Modeling the Gasification Based Biomass Co-firing in a 600MW Pulverized Coal Boiler

Dalong Jiang, Changqing Dong*, RuiYang, Junjiao Zhang, and Yongping Yang
Abstract--Gasification based biomass co-firing was an
C1 C2 C3

constant=1.44 constant=1.92 constant=0.09 turbulent Prandtl numbers for k turbulent Prandtl numbers for user-defined source term user-defined source term volatile yield up to time t initial particle mass at injection yield factors ash content in the particle the total height of the boiler the ratio of the actual elevation to the total height of the boiler

attractive technology for utilizing biomass as an additional fuel in utility boilers. Compared to directly co-firing biomass and coal, it showed following benefits: (1) avoiding biomass delivery into the boiler, (2) reduced boiler slagging, (3) avoiding altered ash characteristics. In co-firing demonstration project, higher percentage of biomass gas for co-firing was expected. But the effect of percentage of biomass gas on combustion efficiency, boiler efficiency and pollutant emission was not clear. In the study, numerical simulation of co-firing producer gas from biomass gasification and coal in a 600MWe tangential PC boiler was carried out with CFD method. Combustion behavior and pollutant emission for the coal fired only case and six co-firing cases were compared. The results showed that The effect of co-firing on combustion efficiency was slight, the reduction of NOx emission can be achieved. The NO removal rate was between 45% and 71%. In addition, slagging can be reduced for the temperature decreasing. And the convection heat transfer area should be increased or the biomass gas should be limited to a low percentage to achieve higher boiler efficiency. Key words--biomass gas, co-firing, nitrogen monoxide

k
Sk S mv ( t )

m p ,0

1 , 2
ma

H z

II. INTRODUCTION Biomass co-firing, the practice of supplementing a base fuel with biomass fuels which include wood waste, short rotation woody crops, short rotation herbaceous crops (e.g., switchgrass), alfalfa stems, various types of manure, landfill gas and wastewater treatment gas, began in the 1980s, and become the normal power generation technology in Europe and the United States. With minimum modifications to the existing boiler systems, co-firing was generally viewed as the most cost effective approach to biomass utilization by the electric utility industry. It was a family of technologies [1]. These included: (1) blending biomass with coal on the fuel pile, then pulverizing and injecting the mixture into the boiler, (2) preparing the biomass separately from coal, and injecting it into the boiler without impacting the conventional coal delivery system, (3) feeding the biomass into the gasifier to generate producer gas, and injecting the

I. NOMENCLATURE
Symbol
Gk

Meaning expression the generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to the mean velocity gradients

Gb YM

the generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to buoyancy the contribution of the fluctuating dilatation in compressible turbulence to the overall dissipation rate

This work was supported by the National Basic Research Program (2009CB219900), and the National High Technology Research and Development of China (2008AA05Z302). D.L. Jiang, C.Q. Dong*, R. Yang, J.J. Zhang, and Y.P. Yang are all with the National Engineering Laboratory of Biomass Power Generation Equipment, Key Laboratory of Condition Monitoring and Control for Power Plant Equipment, Ministry of Education, North China Electric Power University, China, 102206 (*Corresponding author:

biomass gas into the boiler through the gas burner. Reviews of co-firing experiences identified over 100 successful field demonstrations in 16 countries that used essentially major type of biomass (herbaceous, woody, animal waste, anthropomorphic wastes) combined with essentially every rank of coal and combusted in major type of boiler (tangential, wall, and cyclone fired) [2,3]. The technical evaluations showed the potential project benefits:(1) reduced fossil CO2 emissions, (2)reduced other

dongcq@ncepu.edu.cn).

airborne emissions including NOx, SO2 and trace metals,(3)potential for reduced fuel cost,(4) supporting economic development among wood products and agricultural industries in a given service area. So co-firing was a low-cost, low-risk, environment friendly technology to biomass utilization by the electric utility industry. However, while biomass was directly co-fired with coal, some technical challenges appeared, including [4]: Limited percentage of biomass for co-firing (e.g. <5% percent by mass usually in the USA.). Fuel preparation, storage, and delivery. Ash deposition and corrosion associate with the high alkali metal and chlorine content in biomass. Fly ash utilization. Impacts on SCR system. The gasification based co-firing avoided the traditional problems associated with directly co-firing, namely fuel delivery into the boiler, boiler slagging and altered ash characteristics. It can be represented by the following schematic in Fig.1. The primary boiler fuel and the biomass fuel were treated and utilized separately. In this paper, a numerical simulation of co-firing of coal and producer gas from biomass gasification were carried out with CFD method to making clear the influence of co-firing on boiler.
Biomass Fuel Receive, Screen Storage,Reclaim Coal Feeder

Baoshan lignite. Proximate and ultimate analyses of the coal were showed in table I. The composition of the producer gas from biomass gasification was from literature [5] and showed in table II. The rated parameters of the boiler were showed in table III. Fig. 2 showed the elevation of the boiler. There were six layer secondary airs.
TABLE I PROXIMATE AND ULTIMATE ANALYSES OF YUAN BAOSHAN LIGNITE

Proximate analysis/% M Air dry Dry ash-free 9.72 A 29.25 V 27.13 44.45 FC 33.9 55.55

Ultimate analysis/% C 43.64 71.51 H 2.59 4.25 O 12.91 21.15 N 0.79 1.29 S 1.1 1.8

TABLE II THE COMPOSITION OF BIOMASS GAS

Composition Volume fraction/%

CO 25.5

H2 18.5

CH4 1

CO2 5.3

N2 49.7

TABLE III THE RATED PARAMETERS OF THE BOILER

Main steam flow Main steam press Main steam temp Feed water temp Reheat steam flow Reheat inlet press Reheat inlet temp Reheat outlet press

1815.3t/h 17.3MPa 540.6 272.2 1496t/h 3.5MPa 313.3 3.31MPa 540.6 91.90%

Biomass Gasifier

Steam to turbine Producer Gas Existing Utility Boiler Stack

Reheat outlet temp Boiler efficiency

Gasifier AshPotential P/K Fertilizer

Fig.1 Gasification based biomass co-firing system

III. NUMERICAL SIMULATION A. Boiler and Fuels A 600MW tangential PC boiler in Yuan Baoshan power plant (China) was chosen for co-firing modeling. The size of the boiler is 20.1m (deep)20m(wide)73.9m(high). The burner is tangential swinging burner with size of 0.747m (wide) 0.838m(high).The design coal was Yuan
Fig.2. The Yuanbaoshan boiler elevation

B. Mathematical Models The combustion in the furnace was a very complicated process that included gas turbulent flow, turbulent combustion, particle movement, volatile devolatilization, particle combustion, radioactive heat transfer, and these interacted. In the paper, standard k was selected for simulating the gas turbulent flow field. The turbulence kinetic energy k and its rate of dissipation were obtained from the following transport equations[6]:
k ( k ) + ( kui ) = [( + t ) ] + Gk + Gb YM + Sk t xi x j k x j

expressions of the form proposed by Kobayashi:

R1 = A1e ( E1
R2 = A2 e ( E2

RTP )

(5) (6)

RTP )

Where R1 and R2 are competing rates that may control the devolatilization over different temperature ranges. The two kinetic rates are weighted to yield an expression for the devolatilization as: t t mv (t ) = (1 R1 + 2 R2 ) exp( ( R1 + R2 ) dt )dt 0 0 (1 f w,0 ) m p ,0 ma (7) The Kobayashi model requires input of the kinetic rate parameters

(1)
( ) + ( ui ) = [( + t ) ] + C1 (Gk + C3 Gb ) C2 + S k k t xi x j x j
2

(2)
u j Gk = ui/ u /j ui

A1 , E1 , A2 , E2 , 1 , 2

These parameters

t Gb = gi t Prt xi

t = C

k2

(3)

recommended by the literature [7] were used. The Kinetic/Diffusion surface reaction rate model was selected as the surface combustion model and the P1 as the radioactive heat transfer model. Segregated solution method was used and the standard pressure scheme was chosen. First-Order Upwind Scheme was used in the discretization of governing equations and simple algorithm for pressure-velocity coupling [8]. IV. SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Seven cases including coal fired only and six producer gas co-firing cases were calculated with Fluent software package. For co-firing cases, the percentage of biomass gas was 3%, 5%, 8%, 10%, 15%, 50% separately. The velocity vector, coal particles mass, temperature, the concentration of CO, CO2, O2 and NO emissions in seven conditions were compared. The excess air ratio at the outlet of furnace

k YM = 2 M t2 M t = a2

(4)

Two mixture fraction/PDF (Probability Density Function) was selected as the gas turbulent combustion model. The PDF modeling approach involves the solution of transport equations for one or two conserved scalars (the mixture fractions). Equations for individual species are not solved. Instead, species concentrations are derived from the predicted mixture fraction fields. The thermo-chemistry calculations are preprocessed in prePDF and tabulated for look-up in FLUENT. Interaction of turbulence and chemistry is accounted for with a probability density function.
i = i ( f fuel , psec , H )
*

was kept as 1.125. The initial parameters were showed in table IV. The heat transfer area above the furnace arch was not considered.

i = i ( f fuel , psec , H * )

/2 /2 f fuel , f fuel , psec , psec ,H* i = i ( f fuel , psec , H * ) p1 ( f fuel ) p2 ( psec )

Fig 4 Velocity vectors distribution in the first layer of primary air injection

Fig.3. Computational tasks between FLUENT and prePDF for a Two-Mixture-Fraction case

The dispersion of particles due to turbulence in the fluid phase was predicted using the stochastic tracking model. The two competing rates Kobayashi model was selected as the devolatilization model. The kinetic devolatilization rate
Fig.5. Velocity vectors distribution in the fourth layer of primary air injection

TABLE IV THE MAIN INLET PARAMETERS OF THE SEVEN CASES Parameters The layer of the coal burner The layer of the biomass gas burner Coal quantity(t/h) The flow rate of biomass(m3/s) Outlet velocity of biomass gas(m/s) Outlet velocity of primary air(m/s) Outlet velocity of secondary air(m/s) Outlet velocity of OFA(m/s) Coal combustion 123456 7 / 419 / 3% co-firing 5% co-firing 8% co-firing 10% co-firing 1234 567 1 377.1 30.6 15% co-firing 1234 567 1 356.15 45.92 50% co-firing 1234 567 1234 209.5 153.01

1234 1234 1234 567 1 406.43 9.18 567 1 398.05 15.3 567 1 385.48 24.48

10.67

17.79

28.46

35.58

26.69

25.41

23.73

23.73 69.61

23.73 65.971

23.73 60.091

23.73 56.161

23.73 67.471

23.73 71.1612

54.7 1 2 3 4 5 6

4 3 54.74 54.723 54.723 54.7 2 3 4 54.7 2 3 4 54.7 2 3 456 45.44 456 45.44 56 45.44 56 45.44 56 45.44 56 45.44

45.44

(In the option of outlet velocity of secondary air, the number in the bracket represented the layer of the secondary air)

Figure 4, 5 showed the velocity vector distribution in the first and the fourth layer of primary air injection. Four jet streams interacted and formed good corner tangential firing. This suggested that the aerodynamic field was proper and the air distribution mode meet the demand of corner
T/K

2000

1800

1600

1400

tangential firing. The diameter of the tangential circle did not changed in all cases, which suggested that co-firing did not impact the field in the furnace.

1200

1000

coal combustion 3% co-firing 5% co-firing 8% co-firing 10% co-firing 15% co-firing 50% co-firing

800 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

z/H

Fig 7 Mean temperature distribution along with the height of the furnace

The mean temperature distribution along the height of furnace was similar for the seven cases as showed in Fig 7.
Fig.6. The mass history of the coal particles

There

were

two

peak

temperatures

which

were

Figure 6 showed the particle traces colored by particle mass. For co-firing 3%,5%,8%,10%,15% biomass gas and coal combustion case, some particles fell into the cold ash hopper under gravity action, which caused solid incomplete combustion heat loss. However, most particles moved upward with flow gas and burned out. When co-firing 50% biomass gas, pulverized coal was injected from the upper layer of burners, no particle fell into the cold ash hopper.

representing the burner region and the area in the upper reaches of OFA injection. For the co-firing cases, the mean temperature was lower than that of the coal combustion, and decreased with the percentage of the biomass gas increased. The gas volume was higher for co-firing cases than that of the coal fired only case, thus, the temperature thereupon decreased. When the percentage of biomass gas increased to 50% the temperature of outlet flue gas decreased by 300K.

4.0

7 6 5

O2/ mole fraction

CO/ mole fraction

4 3 2 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3

coal combustion 3% co-firing 5% co-firing 8% co-firing 10% co-firing 15% co-firing 50% co-firing

3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

coal combustion 3Data1_Co-firing 5% co-firing 8% co-firing 10% co-firing 15% co-firing 50% co-firing

-0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

z/H
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

z/H

Figure 10 Mean O2 concentration distribution along with the height of furnace

000

Fig 8 Mean CO concentration distribution along with the height of furnace

800

The mean CO concentration was similar for all the cases. There are two maximum and two minimum which were marked by a, b, c and d in figure 9. a and b

600

coal combustion 3% co-firing 5% co-firing 8% co-firing 10% co-firing 15% co-firing 50% co-firing

400

were present to near the first and the fifth layer of burner separately. c was present to the space between the first group burner and second group burner. With the feeding of the over-fire air, the second minimum d appeared. For co-firing cases, the CO level decrease with the increasing proportion of the biomass gas. When the percentage of biomass gas was increased to 50%, the CO level was lower than that of coal combustion case.
18

200

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

z/H

Figure 11 Mean NO concentration distribution along with the height of furnace

O2 level increased with the increasing proportion of the biomass gas. Figure 11 presented the effect of the co-firing on NO emission. There are two peak values, one was present to the burner area, and the other was present to the OFA injection area. Table V showed NO emission at outlet and NO removal rate of co-firing. The NO removal rates
coal combustion 3% co-firing 5% co-firing 8% co-firing 10% co-firing 15% co-firing 50% co-firing

17

CO2/mole fraction

16

15

were between 45% and 71% for co-firing cases. As compared to coal, producer gas was characterized by low nitrogen content and can reduce the NO formation, thus, the NO level decreased dramatically when co-firing.
TABLE V THE NO EMISSION AT OUTLET AND NO REMOVAL RATE OF CO-FIRING Condition Coal combustion 3% Co-firing 5% Co-firing 8% Co-firing 10% Co-firing 15% Co-firing 50% Co-firing Outlet NO mole fraction/ppm 149.697 82.246 60.707 60.065 51.792 50.631 44.138 Removal rate of NO/% / 45% 59% 60% 65% 66% 71%

14

13

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

z/H

Figure 9 Mean CO2 concentration distribution along with the height of furnace

Figure 9 presented the CO2 level. The peak value was nearby the space between the first group burner and second group burner. The CO2 level decrease for the co-firing cases but the difference of the outlet value was not significant. Figure 10 presented the O2 concentration. The trends were similar and two peak values were present to the burner area and the OFA injection area separately. The

For all the co-firing cases, the CO, CO2 and O2 concentration distributions were similar to that of the coal fired only case. The differences of the outlet values of these parameters were slight. Aerodynamic field was proper and coal particles burned completely in all cases. The temperature level was lower when co-firing, this can relief the slagging problem. These analyses showed that the effect of co-firing on combustion efficiency was slight. The NO emission was reduced when co-firing. V. CONCLUSIONS In this study, 3%, 5%, 8%, 10% 15%, 50% by heat basis producer gas from biomass gasification was co-fired with coal in the 600MW tangential PC boiler. The results showed that: NO emission decreased with the percentage of the biomass gas increased. The removal rate was between 45% and 71%. The effect of co-firing on combustion efficiency was slight. The flue gas temperature was lower and the flue gas quantity was higher when co-firing, and decreased with the percentage of the biomass gas increased. The convection heat transfer area should be increased or the biomass gas should be limited to a low percentage to achieve higher boiler efficiency. The slagging can be reduced for lower co-firing temperature. VI. REFERENCES
[1]D.A.Tillman, Biomass co-firing: the technology, the experience, the combustion consequences, Biomass and Bioenergy , 2000,19: 365-384. [2] Baxter L., Biomass co-firing overview, Second world conference and exhibition on biomass for energy, industry and climate protection. Rome, Italy, 2004. [3] Koppejan J., Introduction and overview of technologies applied worldwide, Second world conference and exhibition on biomass for energy, industry and climate protection. Rome, Italy, 2004. [4] Larry Baxter, Biomass-coal co-combustion: opportunity for affordable renewable energy, Fuel, 2005, 84: 1295-1302. [5] Magn Lapuerta, Juan J. Hernndez, Amparo Pazo, et al., Gasification and co-gasification of biomass wastes: Effect of the biomass origin and the gasifier operating conditions, Fuel processing technology. 2008, 89(9): 828-837. [6] Fujun Wang, Computational Fluid Dynamic Analysis: Principle and Application of CFD Software, Beijing, China, 2004.120-123. [7] Luis I. Dez, Cristbal Corts, Javier Pallars, et al., Numerical investigation of NOx emissions from a tangentially-fired utility boiler

under conventional and overfire air operation, 2007, 87(7):1259-1269. [8] Ryan Zarnitz, Sarma V. Pisupati, Evaluation of the use of coal volatiles as reburning fuel for NOx reduction, Fuel, 2007, 86(4): 554-559.

VII. BIOGRAPHIES
Dalong Jiang was majoring PH.D. program in North China Electric Power University. He was the chairman of Dragon Power Corp.( China). His special fields of interest are the clean utilization of Biomass energy.

Rui Yang was born in Shaanxi province in china on November 30, 1983. She is studying at North China Electric Power University. Her special fields of interest are efficient and clean utilization of biomass.