P. 1
Exergy analysis of hydrogen production from biomass gasification

Exergy analysis of hydrogen production from biomass gasification

|Views: 214|Likes:
Published by m325

More info:

Published by: m325 on Feb 03, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





international journal of hydrogen energy 35 (2010) 4981–4990

Available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

Exergy analysis of hydrogen production from biomass gasification
A. Abuadala*, I. Dincer, G.F. Naterer
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT), 2000 Simcoe Street North, Oshawa, ON, Canada L1H 7K4

article info
Article history: Received 20 June 2009 Received in revised form 8 August 2009 Accepted 9 August 2009 Available online 3 September 2009 Keywords: Biomass Hydrogen Thermodynamics Energy Exergy Efficiency

For a given set of operating conditions, the hydrogen production from biomass gasification can be improved through optimization of the operating parameters and efficiencies. The present approach can predict hydrogen production via biomass gasification in a range of 10–32 kg/s from biomass (sawdust wood). The biomass is introduced to a gasifier at an operating temperature range of 1000–1500 K. Also, 4.5 kg/s of steam at 500 K is used as gasification medium. Results indicate that improvement in hydrogen production from biomass steam gasification depending on the amount of steam and quantity of biomass feeding to the gasifier as well the operating temperature. Over the range of feeding biomass, the hydrogen yield reaches 80–130 g H2/kg biomass while in the operating temperature examined, the hydrogen yield reaches 80 g H2/kg biomass. On mole basis it is found that, in the first range of H2 varies from 51 to 63% in the studied range of feeding biomass in existing 4.5 kg/s from steam while H2 gets to 51–53% in existing of 6.3 kg/s from steam. ª 2009 Professor T. Nejat Veziroglu. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.



Gasification is a process that converts carbon-containing feedstock into a synthetic gas comprising hydrogen, carbon monoxide etc. By this approach biomass can be broken down to H2, CH4, CO, CO2 in the presence of gasification agents. The agent may be oxygen, air, steam or combination. Steam gasification gives a medium heating value gas of w15– 20 MJ mÀ3 which is higher than that from air gasification and less cost comparing to oxygen gasification [2]. Gasification adds value to low or negative-value feed stocks by converting them to marketable fuels and products. Typical feedstock materials used in gasification are biomass, coal, and agricultural and industrial residuals.

Hydrogen production by gasification is a complex process and is influenced by a number of factors, such as: feedstock composition, moisture content, gasifier temperature, gasifier pressure, geometry, amount of oxidant present, and the mode of gas–solid contact. Walawender et al. [29] considered the gasifier temperature as the most important parameter. Different gasifiers are employed in the gasification process: fixed bed, moveable bed and fluidized bed [2]. The choice of the type of gasifier or reactor for gasification depends also on the capacity of the unit. The gasifier specifications have to suit the end-use or down-stream gasifier utilization systems. The end-use includes co-firing, firing, stirling engines, gas engines, gas turbines, fuel cells, hydrogen, Fischer–Tropsch synthesis [18] etc. Mahishi et al. [21] predicted hydrogen production from biomass

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: Abdussalam.Abuadala@uoit.ca (A. Abuadala), Ibrahim.Dincer@uoit.ca (I. Dincer), Greg.Naterer@uoit.ca (G.F. Naterer). 0360-3199/$ – see front matter ª 2009 Professor T. Nejat Veziroglu. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.08.025

atm heat transferred to ambient. m/s overall heat transfer coefficient between gasifier wall and ambient mole fraction of carbon dioxide. The process could be either auto-thermal or all-thermal depending on how this heat is provided. kJ/kg K or kJ/kmol K methane moles. In case of auto-thermal gasification. They observed that an increasing of the gasifier pressure reduces the hydrogen yield and the highest hydrogen yield occurred at atmospheric pressure. char-gasification. kg/s Subscript biomass o ch ph gen gas lost char tar H2 H2O lostwa biomass at reference or ambient chemical physical generation related to gas lost from gasifier related to char related to tar related to hydrogen related to steam lost from receiver wall gasification in existing of air–steam agent and in view of 1st law of thermodynamics.4982 international journal of hydrogen energy 35 (2010) 4981–4990 Nomenclature a a1. the proximate and the ultimate analysis and its heating value. Therefore. w% irreversibility. drying. w% ambient pressure. kg/s a quantity of biomass. pyrolysis. World wide increasing in energy consumption will leave impact on carbon emission and depletion of fossil fuel. kJ/kmol standard enthalpy of formation of steam. kmol are coefficients in entropy equation carbon monoxide moles. The gasification reaction in principle involves carbon. [12] gasified wood to produce hydrogen in existing of CO2 sorbent.314 kJ kmolÀ1 KÀ1 specific entropy. – mole fraction of steam. kJ/kg or kJ/kmol tar yield. The gasification process consists of following steps: pre-heating. kmol carbon content in biomass. À g supplied steam. kJ/kmol wind velocity. The biomass is considered neutral resource regarding CO2 life cycle. kJ/kmol K or kJ/kg K standard enthalpy of formation of tar. it is important to know biomass properties. kmol char product. Hydrogen is expected to be the most important energy carrier in a sustainable energy system. carbon monoxide. kJ/kg K tar standard specific entropy. – insulation thickness. K wall temperature. kJ/kmol K enthalpy. the present study will be performed on biomass gasification at the atmospheric pressure. Gasification is an endothermic process. Therefore heat is needed to sustain the gasification process. w% specific heat at constant pressure. À 3 gasifier wall emissivity. To model an approach for the gasification process of biomass. kJ/kmol standard enthalpy of formation of carbon dioxide. specifically. The biomass has higher carbon–hydrogen ratio and significantly lower sulfur and nitrogen contents. A good approach can find the optimum conditions which lead to appreciable hydrogen product from the gasified biomass. Biomass classified as the third energy source after coal and oil [30]. The lower sulfur and nitrogen contents make potentials to pollutants are neutral or very low. Turn et al. kJ lower heating value. in view of the two laws of thermodynamics and in an existing of pure steam medium. 8. The later parameter is taken in consideration by assuming the gasifier is self-heated. Modeling approach for a hydrogen production from biomass gasification through a parametric study aims to calculate hydrogen from gasificating amount of biomass in existing amount of gasification agent conduct the gasification reaction and heat required. Efforts were directed to use substantial resources and one of them is renewable energy as a feasible solution. kmol hydrogen content in biomass. kJ/kmol ho CO ho 2 CO U0 Uwa XCO2 XH2 O xins standard enthalpy of formation of carbon monoxide. A performed parametric study in the used biomass and steam range will help in identifying the more sensitive . Hanaoka et al. K ambient temperature. The conducted experiments showed that the results were affected by the pressure. It is renewable and neutral concerning to carbon dioxide emission issue. carbon dioxide. The gasification steps are theoretically modeled in series but there is no sharp boundary between them and they often overlap. However. K thermal conductivity. hydrogen and methane. m Greek letters b coefficient. The level of utilization of biomass to produce hydrogen depends on economics and availability of the necessary technology. [28] reported there was no emphasis on hydrogen production by past experimental work done on steam gasification of biomass but this work is theoretical and will emphasize hydrogen production. Gasification of biomass to produce hydrogen as energy carrier is a part of the effort to combat this threat.a6 b c C CP d e Ex f H I LHV O P0 Q T T0 Tw k R s h so tar ho tar ho 2 O H hydrogen moles. the necessary heat is generated directly by partial oxidation in the gasifier itself [25]. kJ/kg oxygen content in biomass. they reported super atmospheric pressure results a low H2 yield. kJ gasifier temperature. kmol carbon dioxide moles. kmol exergy. W/m K universal gas constant. char-oxidation and ash formation.

 Assume residence time is sufficient to reach the gasifier the equilibrium mode. the biomass undergoes drying or pre-heating process. The gasifier considers a heart of the gasification process. In case of higher moisture content. CH4 42H2 þ C The equilibrium constant for the reaction is a2 N d (8) Biomass Steam Heat Lost Fig. hydrogen and oxygen in the feedstock respectively determined from the ultimate analysis of biomass. Tar is modeled as benzene compound [14] with the chemical formula C6H6 and its yield is assumed obeying the empirical relation developed by Corella et al. e ¼ 0:05al (6) The assumptions used in simulating the biomass gasification process are:  Steady flow. Reaction mechanism Carbon.  The product gases are at the gasifier temperature. In this study. CO2 and CH4. The numbers of mole are found from the following atomic balance equations and proposed models for tar and char. [23] reported to gasify biomass in a supercritical water condition for biomass has a higher moisture content and reaching 100% gasification ratio. b. The validity of results can be confirmed only through experimental verification. tar and char products. Although there are hundreds of species in the tar sample in order to simplify the analysis all the species are treated as a single one lump [20]. CO2 and CH4 are considered dilute. C : al ¼ b þ c þ d þ e þ 6f H : am þ 2g ¼ 2a þ 4d þ 6f (2) (3) (4) (5) 2. These and negligible elements like sulfur and nitrogen represented as ultimate analysis. and g is the amount of supplied steam. Biomass is Here. CO. Recently and beside to what mentioned above. The global reaction is given by the following reaction: aCl Hm On þ gH2 O þ heat/aH2 þ bCO þ cCO2 þ dCH4 þ eC þ f Tar (1) ClHmOnis the chemical representation of biomass. This study mainly explored the influence of different parameters on hydrogen production from biomass steam gasification in a self-heated gasifier. however. The chemical formula of biomass is represented by ClHmOn. CO2. (1989) [4] as follows: Tar ¼ 35:98 expðÀ0:0029TÞ (7) Gas+Char+Tar where T is used as gasifier temperature in K. three methods are available to minimize tar formation [23]: (i) proper design of gasifier. CO. no study had addressing a hydrogen production by theoretical analysis of the gasifier. 2. CO. Modeling of biomass gasification process O : an þ g ¼ b þ 2c Assumptions N¼ aþbþcþdþeþf The gasification process is applicable to biomass having moisture content less than 35% [5]. Mahishi et al. The study enables the designers to predict the effects of many parameters with partial or without any experimental data.  The gases obey the ideal gas relations.  Use the schematic diagram shown in Fig. e and f are the number of moles of H2. l. gasified at high temperatures where its particles undergo partial oxidation resulting in gas. 2. CH4. c. It is used to simulate hydrogen from biomass steam gasification. a.1. 1 to represent a gasifier. 1 – Schematic diagram used to represent a gasifier. C and tar respectively. Tar is undesirable product from biomass gasification due to the various problems of fouling and slugging in the process equipment. this. [21] reported that until their research. This conversion process can be expressed in a global reaction. scheme utilizes equilibrium reactions to describe the gasification process is proposed. increases the energy required for gasification process as well as decreases the gasification efficiency.  Ash residue behind gasification process is negligible. K¼ (9) . This study applies to a self-heated gasifier to study the characteristics of hydrogen production from biomass gasification.  Environment and reference state at T0 ¼ 298 K and P0 ¼ 1 atm.  The gasifier is isothermal and at equilibrium condition. hydrogen and oxygen are the major components in biomass.  Potential and kinetic energies are negligible.  Gases except H2. In addition to the above global reaction the following side reaction (methanation reaction) is assumed at equilibrium. Currently. such that un-reacted char is 5% of the biomass carbon content or. d.2.international journal of hydrogen energy 35 (2010) 4981–4990 4983 parameters to the hydrogen yield and feasibility of hydrogen production via biomass gasification from 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics views. (ii) proper control and operation and (iii) additives/ catalysts. Finally it is reduced to form H2. [9] to treat un-reacted char will be applied. The assumption made by Fryda et al. m and n are the number of atoms of carbon. a is the amount of biomass. Ni et al.

K ¼ exp   ÀDG RT (10) 2. two forms of energetic efficiencies. Ensteam is the energy flow in with injected steam. The gasification process is similar to any process and it has to satisfy the first law of thermodynamics which describes energy conservation and it is given by: X R where R is the universal gas constant (8. oxygen and hydrogen elements in saw dust wood and are obtained from wood ultimate analysis. Performing exergy analysis is an effective method using conservation of both mass and energy with the second law of thermodynamics for design and analyse conversion of biomass by gasification. Exsteam is the exergy flow with steam and Exbiomass is the exergy flow with biomass. Weight on dry basis (%) 48. Extar is the exergy flow with tar. Energetic efficiencies Also it is known as first law efficiency.4984 international journal of hydrogen energy 35 (2010) 4981–4990 Also in the equilibrium state and for the ideal gas.3. the gasification process has to satisfy both the first and the second laws of thermodynamics.7 0. heat and mass transfer and chemical reactions and that represented by irreversibility. I is irreversibility and represents the internal exergy lost as the loss of quality of material and .78 18. Biomass equations hEn2 ¼ (16) In this work. Qlost is the energy lost during the gasification process and sub-symbols R and P refer to reactants and products respectively. [24] reported there is a loss of equality of materials due to entropy production. In this paper. Exergetic efficiencies and the biomass lower heating value is given by: LHVbiomass ¼ 0:0041868ð1 þ 0:15½OŠÞ ð7837:667½CŠ þ 33888:889½HŠ À ½OŠ=8Þ (13) Prins et al. The system of equations is solved simultaneously to find the unknowns. [17] pointed to minimize the Gibbs free energy constrained optimization methods are generally used which requires an understanding of complex mathematical theories. The exergetic efficiency is defined as the ratio between useful exergy outputs from the gasifier to the necessary exergy input to the gasifier. (1988) [27] as follows: Exbiomass ¼ bLHVbiomass (11) where the coefficient b is given in terms of oxygen–carbon and hydrogen–carbon ratios and according to the following equation: b¼ 1:0414 þ 0:0177½H=CŠ À 0:3328½O=CŠf1 þ 0:0537½H=CŠg 1 À 0:4021½O=CŠ (12) where EnH2 is the energy content in the hydrogen product.32 where ExH2 is the exergy flow rate of the product hydrogen. Exchar is the exergy flow with char. hEn1 and hEn2.15 0..43 0.01 6. but contains nitrogen and the used biomass has a negligible nitrogen content so for this reason will not be used in this work. HÀ X P H ¼ Qlost (14) where H is the enthalpy.05 0. G from the following equation. Enchar is the energy flowout with char. a.314 kJ kmolÀ1 KÀ1). Element C H O N S Ash HHV (MJ/kg) Volatile matter Fixed carbon Ash Data from (Turn et al. instead equilibrium relations were used in modeled approach. exergy of used biomass was calculated using the method of Szargut et al. 2.4 76. 1998). Thus to simplify the analysis.5.32 18. From thermodynamics point of view. hEx1.4. In this study three forms of rational exergetic efficiencies.04 45. Exlost is the thermal exergy out. H and O are respectively carbon. and Enbiomass is the energy flow in with gasified biomass. Jarungthammachote et al. [24] developed an equation to find the coefficient b. b. The second law of thermodynamics leads to the following equation: X R Ex À X P Ex ¼ I (20) where Ex is exergy. are applied as follows: hEn1 ¼ EnH2 Enbiomass þ Ensteam Engas þ Entar þ Enchar Enbiomass þ Ensteam (15) 2. C. Entar is the energy flow-out with tar. c and d. Prins et al. The ultimate and proximate analysis of the used wood is given in Table 1. hEx2 and hEx3 were applied as follows: hEx1 ¼ ExH2 Exbiomass þ Exsteam Exgas Exbiomass þ Exsteam Exgas þ Exloss þ Extar þ Exchar Exbiomass þ Exsteam (17) hEx2 ¼ (18) hEx3 ¼ (19) Table 1 – Ultimate and proximate analysis of saw dust wood. the equilibrium constant can be found in terms of free Gibbs function.

The other part of exergy depends on the matter temperature and matter pressure.0 82.650 275. c0 and d0 of different gases are summarized in Table 3 [3].820 0. So in kJ/(kmol K) is given by: tar        H O N so ¼ a1 þ a2 exp À a3 þ N þ a4 þ a5 tar C CþN CþN   S þ a6 CþN The coefficients a1–a6 are: a1 ¼ 37.930 a0 28. the equations of variation of the standard Gibbs free energy of formation of the species and the energy balance around the gasifier.4767. [15] and modified by Lowry [19].5372 Â 10À5 À3. oxygen and sulfur weight fractions in the used biomass. The system consists of a set of equations for all chemical species involved in the analysis including the equation of atomic balance for each element.055 Â 10À5 0.1145. hydrogen. O and S are respectively carbon.0 0.24 29.16 22. However to maintain more accurate results from this study.303. Qlostwa is calculated from: Qlostwa ¼ Uwa ðTw À To Þ (30) The coefficients.100 410. Same equation will be used for derived tar from biomass gasification and in kJ/kgtar K: The overall heat transfer coefficient. The term related to sulfur is omitted where the used biomass has negligible sulfur content: htar ¼ ho þ tar Z T CP dT To (28) The exergy depends on matter composition which known as chemical exergy.100 9. N.1635.222 Â 10À9 À7.6.1923 Â 10À2 À0. Uwa between the external gasifier wall at a temperature Tw and the ambient at a temperature To estimated by the following empirical relation given by Isachenko et al.8704 Â 10À9 À11. [22].i þ RTO X i Xi ln Xi (22) where Xi is the mole fraction of component i and Exo is standard exergy and for different compounds is summarized in Table 2. a3 ¼ 0.500 236.26 32. CP is constant pressure specific heat in kJ/(kmol k) and for gases is function of gasifier temperature and is given by the following empirical equation: CP ¼ a0 þ b0 T þ c0 T2 þ d0 T3 (26) Frequently. Exch and for a mixture is given by: Exch ¼ X i ho ¼ À30:980 þ XCO2 ho 2 þ XH2 O ho 2 O tar CO H where Xi is the mole fraction and ho is the standard enthalpy i of formation for specie i. Component CH4 CO H 2O H2 C C6H6 Table 3 – The coefficients used in constant specific heat empirical equation.2040 Â 10À2 c0 0.530 À241. a5 ¼ 54.595 Â 10À9 À0.981 Â 10À2 0.1675 Â 10À2 5.260 3. Entropy of tar is given by: s ¼ so þ tar Z T Xi ExO. H. [16]: . [7] proposed the following equation to calculate the enthalpy and the entropy of tar. hO for the product gases is given in f Table 2.469 Â 10À9 À3. Gases are assumed to obey the ideal gas behavior and their respective enthalpies and entropies are as follows: h ¼ hO þ Dh f (25) 2. heat and mass transfer and chemical reactions. The energy lost due to transferred heat to the environment. where h and s are enthalpy and entropy of a specie when gasifier operates at T and P and ho and so are enthalpy and entropy at standard operating state (T0 ¼ 289 K and P0 ¼ 1 atm).501 Â 10À5 1.564682.1916 Â 10À2 5.600 Enthalpy of formation (kJ/kmol) À74. these losses are taken in consideration. Exph and is given by: Exph ¼ ðh À hO Þ À TO ðs À sO Þ (23) To CP dT T (29) The standard tar entropy.850 À110. The enthalpy of formation.6712.269 Â 10À5 d0 À2.4003 Â 10À5 1. a0 . nitrogen. The total exergy. a2 ¼ À31. The specific heat of tar in coal gasification was developed by Hyman et al. De Souza-Santos [6] reported these losses are around 1–2% of the power input due to the biomass. It is known as physical exergy.international journal of hydrogen energy 35 (2010) 4981–4990 4985 Table 2 – Standard chemical exergy for different components. It is calculated in terms of the generated entropy during the gasification process as a result of flow of substances. CP ¼ 0:00422T (27) energy due to dissipation. the equation of the total number of moles. a4 ¼ 20. Ex is: Ex ¼ Exch þ Exph (24) The enthalpy and entropy values are necessary to perform analysis of first and second laws of thermodynamics.3111 and a6 ¼ 44.01 Â 10À9 Data from Moran et al. It is given by the following equation: I ¼ To Sgen (21) Eisermann et al. External gasifier losses The enthalpy rise and the entropy rise due to temperature are function of temperature and they obey the ideal gas laws. C. losses from gasifier to the ambient are negligible comparing to the energy entering or leaving the gasifier.11 19.89 b0 0. Specific heat. b0 . Gas CO CO2 H2O H2 CH4 Standard chemical exergy (kJ/kmol) 831.

 Gasifier operates in a temperature range of 1000–1500 K and the atmospheric pressure.01. Results and discussion In the following case studies.  The feeding biomass. Hydrogen content decreases from 62% to 50% in the Fig.08 m outside diameter and 0. The gasification medium is 4.4986 international journal of hydrogen energy 35 (2010) 4981–4990 Uwa ¼ 1:9468ðTw À To Þ1=4 ð2:8633Uo þ 1Þ1=2 T4 À T4 o þ5:75 Â 10À8 3ins w Tw À To (31) where Uo is the average wind velocity and a value of 2 m/s is used in this study. The performed parametric study simulates steam gasification of biomass process in two ways. the following data are used in the formulation.  Gasifier has wall with insulation thickness. Char concentration is given in terms of biomass carbon content and thus increases with increase in the biomass quantity. xins ¼ 5 mm. the energy. 2 – Produced hydrogen from different quantities of sawdust wood.  Ambient condition To ¼ 298 K and Po ¼ 1 atm.5 kg/s and gasifier temperature 1000 K. Carbon dioxide concentration shows decrease over the same biomass range and behaves opposite to carbon monoxide concentration. xins and thermal conductivity. thermal conductivity. Fig.3 kg/s is used.  Gasifier dimensions are 0.50 m height. Carbon monoxide levels in the gases are also increased. assumes change happen at inlet and exit. kins ¼ 0.e. . One by varying the amount of biomass in the gasifier at fixed amount of steam and gasifier temperature. Methane concentration in gas production shows a little variation over the biomass range. a in a range of 10–32 kg/s. g ¼ 4. 3. Biomass quantity.  The approach analysis the gasifier regarding to black box gasifier i.06 W/m K and emissivity. The code is able to calculate the gas fraction content. Effect of biomass quantity on hydrogen product The results of the parametric biomass amount are shown in Fig. 3 – Produced hydrogen and gasification ratio from different quantities of sawdust wood. kins as follows: Uwa ðTw À To Þ ¼ kins ðT À Tw Þ xins (32) The exergy destruction due to the energy lost from the gasifier wall is: Exdeswa   T0 ¼ Qlostwa 1 À Tw (33) Fig. In the first set. exergy and exergy destruction at different amounts of steam and biomass as well at different gasifier temperatures. Tw is estimated from energy balance made around the gasifier wall by assuming the wall insulated with material has thickness. 3. Its temperature in a range of 1000–1500 K and the fed biomass was in a range of 10–32 kg/s. Hydrogen concentration flow decreased from 59 to 54% (mol). 3ins ¼ 0. while the second by varying the gasifier operating temperature and kept both amounts of biomass and steam constants. Tar is assumed to have benzene model and its yield is function of gasifier temperature and thus its mole fraction is constant at the specific temperature.  The average wind velocity.1. Uo ¼ 2 m/s. 4. a was increased from 10 to 32 kg/s holding all other conditions constant: steam quantity. The mathematical approach and EES (Engineering Equation Solver) code for Microsoft windows operating system were written in order to solve the modeled approach developed for the gasification process and perform a parametric study. 2. Both sets are at a temperature of 500 K.5 kg/s of steam at a temperature of 500 K. 4 – Produced hydrogen from 20 kg/s of sawdust wood exists in varying amount of steam. The study done for a black box simulates atmospheric gasifier.5 kg/ s of steam is used while in the second set 6. Two sets of analysis were performed.

5 – Effect of gasifier temperature on gas concentration for 32 kg/s from sawdust wood and 4.5 kg/s. In the studied biomass range.5 kg/s of steam is supplied.5 kg/s from steam. As can be seen there is an increase in exergy destruction and this is due to an increase in the internal entropy generation.international journal of hydrogen energy 35 (2010) 4981–4990 4987 Fig. 6 shows process irreversibility or destructed exergy from exergy flow in with wood when gasifier temperature is 1000 K and 4. The gas composition Three exergetic efficiencies were defined in the analysis section above and according to the desired outputs and plotted in Fig. therefore the only reason for the increase is the internal entropy generation. 3. 3. from wood gasification plotted in Fig. They found the highly excessive feeding rate was unbeneficial for biomass gasification cracking and reforming reactions because it leads to a reduction of hydrogen content in gases. feeding biomass range. Hydrogen concentration was in appreciable amount.2. increasing from 16 to 22%.5 kg/s from steam. [20].18 while holding fuel quantity in the gasifier and gasifier temperature constant. hEx1 and presented by dotted line and that considers hydrogen production is decreased as biomass increases and that because there is Fig. 5. Process energy and exergy efficiencies 3. The rise in temperature was found to decrease hydrogen from 53 to 51%.5 to 6. This was also observed experimentally by Lv et al. 8 – Specific entropy generation at a gasifier temperature of 1500 K. 3) shows that 7–11% of wood is converted to hydrogen under the same conditions. . Carbon dioxide concentration exhibited as opposing trend. 20 kg/s and 1000 K respectively. The wood was 32 kg/s and steam 4. 7. The exergy efficiency.4. Over the temperature range some differences in gas yields were obtained. exergy destruction due to thermal losses was unchanged because thermal losses from the gasifier were same. The increase in temperature led to similar trend of hydrogen yield. The improvement in hydrogen content and gas yield resulted in an increase in hydrogen yield by 3% on mole basis. 3. Fig. 7 – Exergy efficiency versus gasified wood gasifier at a gasifier temperature of 1500 K. Effect of gasifier operating temperature It was studied in a range of 1000–1500 K. Steam was increased from 4. On the weight basis the graph (Fig. 4. Hydrogen in the product gases increased from 54 to 57% and carbon monoxide concentrations decreased from 25 to 16%. Effect of operating parameters on process irreversibility Fig. Effect of supplied steam The results of the parametric steam amount are shown in Fig. 6 – Destroyed exergy and content exergy in sawdust wood at 1000 K and 4.3 kg/s in increment of w0. Fig.3.5.

hEx3 has the highest value because it considers all products from the gasification process. [28] Turn et al. The former is function of gasifier wall temperature and this is constant as gasifier temperature is kept constant. 3. It is obvious from the graph the specific entropy generation is maximum at the state corresponding to the minimum exergy efficiency. [28] Turn et al. the ratio between the H2 product and the biomass fed. available energy still unbeneficial or efficiency of using the energy available decreases.4988 international journal of hydrogen energy 35 (2010) 4981–4990 observed from Fig.4 1. Therefore one can attribute that to the internal irreversibility part. other side reactions like steam reforming and steam shift reaction to enhance the hydrogen yield. Specific details are not available to make comparison using a gasification ratio. considering hEx3 where gasifier temperature is constant. CO2 capture. Gasifier Dimensions ID ¼ inside diameter.5 Franco et al. This agrees with the Herguido et al. different gasification agents (90% H2O). The other two efficiencies. [8] Turn et al. [28] Herguido et al. 9 that both energetic efficiencies are more sensitive to biomass quantity than steam amount. Comparisons Fig. The exergy efficiency. at high temperatures it decomposes and is accompanied by increasing CO. H ¼ height ID ¼ 70 mm H ¼ 500 mm ID ¼ 89 mm H is n/a ID ¼ 89 mm H is n/a ID ¼ 89 mm H is n/a ID ¼ 150 mm. [13] Florin et al.1 0. Although methane concentration in the studied range was low. 8.5 1. In the absent of the experimental and theoretical results under completely the same design and operating conditions. [28] at a different temperature (1073 K).4 48. The energetic efficiencies both have similar trend in the studied wood range.3 kg/s shows similar trend for specific entropy generation but the minimum exergy state moves towards the right-hand direction.5 0. the methanation reaction is included in this study. These are side reactions and are not included in this approach. [10] reported that there is an increase in H2 concentration corresponding to an increase in steam–biomass ratio and that is due to hydrogen enhanced from steam reforming and gas-shift reactions.8 46 40 59 62. 9 – Energy efficiency for conversion of sawdust wood using steam. It is noticed from the results about hydrogen production at 1073 K are less sensitive Table 4 – Important investigations on hydrogen production by biomass steam gasification.6. [1] . hEx2 and hEx3 have similar trends. It is noticed there is a point where the exergetic efficiencies hEx2 and hEx3 are minimum. This approach did not agree completely with the conditions investigated by the others but can predict the range covered by their investigations and the obtained results show reasonable results as can be seen from Table 4. H is n/a n/a ID ¼ 70 mm H ¼ 500 mm n/a is not available. Such comparison cannot be considered realistic because they used different biomass (pine sawdust and wood) with different hydrogen contents. To make that more clear the entropy generation per unit mass was plotted in Fig. [13] results at 1023 K.7 1. different pressures. Instead. There is a little decreasing. [11] Abuadala et al.8 4. it is difficult to show how accurate the results are. Used biomass T ( C) Steam–biomass ratio H2 yield (%) Reference Pine (softwood) and eucalyptus (hardwood) wastes Sawdust Sawdust Sawdust Pine sawdust and wood Biomass Sawdust wood 880 800 800 800 750 777 750 0. the irreversibility either external which is related to the thermal losses from the gasifier wall or internal that is calculated from entropy generation. This result is also true as observed by Turn et al. Florin et al. Increasing steam amount to 6. The modeled approach has a feature where it is more flexible and easily predicts different parameters and gives reasonable results. It can be more beneficial extended to include parameters those affect hydrogen yield such as including mechanisms treating the catalysts. It can be Recent available investigations used different gasifier designs and a variety of biomasses in addition to different conditions.51 41 57. For declaration. The production of CO is enhanced by a decrease of CO2. and gasifiers with different geometries.

In: Sadaka S. Sukomel AS. Hydrogen production from woody biomass by steam gasification using a CO2 sorbent. In: Li C. Hydrogen production from biomass coupled with carbon dioxide capture: the implications of thermodynamic equilibrium. [8] Franco C. Estimating thermodynamic properties of coal. Johnson P. Hydrogen production from biomass by the gasification process. Conger WL. Chemistry of coal utilization. Investigations of atmospheric biomass steam gasification are adopted from Florin et al. [13] Herguido J. Fuel Process Technol 1980. [11] Florin NH. [5] Demirbas A. 594–604. the hydrogen yield reaches 80 g H2 kgÀ1 biomass. To a certain limit one can derive a conclusion that says: higher steam–biomass ratio leads to a weak enhanced hydrogen production especially in bench scale units.33:292–9. New York: Marcel Dekker.50–2. Kamei K. . Inc. et al. A study of combined biomass gasification and electrolysis for hydrogen production. 2004. [7] Eisermann W. [13] have used wide range of steam– biomass ratio (0. char. Also. Effect of the type of feedstock. Steam gasification of lignocellulosic residues in a fluidized bed at a small pilot scale. Fuel Process Technol 1980. and equipment operation. If we neglect the difference in conditions under which they have reached their results and at a low steam–biomass ratio. 31:1274–82. Harris AT. This study deviates from the Herguido et al. Biomass Bioenergy 2005. char. This paper shows the results of the parametric analysis of biomass gasification to produce hydrogen. [12] Hanaoka T. The UNDP/Word Bank monitoring program on small scale biomass gasifiers (BTG’s experience on tar measurement). 13. Energy 2007. tar and ash. Heat capacity and content of tars and pitches. Herguido J. p. Heat transfer. tar and ash. The main process unit of this study was gasifier. Conclusions Hydrogen production by the process of gasification of sawdust wood in steam appears to be an ultimate option for hydrogen production in terms of optimum operating condition studies and on thermodynamic efficiency based on 1st law and 2nd law of efficiencies or evaluations. and equipment operation. Renewable fuels and chemicals by thermal processing of biomass. Karlsson HT. the derived conclusion puts this work on the right track as the parametric study was performed under low steam–biomass ratios condition. Gonzalez-Saiz J. Two phase biomass air–steam gasification model for fluidized bed reactors: part I – model development. editors. [6] De Souza-Santos ML. [17] Jarungthachote S. Acknowledgements The authors undertook this work with the support of University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT) and Libyan Ministry of Education through Libyan Embassy in Canada. Biomass Bioenergy 2002. Harada M. Ghaly AE. Inc. Suzuki Y. Cabrita I. references 4. Dincer I. Inc. Exergetic analysis of solid oxide fuel cell and biomass gasification integration with heat pipes. 2004. In: de Souza-Santos ML. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009. hydrogen product from our approach lies in the narrow margin w 51–63% in steam–biomass ratio of 0. [4] Corella J. Exergy analysis of hydrogen production from biomass gasification. Biomass Bioenergy 2000. Conger WL.24:59–68.91:87–102. Solid fuels combustion and gasification modeling. that the hydrogen production is given at different temperatures and that makes the comparison unrealistic. Boles MA. simulation. [2] Bridgwater AV. vol.63:63–8. Thermodynamics: an engineering approach. Furthermore. Steam gasification of biomass in fluidized bed-effect of the type of feed stock. [14] Hulteberg PC. Thermodynamics equilibrium model and second law analysis of a downdraft waste gasifier. Osipova VA. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2007. Suzuki K. Ind Eng Chem Res 1992. [10] Florin NH. Energy 2008. Enhanced hydrogen production from biomass with situ carbon dioxide capture using calcium dioxide sorbent. Chem Eng Sci 2008. [10] and summarized in Table 4. [16] Isachenko VP. Energy Sources 2002. Oshawa.63:287–316. Sabbah MA. The analysed gasification pressure was set to atmospheric pressure while the temperature range was changed from 1000 to 1500 K.18:39–54. New York: Marcel Dekker.51 and with same degree of sensitivity to change in hydrogen yield. In: International conference on hydrogen production (ICH2P). [13] results at the same operating temperature (750  C) and in a higher steam–biomass ratio as there was no significant change in hydrogen concentration beyond a steam–biomass ratio of w 0.. [15] Hyman D. Gonzllez-Saiz J. analysis. Schuster et al. Chem Eng J 2003. [9] Fryda L.70 did not show significant change (55–59%). Kakaras E. Fujimoto S. New York: Mc Graw Hill Companies. Although Herguido et al. Tar property. editors.3:39–53. [1] Abuadala A.32:1660–9. Panopoulos KD. Solid fuels combustion and gasification modeling.50). Pinto F.international journal of hydrogen energy 35 (2010) 4981–4990 4989 to steam–biomass ratio than at 1023 K and the same conclusion can be drawn from this paper. the hydrogen concentration was 40– 60% and after 0. [18] Knoef H. The results showed that the hydrogen produced by following this approach of modeling and from the desired quantity of this type of biomass reaches 80–130 g H2/kg biomass while at the examined operating gasifier temperature. Canada.82:835–42.34:772–82. Naterer GF. 6th ed. 2009. Johnson P. simulation. In: Eisermann W. Yoshida T.15–0.3:39–53. The results showed different trends and that may be attributed in addition to the above mentioned reasons. Gulyurtlu I. [19] Lowry HH. Kay WB. 2008. [26] reported that the deviation of results from those were obtained at equilibrium state could be attributed to their deviation from the equilibrium state. reforming mechanism and model for biomass gasification-an overview. [3] Cengel YA. editor.7. Corella J. biomass feeding and steam injecting on the hydrogen yield and energetic efficiencies.32: 4119–34. Karl J. Estimating thermodynamic properties of coal. The study of reactions influencing the biomass steam gasification process Fuel 2003. Dutta A. Harris AT. other issues related to the gasifier itself where the selection of gasifier is determined by its different features. The study was focused on the influence of the gasification temperature. 3–6 May 2009.22:439–62.

[24] Prins MJ. Bioresour Technol 2001. Ishimura D. Fuel Process Technol 2006. Janssen FJG. Fundamentals of engineering thermodynamics. USA: John Wiley. Chem Eng Sci 2003. CRC Press. Steam gasification of pure cellulose. . Leung MKH.77:71–9. Hartage EU. Morris DR. Yuan Z. [21] Mahishi MR. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2000. Exergy analysis of thermal. Loffler G. Gasification technologies a primer for engineers and scientists. [22] Moran MJ. 2007. Oliveira Jr S. Weigl K. Zhub J. USA: Taylor & Francis Group.32:314–27. Int J Hydrogen Energy 1998. Hydrogen-rich gas production from biomass air and oxygen/steam gasification in a downdraft gasifier. 2005. Inc.32:3831–40. Cheremisinoff NP. Kinoshita C. [26] Schuster G. Fan LT. Yong Ca. Uniform temperature profile. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2007. Exergy analysis of sugarcane bagasse gasification. [27] Szargut J. Energy 2007. Renew Energy 2007. chemical and metallurgical processes.58:1003–11. Ptasinski KJ. An overview of hydrogen production from biomass. Wu C. Steward FR. Ogada T.23: 641–8. Hofbauer H. Hoveland DA. In: Pellegrini LF. Sanger M. [30] Werther J. Combustion of agricultural residues. [23] Ni M. 1. Biomass steam ¨ gasification – an extensive parametric modeling study. Ma L.87:461–72.26:1–27. Thermodynamic optimization of biomass gasifier for hydrogen production. [28] Turn S. Zhou J. [25] Rezaiyan J. Shapiro HN. Thermodynamics of gas– char reactions: first and second law analysis. Leung DYC. Goswami DY. Zhang Z. [29] Walawender WP. An experimental investigation of hydrogen production from biomass gasification. Sumathy K.32:2173–85. Ind Eng Chem Process Des Dev 1985.24:813–7. Siagi Z.4990 international journal of hydrogen energy 35 (2010) 4981–4990 [20] Lv P.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->