline solutions [29]. In the cooling process, most of the hheat is recovered to generate high pressure steam for the steam eyele, The syngas is compressed before being subjected to sulfur removal. It is passed through a COS hydrolysis reactor to convert COS to HS and CO; before entering an acid gas removal system where 99.6% of the H,S present in the syngas is absorbed using an MDEA amine solution [28]. The cleaned syngas is combusted in the gas turbine to generate electric power. The gas turbine model is based on @ W501G gas turbine that has been modified to handle lower heating value syngas (28). The sensible heat of the flue gas from the gas turbine is recovered using a HRSG to generate superheated steam for the steam eycle and steam for the plasma Copyright © 2011 by ASMEtorch, The steam eyele is a three pressure stage eycle with reheating, The same feedstock is used to run the IPGCC, with air and steam as plasma gas. The overall efficiency of the power plant was calculated using: WertWsr-WeorenWeee MPG = ~~ Tipeea EHV peca a Where Wor is the work output of the gas turbine eycle, Wsr is the work output of the steam turbine cycle, Wocc is the work input to the cooling compression and cleanup section, and the other parameters have been defined above. The results of the simulations are given in Fig. 10. IPCC Efcleney & oom Steam rato In plasma gas Figure 10: IPGCC efficiency for different feedstocks It is clear that the maximum efficiency points coincide with the maximum cold gasification efficiency points for each of the three feedstocks, Waste tire feedstock yields the best IPGCC plant efficiency, reaching 25.5%. RTC coal yields a maximum efficiency of 20.0% and plywood yields the lowest efficiency of 16.9%. As the steam ratio is increased for plywood, the efficiency continuously drops and eventually reaches a zer0 value, implying that the power plant cannot sustain itself due to the high energy requirement of the plasma torch, To increase the IPGCC efficiency for the ease of tire waste ‘material, water was again introduced with the feedstock which resulted in a higher efficiency, reaching 28.5%. Also, by recognizing that plywood contains no sulfur, the syngas fom gasification of plywood can bypass the acid gas removal system, saving energy and resources, resulting in an increased efficiency of 18.3%, 5. CONCLUSIONS In this study, a plasma gasification process model using a rnon-stoichiomelric chemical equilibrium approach was developed. Using the model, gasification of various feedstocks employing different plasma gas oxidizing medium was studied and metries of the process such as syngas species distribution and gasification efficiency were evaluated The results showed that, using waste tire material, a ‘maximum efficiency of 46.4% was reached using pure steam as plasma gas when water was added to the feedstock to enable completion of the gasification process. For gasification of plywood, a maximum gasification efficiency of 41.1% was achieved using pure air as plasma gas. The same efficiency was obtained using bituminous RTC coal but with a mixture of air and steam as plasma gas (69% steam). The maximum {gasification efficiency was reached when adequate oxidizer was ‘added to the process to achieve complete carbon conversion, To evaluate the power production potential from solid waste, following plasma gasification, an IPGCC power plant model ‘was implemented, A high efficiency was obtained for tire waste material, reaching 28.5% when water was added to the feedstock. Using bituminous RTC coal an efficieney of 20 ‘was obtained and plywood reached only 18.3%, Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank the Masdar Initiative for their financial support. Thanks are also given to the members of our waste-to-energy group; Fabian Hamp, Tham Talab, Syed Shabbar Raza, Rana Qudail, and Rasha Abdu Rabu, for their help. References [1] Gomez, F., Amutha Rani, D., Cheeseman, CR, Deegan, D,, Wise, M., and Boccaccini, A.R., 2009, "Thermal Plasma ‘Technology for the Treatment of Wastes: A Gritical Review," Journal of Hazardous Materials, 161, pp. 614-626. [2] Mountouris, A., Voutsas, E., and Tassios, D., 2006, ‘Solid Waste Plasma Gasification: Equilibrium Model Development and Exergy Analysis," Energy Conversion and Management, 47, pp. 1723-1737. [3] Bosmans, A., and Helsen, L., 2010, "Energy from Waste: Review of Thermochemical Technologies for Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) Treatment,” No. 277, Proceedings Venice 2010, Third International ‘Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste, CISA, Environmental Sanitary Engineering Centre, Italy, Venice, [4] Moustakas, K., Fatta, D., Malamis, S., Haralambous, K. and Loizidou, M., 2008, "Demonstration Plasma Gasification/Vitification ‘System for Effective Hazardous Waste Treatment," Jounal of Hazardous Materials, BI23, pp. 120-126. [5] Venkatramani, N., 2002, "Industrial Plasma Torches and Applications, " Current Seience, 83(3), pp. 254-262. [6] Qiu, J., He, X., Sum, T, Zhao, Z., Zhou, Y., Guo, 8. Zoang, J., and Ma, T., 2004, "Coal Gasification in Steam and Air Medium under Plasma Conditions: A. Preliminary Study," Fucl Processing Technology, 88, pp. 969-982. [7] Zhao, P., Ni, G., Jiang, Y., Chen, L Chen, M., and Meng, Y., 2010, "Destruction of Inorganic Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator Fly Ash in a DC Are Plasma Furnace," Journal of Hazardous Materials, 18, pp. 580- 585. Copyright © 2011 by ASME(8) v) 10) a 02 03, U4) us 016) 07) 18) 019} (20) Balgaranova, J, 2003, "Plasma Chemical Gasification of ‘Sewage Sludge,” Waste Management & Research, 21, pp. 38-41, Moustakas, K., Xydis, G., Malamis, S., Haralambous, K.I,, and Loizidou, M,, 2008, "Analysis of Results from the Operation of a Pilot Plasma Gasification / Vitification Unit for Optimizing its Performance,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, 151, pp. 473-480. Lemmens, B., Elslander, H., Vanderreydt, 1, Peys, K., Diels, L., Oosterlinek, M., Joos, M., 2007, "Assessment of Plasma Gasification of High Caloric Waste Streams,” Waste Management, 27, pp. 1562-1569. Herdrich, G., and Auwetet-Kurtz, M., 2006, "Inductively heated plasma sources for technical applications,” ‘Vacuum, 80, pp. 1138-1143 Kim, S.W., Park, HS., and Kim, H.J., 2003, "100 kW steam plasma process for treatment of PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) waste," Vacuum, 70, pp. 59- 66. Tang, L., and Huang, H., 2008, Using Capacitively Coupled RF Plasma Technology,” Fuel, 84, pp. 2055-2063, Park, HS, Kim, CG, and Kim, SJ, 2006, "Characteristics of PE Gasification by Steam Plasma,” Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 12(2), pp. 216-223, Nishikawa, H, Tbe, M, Tanaka, M., Ushio, M.. ‘Takemoto, T., Tanaka, K., Tanahashi, N., Ite, T., 2004, “A Treatment of Carbonaceous Wastes Using Thermal Plasma with Steam," Vacuum, 73, pp. 589-593. Galvita, V., Messerle, V.E., and Ustimenko, A.B., 2007, “Hydrogen Production by Coal Plasma Gasification for Fuel Cell Technology.” Intemational Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 32, pp. 3899-3906, Hrabovsky, M., Konrad, M., Kopecky, V., Hlina, M., Kavka, T., van Oost, G., Beeckman, B., Defoort, B., 2006, "Gasification of Biomass in Water/Gas-Stabilized Plasma for Syngas Production," Czechoslovak Journal of Physics, $6(B), pp. 1199-1206, Hlina, M., Hrabovsky, M., Kopecky, V., Konrid, M., Kavka, T., 2006, "Plasma Gasification of Wood and Production of Gas with Low Content of Tar,” Czechoslovak Journal of Physics, $6(B), pp. 1179-1186, Mountouris, A., Voutsas, E., and Tassios, D., 2008, "Plasma Gasification of Sewage Sludge: Process Development and Energy Optimization,” Energy Conversion and Management, 49, pp. 2264-2271. Minutillo, M. Pema, A., and Di Bona, D., 2009, "Modelling and Performance Analysis of an Integrated Plasma Gasification Combined Cycle (IPGCC) Power jomass Gasification 21) [22] [23] [24] [25] (26) (27) [28] [29] 30] BI] (32) Plant,” Energy Conversion and Management, 50, pp. 2837-2842, Valmundsson, A.S., and Janajreh, L, 2011, “Plasma Gasification Process Modeling for Solid Waste Treatment and Energy Recovery," No, 336, Global Conference on Renewables and Energy Efficiency for Desert Regions (GCREEDER 2011), Jordan, Amman. Aspentech, "Aspen Plus User Guide.” Jarungthammachote, S., and Dutta, 2007, "Equilibrium Modeling ‘of Gasification: Gibbs Free Energy Minimization Approach and its Application to Spouted bed and Spout-Fluid Bed Gasifiers," Energy Conversion and Management, 49(6), pp. 1345-1356. Watanabe, T., 2005, "Water Plasma Generation Under Atmospheric Pressure for Waste Treatment, " ASEAN Journal of Chemical Engineering, $(1), pp. 30-34. Willis, K. P., Osada, S., and Willerton, K. L., 2010, "Plasma Gasification: Lessons Learned ‘at Eco-Valley WIE Facility," art. No. 3515, 18h Annual North American Waste-to-Energy Conference (NAWTECI8), ‘ASME, Orlando, Florida, Talab, 1, Al-Nahari, Z., Qudaih, R., and Janajrch, 1 2011, "Solar Assisted Gasification: Implementation and Systematic Analysis, " International Journal of Energy, Environment and Economics, 19(4), pp. 1-16. McGurl, G.V., James, RE., Parsons, E.L., Ruether, J.A. Wimer, 1.G., 2005, "Carbon Capture and Sequestration Systems Analysis Guidelines," U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy ‘Technology Laboratory. Shelton, W., and Lyons, J., 2000, "British Gas / Lurgi Gasifier IGCC Base Cases," PED-IGCC-98-004, US. Department of Energy, Process Engineering Division, Higman, C., and van der Burgt, M., 2008, Gasification, Gulf Professional Publishing, pp. 220-221, 308, Emun, F., Gadalla, M., Majozi, T., and Boer, D., 2010, “Intograted gasification combined cycle (IGCC) process simulation and optimization, " Computers & Chemical Engineering, 34(3), pp. 331-338, Fiaschi, D,, and Lombardi, L., 2002, “Integrated Gasifier Combined Cycle Plant with Integrated CO, - H,S Removal: Performance Analysis, Life Cycle Assessment and Exergetic Life Cycle Assessment," International Journal of Applied Thermodynamics, 5(1), pp. 13-24 Frey, HL C., and Akunuri, N. V., 2001, "Probabilistic Modeling and Evaluation of the | Performance, Emissions, and Cost of Texaco Gasificr-Based Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Systems Using ASPEN,” Computational Laboratory for Energy, Air, and Risk, Department of Civil Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Copyright © 2011 by ASME