ASSESSING THE SUITABILITY OF VARIOUS FEEDSTOCKS FOR BIOMASS GASIFICATION

A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agriculture and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Biological and Agricultural Engineering In The Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering

by Akshya Sharma B.S., R.G.P.V, Bhopal India, 2006 May 2011

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Chandra Theegala (major professor), Dr. Mike Mailander (Late) and Dr. Cornelis F. ―Niels‖ de Hoop for their guidance and support of my work. I would like to thank all faculty and staff in the LSU Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department for their help during graduate years. I would like to extend a special thanks to Dr. Les Groom, Project Leader (USDA Forest Services), for his guidance and support. Also I would like to thank all the personnel at LSU Callegari Environmental Center for all their help and assistance. I would also like to thank all undergraduate students who helped me during this research. I am grateful to my parents, Dr. Pradeep Sharma and Dr. Sandhya Sharma and to my wife, Mrs. Stuti Dubey for their moral support. I would especially like to thank Sun Grant – South Central at Oklahoma State for giving me an opportunity to conduct the research in Louisiana State University’s Biological and Agricultural Department.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ ii LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... vii ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Use Biomass as Biofuel & Gasification Fundamentals ....................................................... 4 1.3 Research Objective .............................................................................................................. 7 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 8 2.1 Biomass and Bioenergy Overview....................................................................................... 8 2.2 Introduction to Gasification ............................................................................................... 10 2.2.1 Drying .............................................................................................................. 10 2.2.2 Pyrolysis .......................................................................................................... 10 2.2.3 Combustion...................................................................................................... 11 2.2.4 Gasification ...................................................................................................... 11 2.3 Gasification and Its Technologies ...................................................................................... 14 2.4 Feedstocks Tested for Gasification .................................................................................... 18 2.4.1 Characteristics of Feedstocks Studied ............................................................. 20 2.5 Different Gasifier Designs ................................................................................................. 21 2.5.1 Fixed-Bed Biomass Gasifier ............................................................................ 21 a) Up-Draft Biomass Gasifier .............................................................................. 21 b) Down-Draft Biomass Gasifier ......................................................................... 22 2.5.2 Fluidized-Bed Biomass Gasifier ...................................................................... 23 a) Bubbling Fluidized-Bed Gasifier (BFBG) ...................................................... 23 b) Circulating Fluidized-Bed Gasifier (CFBG) ................................................... 24 2.5.3 Entrained Flow-Down Flow Gasifier .............................................................. 25 CHAPTER 3: GASIFICATION METHODOLOGY ................................................................... 27 3.1 Gasifier Description ........................................................................................................... 27 3.1.1 Gasification Unit.............................................................................................. 27 3.1.2 Sampling Unit .................................................................................................. 28 3.1.3 Flaring Unit...................................................................................................... 29 3.2 Gas Composition Quantification........................................................................................ 30 iii

............. 46 4................................................................................ 34 3............................ 55 a) Temperature Profile .............................................................2: Temperature Profile and Oxygen Sensor Profiles ........................ 42 4..................................................2 Composition of SYNGAS Generated from Various Feedstocks ...............3... 63 5.................................................................... 35 b) Volatile Solids ................................................. 38 a) Temperature Profiles ...............................3.....................................................3........................................................................................... 41 4.....................5 Testing of Feedstock Characteristics ......................................3.......................................3......... 39 Ultimate and Proximate Analysis .......................... 32 3.........3.................................... 38 b) Oxygen Sensor Profile .................1 Summary of Results ..5 Ultimate and Proximate Analysis .................................................3: (ii) Concentration of Tars.................... 38 Analysis of Temperature Profile and Oxygen Sensor Reading ........................ 32 3........ 36 3.......................................................4 Analysis of Tars and Particulates ............................................. 66 APPENDIX ............................................................... 65 REFERENCE .........................................................3....3.................................................3............ 45 4.................3..................................................................................................................................... 41 4................2 Future Opportunities and Suggestions ................................ 40 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ........... 89 iv ........................2 Density and Moisture Percentage ........................... 58 4..............................................................1 High Heating Value (HHV) or Calorific Value of Feedstocks ......................................... 34 b) Moisture ......... 34 a) Density ....................................................3 3...............................1 Introduction ..........1 Calorific Value or High Heating Value – Bomb Calorimetry of Feedstocks .........................................................................5 Effect of Tar Cracking Catalyst on Tar Concentration....5 Use of Tar Cracking Catalyst .......................................... 54 4.......................................................... 88 SectionA1................. 63 5.........4 Temperature Profile and Oxygen Sensor Readings ...................................... 73 SectionA1.............................. 55 b) Oxygen Sensor ...........................................................................................3...........................................................................................3 Volatile Solids and Ash Percentage....................... 60 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ............................................................. 73 SectionA1..................................................................................3 Characterization of Feedstocks ...................................................................................................................... 36 3....................................... 49 4................2 Moisture and Density Content .......................4 3............................. 79 SectionA1............ 35 a) Ash Percentage ..........................................................4 Analysis of Tars and Particulates ......................................................................................................... 51 4...............3: (i) Concentration of Particulates ......................................................................................3 Volatile Solids and Ash Percentage...........1: Volatile Solids and Ash Percentage Calculation .......... 45 4.................................

........................... 90 SectionA1..SectionA1................... 92 SectionA1............................................................. 93 VITA ...........................................................................5: Metal Analysis Results ........6: Ultimate Analysis...........................4: Gas Chromatography Results ........... 94 v ..........................................................................................................................................................

................................................................................5: Different gasifier designs and the characteristics which affect the production of SYNGAS from these designs.....4: Major biomass gasification demonstration projects and commercial plants ............................ 26 vi ..............................................................................1: Different feedstocks used in this thesis............................2: Difference in gases released when biomass was combusted to when the biomass was gasified under bleak oxygen supply......................................LIST OF TABLES Table 1...... .......................... 5 Table 2.... 17 Table 2..................... 13 Table 2..................................................................1 Estimated dry tons of feedstock available in Louisiana .............................................3: Mechanism of gasification and combustion reactions which takes place inside a gasifier................................... 9 Table 2...................... 12 Table 2.............................. which were either plant based or animal waste based feedstocks.......................

.. ................. Fuel enters from the top and air is injected from the sides... 28 vii .................................... Fuel is fed from the top............... 21 Figure 2...LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1......... ..... Source – Energy Information Administration ........ Quality of producer gas is good but the design is extremely complex................... 1 Figure 1................2: Up-draft biomass gasifier: Fuel enters from the top and air is injected from the bottom.... 3 Figure 1............................................................................................ 15 Figure 2....................... 6 Figure 2...................... ......................................................... 24 Figure 2.......4: This flowchart shows the basic steps involved in a biomass gasification plant with air or oxygen used as a gasification agent....... ................... Average efficiency gasifier with low quality syngas (tars produced) ...................... 22 Figure 2... 2 Figure 1... ......... The air intake on the sides provided the gasification agent (air)....................... The thermocouples on the gas exiting end and oxygen sensors inside and outside are also shown............... Source – Energy Information Administration...........................5: Circulating fluidized-bed gasifier: Fuel is injected at the center and the gasification agent is injected at the center....... Design is complicated and high quality of tars and particulates present in output gas ............1: Historical trends in United States finished liquefied petroleum gases in thousands of barrels............ High efficiency gasifier with poor quality syngas..................... The feed gates were used to feed feedstock into the gasification unit in a batch process.....6: Entrained flow – down flow gasifier: Fuel is fed from the top and gasification agent (steam or air) is injected at the center........1: Cumulative worldwide gasification capacity and growth from past four decades28....................................1: Gasification Unit................................ The central unit houses the thermocouples.................................... 25 Figure 3......................... Design is complex and output gas is poor in quality ................................................................2: Historical trends in United States finished petroleum products in thousands of barrels...3: Energy Consumption on a Global Scale – Only 9 % of energy needs were fulfilled by biomass and approximately 80% of energy is driven from non-renewable sources of energy.....4: Bubbling fluidized-bed gasifier..... .......................3: Down-draft biomass gasifier........... 23 Figure 2....................

.................................................. A) Gasification Unit: The feed was fed in this unit. 32 Figure 3.5: GC output of the representative SYNGAS: First peak – H2.5: Moisture of different feedstocks............................................................... Second peak – O2...................... B) Sampling Unit: Figure 3.................................... 46 Figure 4......................................................4: SRI Instruments® Gas Chromatographer 8610 C– The gas was injected via 10 ml syringe in the injection port.....3: Down-draft biomass gasifier at Louisiana State University.....................2: Sampling Unit......... The filter paper is used to trap particulates and acetone bottles are used to dissolve tars ........................................ 31 Figure 3....................................... Fourth peak – CO.........................6: Ash percentage of different feedstock............................. 31 Figure 3.... 49 viii .................Figure 3...........................3: Comparison of high heating values or calorific values of different feedstocks.......... Gasification of pine pellets resulted in almost 40% combustible gases.................8: Ash obtained after furnace treatment for volatile solids and ash percentage of different feedstock bagasse. 35 Figure 4................. 30 Figure 3.............................................7: Bomb Calorimetry for calculation of high heating value ... Feedstocks with ash more than 10 % produced clinkers .................... 48 Figure 4............................................................................... .................................2................... 33 Figure 3......................................... Higher calorific value signifies better energy content of a feedstock. ..........4: Density of Different Feedstocks Available – Extremely low density feedstocks did not gasify.....................................2: Comparison of different constituents of SYNGAS.... 43 Figure 4...... Low ash percentage was desirable for gasification.................... 44 Figure 4.................. Third peak – N2....... ...................................1: Composition of different gases in SYNGAS..6: 1108 Oxygen Bomb: The chamber is filled and sealed with approximately 60 psi of O2........ 29 Figure 3........... Feedstocks with higher SYNGAS composition (>16% H2 and > 17% CO) were suitable for generating fuel.. C) Flaring Unit: The gas produced in the gasification unit was flared in the flaring unit ................................ .. 47 Figure 4......... A sparking current is passed through the two electrodes for creating the explosion inside the bomb......... ....... ............................ Feedstocks with moisture content < 7% was found to be ideal for gasification........................... It also shows the thermocouples........................ Fifth for – CH4 and the sixth peak for CO2 .............................................

........................................................................................................................................... 54 Figure 4....................... Oxygen present in substantial quantities inside and outside the gasification chamber represented by values less than 0................................................ Catalyst maintained at 650˚C........... 50 Figure 4................................. 55 Figure 4.................................... High particulate concentrations lead to chocking of sampling lines and gas exit port...................... This indicates that igniting the flame might result in combustion of feedstock.........................10: Tar collected in acetone from Hardwood .... ......... Catalyst maintained at 450˚C.................................18: Cypress mulch gasification temperature profile.................................................. 57 Figure 4........... 53 Figure 4................................................. .........19: Temperature profile of pine pellets.... The surface did not crack or tarnish at this temperature........................... The surface did not crack or tarnish at this temperature ..... 56 Figure 4................................................. 54 Figure 4............ High volatile solids percentage meant higher C content in the feedstock................ ......15: Tar cracking catalyst... Quicker gasification than other feedstocks due to constant unmodified gasification agent (air) supply.............17: Concentration of Deposition of tars and particulates with and without the use of a tar cracking catalyst ... 19 % CO and 17% H2 was observed after Thermo 2 reached 550˚C............................Figure 4...............................8 volts...............................................................13: Dried tars from acetone (alfalfa feedstock) ............... 53 Figure 4...................... 51 Figure 4...................12: Tar collected in acetone from bark nugget .. in turn better calorific value .......... 53 Figure 4......................................... ...........20: Bark nugget oxygen sensor profile............................................. ..................... 52 Figure 4..........11: Tars and particulates from alfalfa feedstock................ 58 ix ...............9: Comparison of tars present in different feedstocks........8: Comparison of particulates present in different feedstocks................... 54 Figure 4..... ................................ The surface did not crack or tarnish at this temperature............................... Higher tars resulted in clogging of gas exit port and grate............16 Tar cracking catalyst........ ...... Catalyst maintained at 550˚C... .. 53 Figure 4..14: Tar cracking catalyst.............7: Volatile solids percent of different feedstock............

... The excess amount of inorganic compounds present in alfalfa made it a non-gasifying feedstock for gasification................................. Depleted or zero oxygen concentration are indicated by a reading above 0................23: Comparison of Ultimate Analysis of different feedstocks and their ashes.... This indicates the SNYGAS produced was safe to ignite........................................... 62 x . .......... ...................Figure 4..................8 volts......................................... 61 Figure 4....... ......21: Oxygen sensor voltage readings for corn pellets.... 59 Figure 4........... (―After‖ = after gasification).... 22: Comparison of different metals present between a gasifying and a non-gasifying feedstock.................................. Higher Carbon content (C) implied better heating value...............

hardwood pellets. which made them unsuitable for gasification. alfalfa pellets failed to gasify consistently. acceptable high heating values.1% and 99. moisture. and low moisture).04 ± 0. However. Poultry litter and dairy manure pellets had more than 39% ± 0.16% . the frequent valve openings and closings and xi .37 ± 0.39 ± 0.62 ± 0. Results also indicated that low ash and high volatile solids contents were critical for gasification. Cypress mulch and pine bark nuggets. therefore. corn pellets had higher moisture content (13. switchgrass. performed best during gasification runs.2%) and highest volatile solids (99.44%) and had to be dried to 7 ± 1% moisture for successful gasification. and poultry litter pellets. Although these feedstocks gasified. Pine pellets and hardwood pellets had the least ash (0.ABSTRACT Ten different types of feedstocks available in Louisiana were assessed for their suitability to produce SYNGAS in a down-draft biomass gasifier.8% ash and less than 62 ± 0. high heating value. although had the necessary properties for gasification (low ash. The temperature profile within the gasifier and exiting oxygen concentrations were monitored for each of the tested feedstocks.5% and 5.22%. respectively. dairy manure pellets. The feedstocks were first analyzed for volatile & ash content.1% and 0. cypress mulch. the mass density was too low and required continuous feeding.3 ± 0. switchgrass pellets. pine bark nuggets. Feedstocks that met the analytical criteria and available in a form that is suitable for the down-draft gasifier at LSU were tested for gasification.14 ± 0. with alfalfa having the highest ash content. and corn) had moderate levels (12.3.5%).28 %) of ash contents. Results indicated that pine and hardwood pellets had moisture contents of 6. high volatile solids. which was considered optimum for gasification. The feedstocks tested for this research include: pine pellets. Four feedstocks (Alfalfa. and mass density. corn stover pellets.8% volatile solids. bagasse. sugarcane bagasse pellets.85 ± 0. Out of these feedstocks with moderate ash contents.

183 g/Nm3 and 4.80399 ± 0. the same values were lowered to 0. switchgrass pellets. syngas from pine pellets had very high tar and particulate concentration. However.06377 ± 0. Of the 5 feedstocks that were tested for gasification.constantly varying volumes of biomass inside the gasifier caused major temperature fluctuations.721 g/Nm3 respectively.26 g/Nm3 (tars) and 1. bagasse. and chicken litter pellets could not be tested in the gasifier due to unavailability in these pellets in the market in bulk volumes. The exiting SYNGAS (SYNthesis GAS) was passed through adjacent sampling unit for quantification of tars and particulates gravimetrically. The in-house hammermill and pelletmill were not found to be undersized for large scale production of pellets. The dairy manure pellets. as high as 0. The actual suitability of these feedstocks can be tested either after densification (pelletization) or by incorporating an automated feeding system for the gasifier.2 g/Nm3 (particulates) after passing the gas through a tar cracking catalyst bed maintained at 250˚C xii .

The Figures 1. Renewable fuels are cleaner fuels compared to traditional petroleum and coal. respectively. Biomass is a clean and renewable alternative and can be an excellent substitute for conventional fuels. which reduce air pollution and lower greenhouse gas emissions1.5%. over the past three decades2.1 Introduction Due to depleting fossil fuel supplies and increasing energy consumption resulting from increasing populations and economic developments.1: Historical trends in United States finished liquefied petroleum gases in thousands of barrels.1 and 1.5% and 26. The dependency on non-renewable energy sources can be considered a major cause of production of vicious heat-trapping gases leading to the well-known phenomenon of ―global- Figure 1. Source – Energy Information Administration2 1 .CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1. it is critically important to explore alternative energy sources for ensuring a sustainable future.2 shows that the consumption of finished petroleum products and liquefied petroleum products increased by 37.

and glacier retreat. ecosystems fed by water from rivers. melting of glacier ice and of permafrost and impact of sea level rise on coastal deltas4. irrigation facilities.warming‖. Observed and projected reductions in permafrost. are also expected to increase instabilities and natural hazards including glacier lake outbursts. river navigation. Dincer (2001) associated increase in global warming to the increase in emission of NOx. potentially leading to higher water stress in summer. This will have serious consequences for freshwater supply. rock-ice avalanches and landslides all of which may damage infrastructure5.2: Historical trends in United States finished petroleum products in thousands of barrels. Goudie (2006) predicted some major impacts of global warming such as change in balance between snow and rain. snow-cover patterns and glacier storage will alter run-off regimes. the motivation to discover an alternate source of renewable energy is driven by Figure 1. The European Environment Agency stated that ―Glaciers are an important freshwater resource and act as water towers for lower-lying regions. Projected changes in precipitation.‖ In the US. and power generation. floods and landslides in winter and higher inter-annual variability. Source – Energy Information Administration2 2 . SOx and CO23.

however. current production approaches and use of biomass for energy is not 3 . Figures 1.depleting fossil fuel resources and heavy dependence on foreign energy. namely a cleaner environment. According to Rezaiyan and Cheremisinoff (2005). and is presently estimated to contribute of the order 10 – 14% of the world’s energy supply8. Theoretically. SOx and CO2 emissions. Stevens (2001) stated that plant growth ―recycles‖ CO2 from the atmosphere. and the use of biomass resources for energy and chemicals results in low net emissions of CO26. biomass has always been a major source of energy for mankind Figure 1. the emissions of NOx and SOx from biomass facilities were also typically low and this helped the biomass technologies to meet local and regional environmental regulations and reduce emissions that contribute to acid rain7. these fuels also bring in a major incentive. biomass has the capacity to provide 100 percent of the world’s energy requirement. According to McKendry (2002). Apart from the renewable aspects.3: Energy Consumption on a Global Scale – Only 9 % of energy needs were fulfilled by biomass and approximately 80% of energy is driven from non-renewable sources of energy2. with fewer NOx.3 show that biofuels contribute 9% of all energy consumptions on the planet.

2 Use Biomass as Biofuel & Gasification Fundamentals Massive consumption and unavoidable scarcity of petroleum products have concerned world economy. the pellets offer the same advantages for automation and optimization as the petroleum-derived fuels. since biomass pellets can be used in grate furnaces and fluidized bed combustion while offering advantages. an ideal biomass feedstock was expected to: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) be renewable and readily available in sufficient quantities. result in sufficient combustible gases (H2 and CO). Hall (1991) construed that there was a significant potential to improve upon its current contribution of 10 ~ 14% to the world’s energy consumption11. Babu (1992) mentioned that biomass could be a major component of renewable energy resources. SOx and ash). have sufficient BTU value to be processed further. lower pollution.sustainable9. be cost-effectively processed for gasification. produce low residues in exiting gas (tars and particulates in this case) Wang and co-workers (2009) have pointed out that there is a growing market for biofuels in the production of briquettes and pellets for domestic purposes. which was gaining worldwide recognition as an environmentally compatible fuel. 1. Rhen and co-authors (2007) stated that. Furthermore. 4 . such as easy storage and transport. lower dust levels and higher heating values12. but with higher combustion efficiency and a lower amount of combustion residues13. be environmentally acceptable (Low NOx. It was estimated that the annual yield of biomass was approximately eight times the world’s annual energy use10. The objective behind this thesis was to identify abundant biomass feedstocks in Louisiana which have the potential to be used as a gasification fuel. For gasification applications.

Table 1. which were either plant based or animal waste based feedstocks Plant Based Feedstocks Pine pellets Hardwood pellets Switchgrass pellets Alfalfa pellets Bagasse pellets Corn pellets Cypress mulch Bark nuggets Animal Waste Based Feedstocks Chicken litter pellets Dairy manure pellets Gasification could utilize the waste. The availability of biomass feedstocks and rationale behind selecting them are discussed in chapter 2. 5 . – Gasification enables the recovery of available energy from low-value materials (such as petcoke and municipal solid waste). – Because the SYNGAS is cleaned before combustion.1 shows the feedstocks which were used in this thesis. gasification plants produce significantly fewer quantities of criteria air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2).Table 1. equivalent to that of some common non-renewable resources used for energy generation. The environmental benefits of gasification are: – Gasification enables the use of domestic coal. and biomass to produce electricity with significantly reduced environmental impacts compared to traditional combustion technologies. petcoke.1: Different feedstocks used in this thesis. thereby reducing both environmental impacts and disposal costs. biomass and byproduct by turning them to carbonaceous fuel or char. Gasification Technology Council stated that biomass has heatproducing capacity.

6 . The economic benefit of gasification is: . – Gasification plants use significantly less water than coal combustion plants. Figure 1. – CO2 can be captured from a gasification-based plant using commercially proven technologies prior to combustion of the SYNGAS in the gas turbines14.– The byproducts from gasification (sulfur and slag) are non-hazardous under federal law and are readily marketable. The cost of production will come down as logistics are likely to improve with higher biomass volumes. and can be designed as zero liquid water discharge facilities. Figure 1.It converts low-value feedstocks to high value products.4: This flowchart shows the basic steps involved in a biomass gasification plant with air or oxygen used as a gasification agent14.4 shows how a gasification plant works with air or oxygen as gasification agent. thereby increasing the use of available energy while reducing disposal costs14. An alternate source of energy can mitigate the detrimental effects of using fossil fuels as primary source of energy.

A pilot scale biomass gasification unit with a capacity of 40 – 50 lbs. c) Quantify the composition of resulting SYNGAS: The resulting composition of the SYNGAS determines heating value. and its value as a thermal or chemical feedstock. quantification of combustible gases present in the SYNGAS was an important step. moisture content. 7 . efficiency of conversion. density. was used for conducting the experiments. These properties indicated whether the feedstocks were suitable to be used as a gasification fuel.3 Research Objective The overall objective behind this study was to identify ideal feedstocks for gasification. The concentration of tars and particulates will give an opportunity to understand the behavior of different feedstocks inside the gasifier. volatile solids and ash percent. b) Quantify the tars and particulates in the exit syngas: The gravimetric analysis of tars and particulates supplements the gasification results and denotes whether or not a feedstock qualifies for gasification.1. Specific objectives of this thesis research are to: a) Characterization of the various feedstocks: The feedstocks used in this thesis were tested for high heating values. For the use of SYNGAS as an alternate source of energy. Ten different feedstocks were evaluated for their suitability for gasification.

According to Louisiana Biomass and Bioenergy Overview. Another 10 landfills were identified as candidates to join this program15. Agrilectric Power. utilizes the rice hulls that were produced from their farms to produce electricity. According to Biomass Energy Facts (2008) biomass has been the fourth largest source of energy worldwide following fossil fuel. the excess heat was used to generate electricity. Louisiana has three major landfills that have been producing bioenergy through the methane pathway. This chapter focuses on some emerging technologies in the field of renewable resources and some commonly used gasification technologies8.1 Biomass and Bioenergy Overview The current practices on bioenergy have instigated a revolution in energy production and studies related to biomass. The School of Renewable Natural Resources at Louisiana State University has compiled records of availability of feedstocks in the state. which was enough to supply about 60 megawatts or 75% of its annual energy needs15. The initiative to utilize biomass will help industries and communities both environmentally and economically. Temple-Inland Corporation had a paper mill in Bogalusa that used sawdust and logging slash to fire boilers at their plant. The plant consumes 300 tons of rice hulls per day. generating 13 megawatts of electricity15. in Lake Charles.CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW Biomass is abundantly available around the world. After heat was used in the paper making process. 8 . 2. (2007).

430 273.122. Beauregard and Winn are some of the highest producers of hardwood. Iberia and Iberville produce 61. Table 2.000 12. 9 Feed Stock Dry tons 1. The parish produced approximately 110.000 dry tons of bark-wood annually.000 dry tons16.945 163.449 125. Beauregard and Winn contribute to an annual production of approximately 70. These parishes contribute approximately 90.478 47.618 10.714 N/A N/A N/A 196.250 tons and 20. Parishes such as Vernon. Beauregard has had abundant supply of different crop residues and crop by-products which also included sugarcane bagasse16. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Feedstock Names Pine Hardwood Switchgrass Alfalfa Cypress Bark Nuggets Bagasse Poultry Litter Dairy Manure Corn Stover Total N/A = Information Not Available Beauregard was the highest rated bark-wood producing parish.634 .1 Estimated dry tons of feedstock available in Louisiana16 S No. Sabine and Bienville produce pine as well as hardwood logging residue above 80.880. Union. Table 2.000 dry tons to hardwood logging16. Vernon.Some parishes in the state of Louisiana which produce abundant biomass are listed here.1 shows approximate dry tons of biomass produced and the feedstocks which were used in this thesis.000 tons of bagasse respectively.000 dry tons of pine logging residue16.951.

Char is composed mainly of carbon and the mineral matter present on the solid fuel18. CO2. 2. Pinto and researchers (2009) stated that pyrolysis. also known as devolatilization. 2.2 Pyrolysis Lewis and co-authors (1980) stated that pyrolysis is an endothermic process which requires heat to drive the chemical reactions that produce SYNGAS comprising mainly of CO and H219. CH4 and other hydrocarbons.The main components of the gaseous mixture are H2.1 Drying This process occurs at temperatures below 107˚C. A more detailed process has been described in this section. resulting in a release of water vapors from the surface and the inner pores of the solid fuel.2. through an assembly of chemical reactions and physical transformation17 . CO. The main composition of SYNGAS is H2.2. H2O. Tar fraction includes heavier organic compounds that were gaseous when released during pyrolysis or were condensed as liquid drops. According to Wei (2005) biofuels begin to pyrolyze at temperatures above 200°C.2 Introduction to Gasification According to Souza-Santos (2004) gasification is the process where gaseous species are obtained from a solid fuel. is a high temperature process that transforms the structure of the solid fuel and generates char.2. Some of the more volatile organic and inorganic components of the fuel may also be released18. Wei (2002) explained the process of thermal decomposition as. CO and CH4.5 – 1)20. 21 10 . tars and gases from the feedstock. C6H10O5 + Heat  y*CxHz + q*CxHnOk + CO + C (2. The proportion of components is influenced by the chemical compositions of biofuels being fed and the operating conditions of the gasifier20.

2.3 Combustion Combustion is an endothermic process which takes place in presence of oxygen as a combustion supporting agent. 2. which is used to generate steam. The product of combustion is mainly heat and CO2. Gasification has more potential for near-term commercial application than other thermochemical processes. CO + H2O + Heat CO2 + H2 (2.2. It includes pyrolysis and combustion. the majority of energy is currently produced using combustion systems. Biomass + Heat  H2 + CO +CH4 + other products (2.5 – 3) Oxidation reactions take place when air is injected in the gasification chamber (from the sides). which can be further used in various applications where as combustion is purely a heat generating process. Differences between Gasification and Combustion: Gasification is a controlled form of producing SYNGAS. The electricity generation efficiency of these systems ranges from about 20% in older systems to over 30% in newer ones6.water – gas shift reaction can be feasible.The proportion of various end products is governed by feedstock properties and operating parameters. Pyrolysis is used as an independent process or as a pretreatment for gasification. In conventional combustion-based systems. biomass is burned to produce heat.5 – 2) When concentrating on H2 production: .4 Gasification Brown (1994) stated that gasification describes the process in which oxygen-deficient thermal decomposition of organic matter primarily produces synthesis gas. Out of all the energy derived from biomass. more economical and thermodynamic efficient and potentially 11 . Some benefits of gasification over combustion were more flexibility in terms of energy applications.2.

Fischer Tropsch processes may be used to upgrade gaseous products to liquid fuels through the use of catalysts.2). such as coal and oil. which could be further processed into different forms of energy. An efficient gasifier will decompose high-molecular-weight organic compounds released during pyrolysis into low-molecular-weight. SOx14 (Table 2. Typically. Gasification is a proven manufacturing process that converts hydrocarbons such as coal. which converts carbon into a gaseous fuel. non-condensable compounds in a process referred to as tar cracking. Graham and co-workers (1996) stated that biomassTable 2. H2. solid waste and air pollutants such as NOx. The NERL (Pacific Northwest 12 . Gasification is a partial oxidation process that yields CO and H 2. gasification requires feedstocks that contain less than 10% moisture6.2: Difference in gases released when biomass was combusted to when the biomass was gasified under bleak oxygen supply14. Constituents (of Coal) Carbon Hydrogen Nitrogen Sulfur Oxygen Gasification CO H2 N2 H2S — Combustion CO2 H2O NOX SO2 O2 based energy production (bioenergy) generates NOx and SOx emission than certain fossil fuelbased systems. The International Energy Agency (IEA) discussed and issued various gas cleaning standards. It also does not create the potential negative environmental effect associated with coal mining or nuclear waste disposal23. Undesirable char that is produced during gasification will participate in a series of endothermic reactions at temperatures above 800ºC. Combustion is a complete oxidation process that results in thermal energy (heat). Typically gaseous products include: CO. and CH4. petroleum coke (petcoke) and biomass to a SYNGAS.lower environmental impact22.

According to Boudouard reaction (3). involve solid carbon and water vapor. horse bedding pellets (pine pellets used in this project). Table 2. The resulting products were CO2 and CO in different proportions. wasted tree products (cypress mulch and bark nuggets). 13 . Table 2.3: Mechanism of gasification and combustion reactions which takes place inside a gasifier24.National Laboratory) report mentions various gasification technologies which can be accessed on the basis of best productivity and feasible endurance of functional part of the system6. municipal solid waste. are endothermic and favored by higher temperatures and lower pressures 24. Gasification technology can accommodate different feedstocks. Water gas reactions (4) and (5). provided the required energy for driving the pyrolysis reactions. Designation Oxidation Boudouard Water Gas : Primary Secondary Methanation Water – Gas Shift Steam Reforming CO2 Reforming H2 Reforming Mechanism C + O 2  CO2 C + 1/2O2  CO C + CO2  2CO C + H2O  CO + H2 C + 2H2O  CO2 + 2H 2 C + 2H2  CH4 CO + H2O  CO2 + H2 CH4 + H2O  CO + 3 H2 CH4 + 2H2O  CO2 + 4 H2 CH4 + CO2  2 CO + 2H2 CO + 3 H2CH4 + H2 O Equation # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Gasification reactions between carbon and oxygen (1) and (2) were exothermal and as long as they occurred in sufficient scale. including waste wood from furniture.3 shows the various reactions occurring inside a gasifier. This is an endothermic process that occurs mainly at temperatures higher than 786.85ºC and is inhibited by the presence of CO. hurricane waste. solid carbon may react with CO 2 producing CO.

3 Gasification and Its Technologies Gasification. 2. These reactions. as a technology. The United States Department of Energy (1999) stated ―gasification technology is bound to reduce the hazardous gas emission in the environment producing a wide variety of products. generally occurs at a low extent. between CO. The technology should be able to utilize all carbon based feedstock. which can be used in a number of places. hydrogen and CO 2. could be used to produce cheap consumable gas from by- products and waste products. Increasing temperature may cause a displacement of the chemical equilibrium of the homogenous ―water – gas shift reaction‖ (7). being endothermic processes are the cause of increasing hydrocarbon concentration that was observed at higher temperature. (6) occurs between carbon and hydrogen. changing the ratio CO/H 218. but favored at higher pressures. while causing an increase of the gas heating value . with either water vapor or CO 2. Methane and all other hydrocarbons present in the gas phase may suffer several reforming reactions (8) and (10). This reaction. increasing CO. different researchers have concentrated on testing different sources of fuel and converting them to valuable energy sources. water vapor. Hydrogen reforming (11) occurs between CO and H 2 with the production of methane and water vapor. In the past. and of all the available technologies biomass gasification fulfills all these requirements to produce a commercial fuel25. It is generally very slow. except at higher pressure or under the effect of appropriate catalysts18. H 2 or methane concentration.Methanation or hydrogasification. United States Department of Energy monitored the 14 . This reaction may have a very clear effect on the composition of the obtained gaseous mixture.

1: Cumulative worldwide gasification capacity and growth from past four decades28.progress in the field of gasification and concluded that the growth of gasification power touched 45. Delgado and coresearchers (1997) discussed the cleaning of the raw hot gases from a bubbling fluidized bed biomass gasifier using cheap calcined minerals or rocks downstream from the gasifier31. 15 . Zainal and coworkers (2001) demonstrated that the scarcity of fossil fuel in Sweden during the era of World War II was the driver behind the domestic hardship and the government suffered extreme losses. Figure 2. The Figure 2. Zainal and coworkers explained the setbacks of coal as fuel due to the presence of sulfur29.001 MWth of SYNGAS output by 2004 at 117 operating plants around the world26. Narvaez and researchers (1996) studied biomass gasification of a small pilot plant in a bubbling fluidized bed and effect on the performance of the gasifier30.1 showed a pattern of some planned and some unplanned gasification projects since 1970’s. To recuperate from these losses during the war the government of Sweden turned to biomass as major source of alternate fuel to be used in furnaces and boilers.

000 to 16.Goldman and co-researchers (1997) demonstrated the possibility of a two-phase counterflow concept as a means of providing super adiabatic conditions. where refineries would need to fully utilize the available feedstock while reducing fuel oil production.000 Btu/kWh). It was projected that by 2006. Biomass gasification may play an important role in achieving this goal as the gases produced after cleaning procedures can substitute for fossil fuels in conventional and advance energy conversion devices and can also be used as SYNGAS35. found that in 2001 there were 128 plants worldwide. It was also stated that the maximum gasification derived fuel is generated from coal and petroleum by-products36.000 MWth of SYNGAS capacity. Most of the new growth occurred in the developing nations in the Pacific Rim. In the Biomass Action Plan – COM 628. Overend (1991) stated that the heat load for conventional power production using boilers and steam turbines is estimated to be 14. 16 . There is a great interest in developing and commercializing innovative biomass energy conversion technologies due to the importance of biomass in many countries. which were expected to enhance a weak exothermic reactions and endothermic gasification reactions in the reforming zone32. the European Commission recommended measures to increase biomass use from 69 Mtoe (Million Tons of Oil Equivalent) in 2003 to about 150 Mtoe in 2010. which could be reduced by 25% to 35% by resorting to integrated gasification combined-cycle for power production schemes34.9 MJ/kWh (14. The second largest growth of such plants was projected to be in Western Europe. adding another 18. who monitored the fuel processing technologies which are under development or are currently operating. an additional 33 plants with 48 gasifiers were expected to venture.8 to 16. with 366 operating gasifiers. Paisley and Anson (1997) developed and commercially demonstrated a high through-put gasification-based power generating system33. Stiegel and co-authors (2001).

Xylowatt sa 50 MWth for synthesis gas/MeOH. Future Energy 15 MWth TPS CFB RDF plant at Greve in Chianti 500 KWth ENEA CFBG pilot plant at Trisaia (similar plant in operation in 17 Denmark Finland Germany Italy . Viking 2-stage gasification and pwer generation at Lyngby 3 + MWth. Neustadt Up to 600 k We for small-scale power. Belgium) 40 MWth Foster Wheeler Energy fluidized bed metal recovery gasifier in Varkaus 7 MWth NOVEL Up draft demonstration at Kokemaki 1.5 MWth Fraunhofer Umsich CFB pilot plant at Oberhausen MWth CHOREN Carbo – V 2 – stage entrained pilot plant in Freiberg 3-5 MWth Future Energy pyrolysis/entrained flow GSP gasifier in Freiberg 75 MWe and MeOH.3 MWth for CHP. the Ecole Polytechnique Fe´de´ rale de Lausanne. Biosyn Uo ti 13 MWth for co-firing. Foster Wheeler Energy CFB co-firing plant at Lathi (50 to 86 MWth co-firing plant in Ruien.8 MWe + 3.4 shows some major gasification projects around the world and gives an approximate energy produced by each. Table 2. TK energi 3 stage. and the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research (EMPA) and one private partner. gasification process demonstration at GjØl (an 833 KWth plant is demonstrated in Japan) 30 MWth Carbon Renugas fluiaized bed CHP demonstrated at Skive 4 to 5 MWth Bioneer up-draft gasifier ( 8 in Finland and one in Sweden) 60 MWth. PSI. NOVEL 130 MWth commercial waste to methanol plant at Schwarze Pumpe 100 MWth Lurgi CFB gasifier firing cement kiln at Rudersdorf .4: Major biomass gasification demonstration projects and commercial plants18 Country Austria Belgium Canada Biomass Gasification Technology 8 MWth TUV FICFB BMG CHP demonstration at Gussing 2 MWth down-draft BMG CHP at demonstration at Wr. Table 2. EPFL. The aim of the Swiss project was to develop a 10-20 MWth semi-industrial plant to produce SYNGAS from wood whose quality matches natural gas and then transported by existing high pressure Swiss Natural Gas Network37.Marechal and co-authors (2005) studied energy projects in Switzerland and found that many were running on residential wood supply. Nexterra 5 MWth VØlund up draft CHP demonstration at HarbØre 70 KWth. One such project was ―From Wood to Methane” which involved several academic institutes such as the Paul Scherer Institute.

They also talked about using poplar. Shell/ Magnum Fluidyne commercial down-draft gasification plant (2 MWe Plant in Canada) New Zeland AB Powerhearth Ltd down-draft BMG (3 MWe plant in Maine. China) 85 MWth AMER/Esent/Lurgi CFB gasification co-firing plant at Geertruidengerg.Table 2. 9 MWth for CHP. USA) 2 MWth Page Macrae updaraft BMG plant at Tauranga Bioneer up-draft BMG plant 6 MWe. down draft BMG CHO system in Northern Ireland UK Upto 300 KWe Exus Energy down draft BMG CHP system in Northern Ireland Charlton Energy rotary kiln waste gasification in Gloucestershire Compact Power two-stage waste gasification plant in Bristol Upto 120 MWth Primenergy gasification/combustion system (6 in USA and 1 in Italy) Upto 22 KWe Community Power Corporation small modular down draft gasification system USA FERCo SilvaGas dual CFBG process RENUGAS fluidized bed BMG process Integrated TCC+Biologaical Conversion 11. Biomass co-gasification at 250 MWe (35 MWe from biomass) Shell entrained coal gasification plat at Willem. Taylor Gasification.Alesander Centrale Netherkabds 3 MWth CFBG Plant in Tzum NL Several pilot plants at ECN. Petten ~30% of 250 MWe.4 Contd. Bioflow 30 MWth Foster Wheeler Energy CFBG at Karlsbog paper mill Sweden 20 MWth Foster Wheeler Energy CFBG at Norrsudet paper mill 30 MWth Gotaverken CFBG at Sodracell paper mill 18 MWth Bioflow/Sydraft/Foster Wheeler Energy CHP demonstration at Varnamo 200 KWe Pyroforce down draft BMG system at Spiez (scale-up to 1 MWe Switzerland plant in Austria) 100 KWe Rural Generaton downdraft BMG system in Northern Ireland Upto 250 KWe Bimass Engineering Ltd. of which miscanthus and 18 .4 Feedstocks Tested for Gasification Ferreira and co-authors (1994) stated that United Kingdom was using different feedstocks and energy plantation such as willow trees and euohorbia characias for experiments. 2.5 million Gas of EtOH/year. sorghum and miscanthus in Netherlands.. Shell/ Buggenum (co-gasification) ~50% of (4x300) MWe.

paper. Narvaez and co-workers (1996) suggested that the waste produced from paper and pulp industries was either used in heating up the boilers or was discarded due to low productive quality which contributes to lowering the cost efficiency. The authors also studied the development of gas clean-up technologies for gas turbines that run on waste streams. New Zealand was making use of pinus radiata for biomass gasification39.sorghum are C4 crops characterized by high rate of carbon assimilation38. By combining clean-up technologies with gasification processes. The practice of self-sufficiency was more applicable to paper and pulp industries as they were ranked number four in the country for fossil fuel consumption43. According to Sims (1994). the chemical industry will benefit from a diversified fuel feedstock. 9914 business). More cost-effective options can be derived by combining gas clean – up technologies when using diversified feedstock in gasification process. calorific value and the gas production rate21. and more cost-effective options were described41. According to United States Department of Commerce (2000) across all facilities in SIC 26 (Standard Industrial Classification. the pulp. His and coworkers (2008) experimented on a downdraft biomass gasifier for the characteristics using red lauan and white lauan wood cubes of 15 x 15 x 15 mm as fuel40. The studies explained the effect of equivalence ratio on gas composition. Stiegel and co-workers stated 19 . The successful gasification of black liquor and waste biomass could improve energy self-sufficiency and help achieve reduced levels of emissions to the air. Bailey and co-authors (2000) demonstrated efficient electrical conversion of black liquor using gasification when combined with clean-up technologies and gas turbines. and allied products industry is the largest consumer of process water and the third largest consumer of energy (behind the chemicals and metals industries)42. Zainal and researchers (2002) studied the behavior of a downdraft biomass gasifier using furniture wood and wood chips.

specific gasification rate. a multi-million dollar corporation. Skoulou and co-authors (2008) compared the gasification characteristics of olive tree cuttings and olive kernels and discovered that olive tree cuttings have higher LHV to those of olive kernels and that olive kernels produced higher char sand content of fixed carbons. gas heating values (HHV of gas). They concluded that preheating the air can shorten the time required for attaining the steady state. 2. various factors such as ash. H2 and CH4 at a constant rate may act as a sustainable energy source for industrial purpose. The production of carbon monoxide varied in both feedstocks47.1 Characteristics of Feedstocks Studied Hughes and Larson (1997) modeled a simulation to show effect of varying moisture content in the feed of a biomass gasifier45. air preheating temperatures. 20 .that paper and pulp industries could be counted as a major contributor to the emergence of gasification technologies in the state36. moisture content and volatile solids affected the producer gas composition. Jorapur and Rajvanshi (1997) reported the commercial scale (300 kW) development of a gasifier making use of low-density biomass (sugar cane leaves and bagasse. Further in their study they observed that. sweet sorghum stalks). bajra stalks. and H/C ratio as well as hot and cold gas efficiency46. air/fuel ratio.4. made use of gasification for extracting SYNGAS from the sludge (silicon beds)44. Texaco Express Lubes. The production of CO. The variable operating parameters used or modified in their thesis were air flow rate. fuel moisture content (which affected fuel conversion rate).

5. High efficiency gasifier with poor quality syngas48.2). Olofsson (2005) described the following sections where description of different designs has been discussed48.2: Up-draft biomass gasifier: Fuel enters from the top and air is injected from the bottom. 2. 21 .2. primary of which are the fixed bed. fluidized bed and circulating bed biomass gasifier.5 Different Gasifier Designs There are many different types of gasification technologies available for converting woody biomass to SYNGAS.1 Fixed-Bed Biomass Gasifier a) Up-Draft Biomass Gasifier Fuel is fed at the top and the gasifying medium (air or oxygen and/or steam) is introduced at the bottom and producer gas is drawn up through the fuel (Figure 2. Air is supplied through a grate on which fuel rests. Complete combustion takes place at the bottom of the bed in the Figure 2.

Average efficiency gasifier with low quality syngas (tars produced) 46 22 . The downdraft gasifiers normally reaches relatively low tar levels since the tar produced in the Figure 2.oxidation zone where CO2 and H2O are formed at 1000°C.3: Down-draft biomass gasifier. This gasifier has relatively distinct oxidation.3). Finally the gases dried the incoming wet biomass and leave the reactor at ~500°C48. Fuel enters from the top and air is injected from the sides. b) Down-Draft Biomass Gasifier Fuel is fed from the top of the gasifier and the gasifying medium is introduced into a downward flowing packed bed (Figure 2. reduction. The hot gases are then passed through the reduction zone where these gases are reduced to H2 and CO and cooled to 750°C. The SYNGAS is then drawn off near the bottom. Further up the bed the reduced gases pyrolyze the downward flowing biomass which forms large amounts of tars and other products of incomplete gasification (PIG). pyrolysis and drying zones.

Design is complex and output gas is poor in quality 48 23 . Fuel is fed from the top. in practice this is hard to achieve since the tar slipped through the ―cold‖ parts of the combustion/oxidation zone without being converted to char or gaseous fuel.4: Bubbling fluidized-bed gasifier. Another drawback of this system is that a large portion of the fuel-energy is converted into heat with a low heating value SYNGAS48. 2.4).pyrolysis stage is thermally cracked when it passes through the homogenous high-temperature combustion zone. The speed of the fluidizing agent is of great importance for the size and speeds of the Figure 2.5. However.2 Fluidized-Bed Biomass Gasifier a) Bubbling Fluidized-Bed Gasifier (BFBG) The fuel is fed into or above the sand bed and the gasification agent is introduced from the bottom at speeds of 2-3 m/s which results in bubbles which travel up through the bed (Figure 2.

24 . b) Circulating Fluidized-Bed Gasifier (CFBG) Fuel is fed into the sand bed and the gasifying medium is introduced from the bottom at speeds of 5-10 m/s (Figure 2. causing a portion of the sand and char to exit the reactor along with the producer gas stream. The SYNGAS is drawn off from the top of the reactor via a cyclone to separate sand and fly ash from the SYNGAS48.5: Circulating fluidized-bed gasifier: Fuel is injected at the center and the gasification agent is injected at the center.This is sufficient to suspend the bed particles throughout the entire reactor.bubbles and influences the mixing and heat exchange between the fuel particles. Design is complicated and high quality of tars and particulates present in output gas48.5). SYNGAS is drawn of from the top of the cyclone48. The ―entrained‖ particles which accompany the gas out of the gasifier unit are captured in a cyclone which recycles the bed material. Figure 2.

as gas. is mixed with a steam/oxygen stream and is converted in a turbulent powdered flame at high temperatures (above 1200°C) in a very short time (a few seconds) (Figure 2.6: Entrained flow – down flow gasifier: Fuel is fed from the top and gasification agent (steam or air) is injected at the center. Quality of producer gas is good but the design is extremely complex. an almost tar-free SYNGAS and a leach-resistant molten slag are produced. Figure 2. The hot gas flows downwards into a radiant SYNGAS cooler where high pressure steam is produced. This technology is applied at moderate pressures in combination with fine fuel powders for sufficient carbon conversion.5 shows some complexities.3 Entrained Flow-Down Flow Gasifier Fuel. At these high temperatures.46 25 . The SYNGAS is passed over the surface of a pool of water at the bottom of the radiant SYNGAS cooler and exits the vessel.2.5. advantages and disadvantages of using these technologies. Table 2.6). Slag is dropped into the water pool and is fed from the radiant SYNGAS cooler sump to a lock hopper48. solid powder or slurry.

Size And Moisture Of The Material Design Composition Of Gas (HHV) Quality Of SYNGAS (HHV) Quantity Of Tars Process Optimization Carbon Conversion Rate Bed Agglomeration In-Bed Catalytic Conversion **N/A = not available Top N/A N/A N/A N/A Top Steam/ Oxygen Top Air Bottom Not Critical Simple Good Poor High Poor Good N/A N/A Center/ Downward Bottom Flow Critical Simple Average Low Average Poor Average N/A Possible Not Critical Complex Poor Poor/ High Particulates High N/A High Yes Not Possible Critical Complex Good Good / Tar Free Low Good High No Possible 26 .Table 2.5: Different gasifier designs and the characteristics which affect the production of SYNGAS from these designs48. Properties Of Gasifier Fixed Bed UpDraft Top Bottom Center Top Top Down Draft Top Center Bottom Top Top Center Air Fluidized Bed Bubbling Bed Top N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Circulating Bed Center N/A N/A N/A N/A Top Air Center/ Downward Flow Not Critical Complex N/A Poor/ High Particulates High Good Average Yes Possible Entrained Flow Fuel Fed Combustion Zone Reduction Zone Pyrolysis Zone Drying Zone Oxidation/Combustion Bottom Zone Gasification Agent Gasification Agent Intake Shape.

1 Gasifier Description The gasifier used in this analysis was an experimental prototype. stainless steel knife gates. 3.1). Two thermocouples (Thermo 7 and Thermo 8) were inserted on the flaring unit to record the temperatures of the exiting gas. The biomass feeding rate was dictated by the density of the feedstock and the rate of air intake. 27 . which served as an airlock system. Feedstock was fed manually through two 6‖ dia. Six thermocouples were inserted in the gasification unit for temperature measurements. of feedstock.1 shows a schematic the gasification system used for this study. The gasification unit was capable of holding 40 – 50 lb. A low pressure blower supplied the gasification agent (ambient air) to the four air intake ports (shown in Figure 3. pilot scale and batch fed down-draft biomass gasifier. The gasifier consists of three major parts –– 1 Gasification Unit 2 Sampling Unit 3 Flaring Unit 3. The feedstock rested on a metal mesh which hung firmly from two ends and was connected by detachable hooks on the other two sides for cleaning ash. It had a capacity to hold approximately 40 – 50 lbs.1.1 Gasification Unit Figure 3. Two oxygen sensors were used.1). of feedstock and could be fed again in small batches of 10 – 12 lb. first inside the gasification chamber and the second at exiting path below the flaring unit (Figure 3.CHAPTER 3: GASIFICATION METHODOLOGY A down draft biomass gasifier was used to conduct all the experiments at Louisiana State University. feedstock.

This filter was used because of its 28 .7 μm 90 mm Ø filter (Whatman: GF/F Cat No 1825 090).1: Gasification Unit. The feed gates were used to feed feedstock into the gasification unit in a batch process. A vacuum pump () was used to draw a small flow (approximately 10 SCFH) from a slip-stream (shown in Figure 3.2). The thermocouples on the gas exiting end and oxygen sensors inside and outside are also shown. a Millipore stainless steel pressure filter holder. The central unit houses the thermocouples. The sampling unit consisted of an oven maintained at 250˚C. 1/8‖ copper tubing and four acetone bottles for tar collection (Figure 3.3.2 Sampling Unit A sampling unit was used to collect samples of tars and particulates in the SYNGAS during a gasification run. placed in a stainless steel Millipore pressure filter holder assembly (cat # YY3009000). The particulate collection system employed a glass fiber filter.1). The air intake on the sides provided the gasification agent (air). a 0. Figure 3.1.

2: Sampling Unit. filter holder assembly and a series of acetone bottles to dissolve any tars. a second oxygen sensor was added near the grate area of the gasifier. The filter holder and the filter were kept in an oven maintained at 250˚C to minimize Figure 3.tight specifications of 0. through 1/8‖ copper tubing. Two thermocouples and an oxygen sensor were attached in the flaring unit to monitor exit gas temperatures and to indicate the presence of any oxygen. To prevent any internal flash explosions. a wire-mesh type of back flash arrestor was installed on 29 .4).8 µm particle retention and pure borosilicate glass structure49. The filter paper is used to trap particulates and acetone bottles are used to dissolve tars condensation of tars.1.3. to prevent any back flash during the operation of the flare.6 µm .0. The SYNGAS produced in the gasifier was drawn from the sampling port.3). Additionally. As an extra measure of safety.3 Flaring Unit A flaring unit was used to safely dispose the large quantities of SYNGAS (~245 CFM) produced by the gasifier (Figure 3. The particulates and tars were quantified gravimetrically (described in section 3. the flare was lit only after the oxygen levels dropped to zero (or undetectable) at both the oxygen sensors. 3.

It also shows the thermocouples.the pipe carrying SYNGAS to the flaring unit (shown in Figure 3.4). CO. Figure 3. O2. A) Gasification Unit: The feed was fed in this unit. 30 . The analytical performance of the detector for the determination of some permanent gases such as H2. Air.2.3: Down-draft biomass gasifier at Louisiana State University.3). CO2 and CH4 was proven to be ideal when helium was the carrier gas51. N2. commercial gasifiers have gas cleaning devices or catalytic cleaning modules for generating tar-free SYNGAS50. Typically. Predetermined peaks shown in Figure 3. B) Sampling Unit: Figure 3. C) Flaring Unit: The gas produced in the gasification unit was flared in the flaring unit 3.2 Gas Composition Quantification Gas Chromatography was done with the help of SRI Instruments® Gas Chromatographer 8610 C (Figure 3. with helium as the carrier gas were studied.5 represent the composition of SYNGAS.

For this analysis the GC was pre-heated for approximately 20 minutes. Collected

Figure 3.4: SRI Instruments® Gas Chromatographer 8610 C– The gas was injected via 10 ml syringe in the injection port.

Figure 3.5: GC output of the representative SYNGAS: First peak – H2, Second peak – O2, Third peak – N2, Fourth peak – CO, Fifth for – CH4 and the sixth peak for CO2

31

SYNGAS was injected in the input port with a 10ml syringe. The GC was initiated from 40˚C to reach a temperature of 160˚C in a 9-minute analysis interval.

3.3 Testing of Feedstock Characteristics
Six different parameters were tested to evaluate the thermal and physical properties of the various feedstocks.

3.3.1 High Heating Value (HHV) or Calorific Value of Feedstocks
Sheng and co-authors (2004) define heating value, also called calorific value or heat of combustion, as the energy content of a biomass fuel52. Anuradda and co-authors (1996) stated that the heating value was necessary to determine the suitability of biomass for pyrolysis, carbonization, liquefaction and gasification53. Bomb calorimetry was performed by following the ASTM D2015 standard method. Parr Instruments® 1108 Oxygen Bomb was used to perform calorimetry analysis (Figure 3.6). The bomb was filled with 60 psi of oxygen. A fuse wire was connected between the two electrodes of

Figure 3.6: 1108 Oxygen Bomb: The chamber is filled and sealed with approximately 60 psi of O2. A sparking current is passed through the two electrodes for creating the explosion inside the bomb. 32

the bomb. It was then fired with the help of an electric source to produce a spark inside the bomb which combusted the fuel. This bomb was immersed in a water jacket (Figure 3.7). A thermocouple was attached to the water jacket which recorded the temperature of water due to the heat released by the feedstock. Gross heat was calculated by using a template provided by Parr Instruments®. The formula used in this template is shown below. HHV = ((T * Ec) – Yh – Yh2 – Yf) m where, HHVbtu = HHV * 1.8 btu/lb T = difference in minimum and maximum temperature. (ºC) Ec = Energy Equivalent of the calorimeter, determined under standardization. Yh = Correction in calories for heat of formation of nitric acid (HNO3). Yh2 = Correction in calories for heat of formation of sulfuric acid (H2SO4). Yf = Correction in calories for heat of combustion of fuse wire. (cal) m = mass of the fuel/feedstock (lb). HHVbtu= High Heating value (btu/lb). kcal/kg (3.3 – 1)

Figure 3.7: Bomb Calorimetry for calculation of high heating value 33

Igniting the fuel with higher moisture content becomes increasingly difficult and the gas quality and the yield are also poor54. The difference in masses (before and after oven drying) was used to calculate the density and moisture percentage using equations 3.3.3 – 2) b) Moisture M% = (m0 – m1) * 100 % m1 where.3.3 – 3. (3.2 Density and Moisture Percentage Moisture content of the fuel is referred to as inherent moisture plus surface moisture. (g) (3. M %= Moisture of the pellet. Volume and mass of the feedstocks were measured and placed in the oven.3 – 2 and 3. a) Density Density was determined from the following equation: D=M V where. (%) m₀ = Mass of the pellet before oven drying. Higher moisture contents reduce the thermal efficiency of the gasifier and result in low gas heating values. M = mass of the feed (kg) V = Volume (m3) D = Density (Kg/m3) Ten samples were tested for finding the density and moisture content of the feedstock.3 – 3) 34 . Moisture of the feedstocks was calculated using ASTM D4442–07 standard test method for direct moisture content of wood.

(%) mash = Mass of ash and container. a) Ash Percentage A% = (mash – mcont) * 100 % ms where. (g) (103˚C ± 2 for 2 hrs.3 – 3 and 3.8 percentage of different feedstock bagasse. 35 (3. The dried samples were placed inside a muffle furnace at 550°C for 30 minutes and the gravimetric analysis was used Figure 3.m₁ = Mass of the pellet after oven drying. A% = Percentage of Ash. Ash content was calculated following ASTM D1102 – 84.3.8: Ash obtained to determine the ash and volatile solid fractions of a feedstock after furnace treatment for volatile solids and ash using equations 3. Analysis of Volatile solids was used to quantify the organic weight present in the feedstock. Figure 3. (g) mcont = Tare mass of container.) 3. (g). This analysis was performed on ten samples from each feedstock following the ASTM E1755-01 standards. show a sample of bagasse pellets after they were weighed for gravimetric analysis.3 Volatile Solids and Ash Percentage Volatile solids are defined as solids which are lost on ignition at 550˚C. Ash percent and volatile solids helped in determining whether or not the feedstock was capable of sustaining a complete gasification experiment.3 – 4 respectively.3 – 4) .

To keep the tars from condensing in the exhaust lines. Their aim was to achieve the production of SYNGAS with the right characteristics to allow its use in motors.2. turbines or fuel cells. sulfur. pre-weighted GF/F and 200 ml of acetone.2) during the gasification experiments. (3.3 – 5) 3. (%) m0 = Dry Mass of the pellet. nitrogen and halogen compounds18.1.4 Analysis of Tars and Particulates Gravimetric analysis of tars and particulates was conducted on the samples recovered from the sampling unit (Figure 3. (g) b) Volatile Solids VS % = (m0 – m1) * 100 % m0 where. VS% = Volatile Solids Percentage. moisture content ash percent and volatile solids of all the tested feedstock are represented in the appendix A 1. divided in four air sealed bottles.3. Procedure Tar and particulate samples were collected during gasification in triplicate as follows: A new. which meant very low contents of tar. (g) m1 = Mass of the ash after furnace treatment. the exhaust lines were insulated to maintain elevated temperature. were placed in the sampling unit as shown in Figure 3. The oven containing the GF/F was placed was pre-heated and maintained at 250˚C. 36 . (g) The density. Pinto and coworkers (2009) identified the production of tars in SYNGAS as one of the main challenges of current gasification studies.ms = mass of moisture free solids in the prepared biomass sample.

(g) W1 = weight of the GF/F or pan after. (g/Nm3) (3.1) reached approximately 650˚C.3 – 6) 37 . This 10 ml of acetone was evaporated under a fume hood in a pre – weighed aluminum pan was dried in an oven at 105˚C for 2 hours.3-7. Concentrations of tars and particulates were calculated using equations 3. which was placed in an oven at 105˚C for 2 hours. Determination of particulates concentration: GF/F was placed in an aluminum pan. The flow gas through the sampling unit was regulated to 10 scfh (standard cubic feet per hour) for 30 minutes per sample. This sampling procedure was repeated three times in a single gasification experiment to obtain a set of triplicate samples. The GF/F was weighed for gravimetric analysis to get the concentration of particulates.The collection of tars and particulates was done when Thermo 2 (Figure 3. (cfm) Dgff =Deposition on Glass fiber filter paper. The sampling was started with a vacuum pump. The aluminum pan was cooled in a desiccator for 30 minutes. W0 = weight of the GF/F or pan before. (g) V = Volume of gas passing. Determination of tar concentration: 200 ml of acetone was reduced to 10 ml in a rotovap. connected after the acetone-bottles of the tar sampling unit. The pan was measured for gravimetric analysis.3-6 and 3. In this analysis. deposition is defined as: Deposition on GF/F and Aluminum Pans Dgff = (W0 – W1) g/Nm3 V where.

BTU value and volatile solids of feedstock.3. The gravimetric analysis of collected tars and particulates was also done following the same procedure as mentioned above (section 3.Volume of gas passing the sampling unit was measured with a SCFH (Standard Cubic Flow per Hour) flow meter. moisture. was maintained at 10 SCFH (1.5 cm diameter.11 shows the microscopic images of the surface of the catalyst at temperatures 450˚C.6666 cfm). 550˚C and 650˚C.4.3 –7) 3. The conversion of SCFH (Cubic Foot / hour) to CFM (Cubic Foot / min) is shown in equation 3. V = (10 ft3 * (0.3 – 7 through 3. with the help of the vacuum pump. Once the vacuum pump was switch on the collection of tars and particulates was done by following the procedure mentioned in section 3.5 Use of Tar Cracking Catalyst An analysis with a tar cracking catalyst was performed to understand the effect of catalyst on the tars produced by a feedstock (pine alone was tested because of limited availability of catalyst).3.3.9 through 3.4) 3. ash percentage. Two meshes of similar diameter were placed at each end of the tube for keeping the catalyst in place.4 Analysis of Temperature Profile and Oxygen Sensor Reading a) Temperature Profiles A gasification temperature profile depends on density. It also depends on gasifier construction. Figures 3. The whole assembly was placed between the exiting port on the gasifier and particulate collection unit of the sampling unit. The surface of the catalyst was scanned for any deformations. 40 mg of a proprietary catalyst (Albemarle Alumina Extrudates) was packed in the tube and the flow of gas. 38 . insulation quality. The catalyst was placed in a furnace at 300˚C in a 9 cm long metal tube of 2.10.3048 m)3 )* (30/60) hr 1 hr * ft3 (3.

This precaution was taken in case of a failure of one of the two oxygen sensors. b) Oxygen Sensor Profile Oxygen profiles from different feedstocks were employed for safety reasons and to check for leakages. At temperatures above 850-900 °C. the endothermic nature of the H2 production reactions (steam reforming and water-gas reactions) results in an increase in H2 content and a decrease in CH4 content with an increase in temperature. A light on the display panel turned red indicating the chamber and exiting pipeline were depleted of oxygen. For safety reasons these oxygen sensors were placed in two different spots. Table 2.3 shows the various gasification reactions and illustrates the various exothermic and endothermic processes inside the gasifier. 39 . A temperature profile was helpful in analyzing the different mechanisms inside a gasifier such as oxidation zone.positioning of thermocouples inside the gasification chamber and air flow inside the gasification unit. pyrolysis zone and reduction zone. 1) Inside the gasification unit 2) In the pipeline leading to flaring unit. This indicated that gasification has initiated and it is safe to light the flaring unit. High temperature also favors destruction and reforming of tar leading to a decrease in tar content and an increase in gas yield55. These oxygen sensors monitored the amount of oxygen left in the gasification chamber and the exiting gas pipeline. resulting in increases in CO content. Different feedstocks were analyzed in this thesis for their temperature profiles for better understanding of their behavior inside a gasification chamber. At temperatures above 750-800°C. both steam reforming and the Boudouard reactions dominate. Two oxygen sensors from a catalytic convertor of a regular automobile were used to measure the level of oxygen inside the chamber.

This analysis was conducted at the LSU Agcenter’s W. Fe. During thermo chemical processing of biomass. Ca. carbonates. The presence of N. sulfates. Raveendran and co-workers (1995) reported the results of studies on the effect of mineral matter present in biomass on the pyrolysis characteristics. These are represented as ultimate analysis. are sufficient to alter the pyrolysis behavior to a large extent56. Ultimate and proximate analysis helped in quantifying the feedstocks as a gasifying or a non-gasifying fuel. chlorides and phosphates56. These constituents occur as oxides. with smaller amounts of S. Na and Mg. The chemical formula for the biomass is generally represented by CXHYOZ66. Callegari Environmental Center. hydrogen and oxygen in major quantities. 40 .A. Mn and Al. It was stated that. P.3. P and K signifies the inorganic material present in the feedstock. product distribution and product properties. K. as is present in the biomass. Raveeendran and coworkers also stated small amounts of inorganic material. the main elemental constituents of biomass minerals are Si.5 Ultimate and Proximate Analysis Every biomass has carbon. most of the nitrogen and sulfur are released into the atmosphere whereas much of the phosphorus and potassium remain in the ash57. silicates.

Off these feedstocks alfalfa failed to gasify and produce optimum quality SYNGAS (other feedstocks (switchgrass. High ash was observed in feedstocks with higher inorganic composition. The ultimate and proximate analysis of different feedstocks demonstrated high inorganic composition in feedstocks such as alfalfa.5 million wet tons of waste annually9. dairy manure and poultry litter) were not tested in the gasifier due to unavailability). a) Characteristics of an optimum gasification fuel: It was observed that the SYNGAS which consisted of > 18% CO and > 15% H2 resulted in a steady flame resulted. Ten different feedstocks/wastes were used for biomass gasification and were analyzed for their different physical and thermal properties.CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 4. 41 . This chapter discusses the results from 8 different feedstock pellets (pine. These analyses helped in assessing their suitability to be used as a gasification fuel. dairy manure and poultry litter) and two raw plant-based feedstocks (cypress mulch and pine bark nuggets). Based on the experiments conducted on the gasifier used in this research and laboratory analysis of the feedstocks some observations were noted which qualified different feedstocks as gasification and non – gasification fuel. dairy manure and poultry litter. switchgrass.1 Introduction Louisiana has a wide variety of feedstocks and biomass resources. sugarcane bagasse. the paper industry alone produces over 8. which can be used as a fuel for gasification. As an example. alfalfa. corn stover. hardwood. b) Ash content of an ideal feedstock: Feedstocks which had < 5-7% ash yielded SYNGAS with a gas composition of > 19% CO and > 15% H2. switchgrass. Some of these observations are mentioned below.

For this reason. High tar concentration and extracts were observed in case of feedstocks with high moisture content. d) Tar and particulate concentration in SYNGAS: The quality of SYNGAS was an important parameter when considering the concentration of tars and particulates in a gasification experiment with different feedstocks. low moisture content > 3% resulted in fast gasification/combustion of feedstock and high feed rate was noted in that case. it was necessary to evaporate the additional moisture before combustion/gasification can occur58. The gravimetric analysis of tar and particulate concentration was affected by the inorganic material present on the feedstocks. It was observed that high moisture content affected the quality of producer gas. Feedstocks with higher than 2000 mg/kg of potassium made a feedstock incapable of testing as a gasification fuel. Higher moisture content will increase H2 and CH4 but will lower CO however the gain in H2 and CH4 in the 42 . Feedstock such as alfalfa resulted in high tar concentration and proximate analysis of alfalfa also showed high concentrations of potassium and phosphorous.2 Composition of SYNGAS Generated from Various Feedstocks McKendry P (2001) indicated that fuel with moisture content above 30% makes ignition difficult and reduces the calorific value of the product gas.On the other hand feedstocks with high volatile solids resulted in the production of optimum quality SYNGAS (low concentration of tars and particulates). On the other hand. High ash concentration in different feedstocks also affected the concentration of tars and particulates. 4. c) Moisture content of an ideal feedstock: Feedstocks with moisture content < 7% were considered ideal for gasification and resulted in SYNGAS with >19% CO and >15% H2.

Chawdhury and co-authors (2010) investigated the production of syngas from wood pellets and discovered the production of CO was between 19 to 22% and the production of H2 was between 12 to 19 %62. These results were supported by the hypothesis that adequate combustible gas composition sustains a flare in the flaring unit. Boateng and co-authors (2006) tested alfalfa stem for pyrolysis and discovered that 43 .59% H2 and 18. Gasification of pine pellets resulted in almost 40% combustible gases.26% ± 1.1: Composition of different gases in SYNGAS. Alfalfa resulted in low H2 (<7. Figure 4.1 shows the percentages of gases produced during gasification of pine pellets.8%) and CO (<11. Banapurmath and co–authors (2009) also Figure 4.2). Feedstocks which produced 15% of CO and 13% of H2 were considered acceptable for gasification. experienced a similar gas composition of 19% ± 3% CO and 18% ± 2% H2 in a down – draft biomass gasifier used to produce approximately 17MWth electricity60. Pine pellets resulted in gas composition of approximately 18.product gas does not compensate for energy lost due to reduced CO content of the gas and therefore gives a product gas with a lower calorific value58.02% ± 2.36%) because of high nutrient contents (figure 4.92% CO.

Factors which determined ideal characteristics of a gasification fuel did not qualify alfalfa. bark nugget and mulch as a gasification fuel. Overall. The alfalfa pellets tested for gasification in this research also resulted in less than 13% CO at 600˚C. as presented in the next paragraphs. bark nugget and mulch for CO production is not recommended.2: Comparison of different constituents of SYNGAS. as their yield of CO was less than 13%.the percentage of CO produced was not more than 15% at 600˚C 63. These results were helpful in considering pine pellets to be an optimum fuel for SYNGAS production. highest combustible gases were generated by pine pellets (>18 % CO and 19 % H2). Other analyses such as calorific value and volatile solids supported this result. Tavasoli and co-authors (2009) found a similar pattern of 12% of H2 and 16% of CO production when corn was tested in a downdraft gasifier64. Feedstocks with higher SYNGAS composition (>16% H2 and > 17% CO) were suitable for generating fuel. therefore. 44 . Figure 4. using alfalfa.2 shows an approximate percent of gases present in the composition of SYNGAS produced while testing the feedstocks for gasification. Corn produced low percent of H2 than cypress mulch. Figure 4.

d) Calculating the volatile solid suspension (VSS). Series of tests performed on different feedstocks helped in determining their characteristics. This value was much higher than the heating value obtained 45 .4.3 shows the comparison of heating values generated by different feedstocks when tested in a bomb calorimeter. b) Finding the density. Demirbas (1997) tested corn stover pellets for high heating value and found approximately 7500 btu/lb67.3. resulted from bomb calorimetry of pine pellets. This value is in agreement with the findings of Gil and coworkers (2010). 4. Calorimetry of bagasse yielded in approximately 6500 btu/lb. c) Calculating the moisture content.3–1. These tests were: a) Finding the high heating value (HHV) or calorific value. Kirubakaran and co-authors (2007) also discovered similar resulted when bagasse and corn stover was tested66. Feedstock analysis and identification of its characteristics was an important aspect of gasification. f) Finding the nitrogen phosphorous & potassium content. who tested various feedstocks for their mechanical and combustion behavior and found that pine yielded in approximately 8300 btu/lb65.3 Characterization of Feedstocks Anuradda and co-authors (1996) stated that the knowledge of various properties of biomass pyrolysis products relevant for energy conversion was essential for identifying the optimum utilization of each product53. Figure 4. e) Calculating the ash percentage. Highest calorific value of approximately 8000 btu/lb.1 Calorific Value or High Heating Value – Bomb Calorimetry of Feedstocks Calorific values of feedstocks were calculated from equation 3.

4.3. Low density feedstocks needed high feed-rates.8 % ash68. 46 . High ash percentage (approximately 12 % ash) (high mineral content (phosphorous and potassium)) was likely responsible for low calorific values of alfalfa pellets in this analysis. Figure 4.3 -2.2 Moisture and Density Content The densities of various feedstocks were calculated using equation 3. The density of different feedstocks influenced their feed-rates. Higher calorific value signifies better energy content of a feedstock. Hardwood pellets had a similar high heating value of 6000 btu/lb to that of Demirbas. Boateng and coworkers (1995) found approximately 8000 btu/lb of calorific value when alfalfa was tested for high heating values. They reported that alfalfa had approximately 5. DeLong. This signifies that feedstocks with high ash percentage yielded low heating value. Calorific value of alfalfa pellets tested for this research was approximately 5000 btu/lb.3: Comparison of high heating values or calorific values of different feedstocks.69.for corn stover in this research (~5000 btu/lb). However.

High moisture content reduces the temperature achieved in the oxidation zone. resulting in the incomplete cracking of the hydrocarbons released from the pyrolysis zone. was 6. with density of 700 to 900 kg/m3. High density feedstocks. could not be tested in the gasifier because of their unavailability in large quantities (> 200 lbs) in pelletized form. ranging between 1000 to 1300 kg/m3. Wei and co-authors (2009) stated that a difference in moisture content was reflected significantly in the temperature profile of the gasifying fuel70. was 18 lb/hr but feed-rate of compacted pine pellets.5 lb/hr.whereas mid-range density feedstocks had normal feed-rates. Figure 4. Wei (2009) analyzed the SYNGAS qualify from a down-draft biomass gasifier and discovered that moisture content affected gasification. with density of 230 to 260 kg/m3.4: Density of Different Feedstocks Available – Extremely low density feedstocks did not gasify 47 . The 5 HP pelletmill failed to produce more than a few pounds of pellets. such as dairy manure and poultry litter. Figure 4.4 shows a comparison between different densities. feed-rate of cypress mulch. For example.

was not subjected to additional drying. Feedstocks with moisture content < 7% was found to be ideal for gasification. cypress mulch was found to be unsuitable for a batch feed system. 48 .5% to 7% was found in pine and hardwood pellets. Moisture content was calculated using the equation 3. However. The moisture content of various feedstocks is depicted in Figure 4.5: Moisture of different feedstocks.5. Figure 4. Optimum moisture content of 5.3–3. Moisture content below 7% is desirable for trouble free gasification.Increased levels of moisture and the presence of CO produced more H2 by the water gas shift reaction. Akudo (2007) maintained 10% moisture of cypress mulch woodchips at the time of sampling for tars and particulates71. Moisture of less than 7% was noted in cypress mulch. therefore. Pine and hardwood pellets had moisture around this range. which necessitated frequent feeding and valve opening. The increased H2 content of the gas produces more CH4 by direct hydrogenation58. Corn stover pellets had close to 14 % moisture but it was dried to optimum moisture of 7%. due to low density.

6.4. The oxidation temperature is often above the melting point of the biomass ash.3 – 4 and 3.3. Low ash percentage was desirable for gasification. The significance of ash content and volatile solids was discussed in section 3.3 Volatile Solids and Ash Percentage The average ash content in each feedstock is shown in Figure 4. Clinker formation was a problem for ash contents above 5%59. Feedstocks with ash more than 10 % produced clinkers energy generation will depend on a number of factors. air pollution control technology and power plant layout 72. including the type of feedstock.3 with a brief procedure to calculate them. Carlson (1993) stated that chemical characteristics of the ash from Figure 4. McKendry (2001) stated that high mineral matter can make gasification impossible.3. method of energy generation. The equations 3.6: Ash percentage of different feedstock.3 – 5 were used to calculate ash percentage and volatile solid percentage respectively. leading to clinkering/slagging problems in the grate and subsequent feed blockages. 49 .

Ash less than 8% and volatile solids greater than 90% were noted in cypress mulch bark nuggets. High volatile solids percentage meant higher C content in the feedstock. The poultry litter had very Figure 4. in turn better calorific value 50 . 0. corn and pine pellets gasified easily. DeLong (1995) found approximately 11. hardwood pellets and switchgrass pellets. Similarly.1 % of ash and hardwood pellets had 0.01 % of ash in the leaves of alfalfa from Olivia68. Bowden and co-workers tested three different types of switchgrass available in northwestern Pennsylvania and found less than 5% of ash in all three samples of switchgrass73. Chicken litter and dairy manure had approximately 40% ash. corn stover pellets.7: Volatile solids percent of different feedstock. Gil (2010) found only 0. Alfalfa had 12% ash and therefore failed to successfully gasify.In this analysis pine pellets had.7 % ash in hardwood67.2 % of ash. as low as.85 ± 0. As a result hardwood. Demirbas (1997) found approximately 1.7 % ash in pine and 2.2 % ashes in pine sawdust65.162 ± 0. The higher ash content of the wastes collected for this research is likely due to use of sand as bedding for the dairy cows.

peanut hulls) and bird droppings. High particulate concentrations lead to chocking of sampling lines and gas exit port. 51 . High ash contentsand low volatile solids made dairy manure and chicken litter pellets inappropriate for gasification. Dairy manure and chicken litter pellets had less than 60% volatile solids.3.1).3% ash and more than 93± .69 ± . The Figure 4. Alfalfa had in less than 85% of volatile solids. Volatile solids content in different feedstocks is shown Figure 4.3% volatile solids produced combustible gases and qualified as gasification feedstocks. These feedstocks did not qualify for gasification due to high mineral content (Chapter 4.8: Comparison of particulates present in different feedstocks.high mineral content and is heavily dependent on the ratio of bedding material (such as wood shavings. Other feedstocks such as corn stover pellets had less than 6. 4.7.4 Analysis of Tars and Particulates The concentrations of tars and particulates in the exiting gas were quantified.

as high as 0.4 was used to collect the samples.6 g/Nm3 and tars varied between 0. Figure 4. High concentration of particulates (3. Akudo (2008) observed similar tar concentration averaging 1. Gasification of alfalfa pellets also formed clinkers.sampling unit shown in section 3. respectively.8 and 4. Figures 4.3.6 g/Nm3 to 4.8 g/Nm3) was observed in syngas generated from gasification of alfalfa pellets.9 compare the tars and particulates present in different feedstocks.3. 52 . Gravimetric analysis of tars and particulates from a sample of syngas produced pine pellets indicated high tar and particulate concentrations. Figures 4.5 g/Nm3 to 1.80399 g/Nm3 and 4.63 g/Nm3 and particulate concentration averaging 3.13 shows the samples of tars and particulates collected for gravimetric analysis following the methodologies discussed in section 3.8 and 4. Higher tars resulted in clogging of gas exit port and grate.9 show pine pellets exhibiting high tar and particulate concentrations.06377 g/Nm3.10 to 4.9: Comparison of tars present in different feedstocks. which caused clogging at the ash grate and the gas exit ports of the gasifier. Figure 4.4.2 g/Nm3. The particulate concentration varied between 0. respectively.84 g/Nm3 74.

11: Tars and particulates from alfalfa feedstock.12: Tar collected in acetone from bark nugget Figure 4. Figure 4.10: Tar collected in acetone from Hardwood Figure 4.Figure 4.13: Dried tars from acetone (alfalfa feedstock) 53 .

5 Effect of Tar Cracking Catalyst on Tar Concentration The tar concentration was reduced from 0. The surface did not crack or tarnish at this temperature.15: Tar cracking catalyst.14: Tar cracking catalyst.16 Tar cracking catalyst. Figure 4. the concentration of particulates was also reduced from approximately 4 g/Nm3 to 1.26 g/Nm3 when a tar cracking catalyst was used to crack tars present in syngas produced by gasifying pine pellets. The Figure 4. 54 . The surface did not crack or tarnish at this temperature Figure 4.8 g/Nm3 to 0. The surface did not crack or tarnish at this temperature.4. The catalyst was not expected to reduce the concentrations of particulates but. Catalyst maintained at 550˚C. in the same experiment.2 g/Nm3. Catalyst maintained at 650˚C.3. Catalyst maintained at 450˚C.

catalyst was maintained at 550ºC in this experiment and was placed between the gas exit port and the particulate sampling unit. Other characteristics such as moisture content. The low density of cypress mulch (Figure 4.17: Concentration of Deposition of tars and particulates with and without the use of a tar cracking catalyst 4.17 shows the comparison of tars and particulates for pine pellets.85 g/Nm3 to 0.4) was likely responsible for this behavior. This 55 . The air flow was constant for both the feedstocks. Akudo and researchers (2008) observed the reduction in tar formation 0.09 g/Nm3 when woodchips (cypress mulch) were tested in a down-draft biomass gasifier74. Figure 4. Figure 4. flow rate of gasification medium (air) and physical and chemical properties of the feedstock were not altered.4 Temperature Profile and Oxygen Sensor Readings a) Temperature Profile The time required for cypress mulch to reach the optimum temperature for gasification was half to that required by pine pellets.

Figure 4. high temperatures at this location is likely due to a partially empty gasifier chamber. Figure 4. In Figure 4. Quicker gasification than other feedstocks due to constant unmodified gasification agent (air) supply. the manual feeding process was easy and did not cause any increases in Thermo # 3 and Thermo # 4 temperatures until the feeding was stopped at 3:15:00 hrs. the bottom two thermocouples (Thermo # 1 & 2) kept increasing until they reached steady state around 580 C. which allowed the flames to go up into the upper sections of the gasifier.18 shows that Thermo # 5 and Thermo # 6 spiked to 450 ºC around the 2:00:00 hrs. Low quantities of biomass in the chamber coupled with increased air flow rates (due to lowered resistance) likely caused the mulch to undergo combustion rather than gasification. As the pellet consumption was slow. which provides a better understanding of differences between gasification and combustion of feedstocks with different thermal and physical properties.caused the cypress mulch to combust rather than to gasify. A probable cause of combustion of cypress mulch was due to inconsistent feeding.19 depict the internal temperature profile. 56 .19 (pine pellets).18: Cypress mulch gasification temperature profile.18 and 4. Corn and Figure 4. As these two thermocouples are positioned above the air inlet point.

18 and 4. the feedstocks with higher moisture contents and higher ash concentrations generally had an inconsistent temperature profile. Apparently. Wei and co-workers (2009) tested hardwood in a down-draft biomass gasifier. It was observed that pyrolysis of biomass took place between 200˚C and 500˚C70.18 and 4. For the present research.19: Temperature profile of pine pellets. The decomposition of feedstocks between 350˚C and 500˚C initiated pyrolysis at temperatures above 450˚C. 57 . which gasified successfully.19) crossed 550˚C. The sampling for gas composition was done at the time when thermo 2 (Figure 4.hardwood showed similar temperature profiles to that of pine pellets. the changing temperature profile resulted in Figure 4.19). 19 % CO and 17% H2 was observed after Thermo 2 reached 550˚C. A similar case was experienced by Wei and co-workers (2009) who explained that moisture content of a feedstock had a significant effect on the temperature profile of the feedstock. Table 2.3). A similar temperature profile was observed in feedstocks which were tested for gasification in LSU gasifier (Figure 4. The zone near Thermo # 2 physically represents the combustion section of the gasifier (Equation #1 and #2.

The temperature profile resulted from gasification of pine pellets demonstrated a trend of constant gasification.2 shows a temperature profile of bark nuggets which was affected due to the presence of moisture in the feedstock.20: Bark nugget oxygen sensor profile. Appendix 1. Kumar and co-workers (2009) quoted that at temperatures close to 600˚C. This indicates that igniting the flame might result in combustion of feedstock.inconstant and altered reactions during gasification.21 depicts the oxygen concentrations: 1) inside the gasifier near the grate (Oxygen Sensor (i)). The oxygen inside the chamber depleted within 25 minutes of gasification experiment which led to generation of SYNGAS.20 and 4.8 volts.3 Equation # 5 to # 9) results in an increase in H2 content55. When compared to the temperature profile Figure 4. and caused an increase or decrease of CO and H2 concentrations inside the gasifier70. and 2) outside the gasifier and just before the flaring unit (Oxygen Sensor (O)). Oxygen present in substantial quantities inside and outside the gasification chamber represented by values less than 0. b) Oxygen Sensor The Figures 4. 58 . the endothermic nature of H2 production reaction (Table 2.

The excess air volume resulted in low quality SYNGAS because of combustion and high CO2 production.21) shows the behavior of the oxygen sensor in case of excessive oxygen inside the gasification chamber. The gases which came out on the flaring end were rich in CO and H2 (Figure 4. This indicates the SNYGAS produced was safe to ignite.(Figure 4. the depletion of oxygen (Figure 4.8 volts. Both the oxygen sensors monitored the levels of oxygen and helped in detection of leaks or uncombusted oxygen. whereby.21: Oxygen sensor voltage readings for corn pellets. corn or hardwood pellets because the gasification agent (air) flow rates was not altered. the flame from the flaring unit can travel back into the gasification chamber and combustion and ignite the Figure 4.3).20) signifies the initiation of Equation # 1 and # 2 (Table 2. 59 .18).2). Oxygen profile of bark nuggets (Figure 4. These low density feedstocks resulted in attaining gasification faster than pine. Depleted or zero oxygen concentration are indicated by a reading above 0. The prime purpose of the two oxygen sensors was to monitor oxygen inside the gasification for safety reasons. Oxygen at this point can cause a back flash. The purpose of the second sensor was to serve as backup sensors.

pine pellets had almost 42% of C which was in line with Gil’s (2010) discovery of 45% of C in pine sawdust65. a blower is used to sucks the gasification agent. Callegari Environmental Center. for certain designs.5 Ultimate and Proximate Analysis The N. Timper (2000) found similar percentages of C and H (43% and 5. Alfalfa had approximately 4. Whereas. For the gasifiers that operate with negative pressure. Raveendran and co-workers (1995) stated that high inorganic material in biomass traps the carbon particles. Excessive oxygen concentrations can also indicate poor gasification or excess air flow rates. Alfalfa on the other hand produced less than 43% C and less than 2% H.combustible gasses in the pipes. who also indicated that alfalfa ash was richer in these nutrients than the above organic fertilizer76 77. The carbon content is a direct measure of suitability of a feedstock for gasification. a blower was used to push in the gasification agent. they made the feedstock difficult to gasify. high oxygen levels can also indicate leaks in the system. respectively) when alfalfa was tested for ultimate analysis. Similar results were noticed in corn and bagasse tested for this research at Agcenter’s W. although generate ash with higher nutritive value. However. C and H analyses were performed to analyze the organic and nutrient constituents of feedstocks.A. High potassium and sulfur content. which can lead to explosions near the blower or during gas conditioning.62%. It was concluded that that the very low inorganic content made it 60 . making it unavailable for conversion56.5 gm/kg for boiler litter as reported by Eck and Stewart (1995). The tested total P in alfalfa fly ash was higher than the reported 5 and 6 gm/kg for dairy and hog manure and was comparable with 14. 4. For the down-draft gasifier at LSU.16% of sulfur which was in line with Timper’s analysis75. Raveendran and co-researchers (1995) found 55 % of C and approximately 4% of H2 in both corn and bagasse from ultimate analysis56.

range of 15 to 22.a better gasification fuel than alfalfa. Narvaez and researchers (1996) also found almost 50% of C and almost 6% of H2 in pine sawdust. and 3 to 6% respectively for K. alfalfa had high inorganic content. This resulted in low ash percentage and high calorific value of 61 . Animal waste feedstocks such as dairy manure and chicken litter had approximately 25% and 23% of C and approximately 3.7% of H. out of which alfalfa did not qualify for gasification.22 shows the metal concentrations in two feedstocks. and boiler manure77. 14 to 20. 22: Comparison of different metals present between a gasifying and a non-gasifying feedstock. Ca and Mg for hog. pine pellets contained low inorganic content. On the hand. Figure 4. Similarly. The excess amount of inorganic compounds present in alfalfa made it a non-gasifying feedstock for gasification. which was tested for its suitability in a fluidized bed biomass gasifier43. dairy. Eck and researchers (1995) reported a Figure 4.2% and 0.

(―After‖ = after gasification).5. Pine pellets. This plot shows the CHN values of all the feedstocks before and after gasification. The metal concentrations all feedstocks tested in this research are presented in The Figure 4. Higher Carbon content (C) implied better heating value.23: Comparison of Ultimate Analysis of different feedstocks and their ashes.23 shows the presence of organic C along with percentage of nitrogen. corn stover pellets. which has been reported as a fertilizer for crops. 62 . Figure 4. dairy manure and chicken litter.pine pellets. which have higher nitrogen content. appendix 1. bark nugget and hardwood pellets had high organic carbon than ―potential fertilizer feedstocks‖ such as alfalfa.

Table 2. Gasification has the potential to offset the need for fossil fuels and provide the nation with cleaner ―alternative fuel‖.3).2 was used to collect the samples for quantification of tars and particulates in SYNGAS. Clean SYNGAS can be used in numerous applications. Table 2. 63 . Williams and co-authors (1996) studied that electricity generation by the ―new combined cycle gasification method‖ and indicated that gasification was more efficient than the traditional combustion method of energy generation80. A downdraft biomass gasifier was used to analyze the suitability of six different feedstocks for gasification. It was concluded that temperatures nearing 250˚C started the process of pyrolysis (Equation #1 and #2. Currently in the United States only 2.3) and gasification was initiated at approximately 650˚C (Equation #5 to #10. DeGroot (1990) stated that gasification is the direct thermochemical conversion of biomass to a hot fuel gas in a gasifier unit78. Brushwood and coworkers (1998) stated that the fuel gas can be used to generate steam. which runs a turbine that generates electricity79. The objectives of this research have been met through a series of experiments designed to analyze Louisiana biomass-based feedstocks for their thermal and physical properties. The gas was also tested for composition using a gas chromatographer.CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 5. In order to reduce the dependence on foreign oil.7 quadrillion Btu’s of installed biomass capacity is available9. Sampling unit shown in Figure 3. Temperature was an important parameter in the process of biomass gasification.1 Summary of Results Gasification of biomass has been an old and proven technology. many different technologies will have to be employed together across the nation. The initiation of gasification meant the production of SYNGAS.

amongst which six were tested in the gasifier. pellet moisture content. The heating value of pine was found to be 8000 btu/lb. but high percentage of minerals (for example P. Corn and bark nugget initially contained 13% moisture and had to be dried to 5% ~ 6% for successful gasification.Ten different feedstocks were tested for physical and thermal properties.063 g/Nm3 of particulates and . Both these feedstocks had approximately 6% moisture and approximately 1% ash. It was observed and noted from previous studies that moisture content of a feedstock had a major bearing on the on the calorific value of the feedstock and the temperature profile within the gasifier. ambient temperature and relative humidity could affect the generation of tars and particulates. The ideal physical and chemical properties of pine pellets do not support the high tar and particulate concentrations noticed in resulting SYNGAS. gasifier temperature profile. Corn yielded lowest tars and particulates concentration (0. cypress mulch and switchgrass pellets was found to be 6000 btu/lb. It was noted that pine and hardwood pellets demonstrated optimum results in the laboratory tests conducted for thermal and physical properties.040 g/Nm3 tars and 0.613 g/Nm3 particulates) in the group. Numerous factors such as design of the gasifier. K and Ca) in the feedstock it made unsuitable for gasification. Four feedstocks were either not suitable or was not available in pelletized form in large enough quantities for conducting a full gasification run. Moisture content of cypress mulch was close to 7%. 64 .8039 g/Nm3 of tars). Alfalfa was dried to 5 % moisture for gasification. It was difficult to understand why concentration of tars collected from sampling pine pellets was significantly high (4. Calorific value of hardwood pellets. Alfalfa had large quantities of nutrients such as phosphorous and potassium present in the feedstock which explained the high ash percentage and tar formation on gasification.

2 Future Opportunities and Suggestions Gasification can be a sustainable source of alternate energy for mega corporations such as paper and pulp industries. The use of other products such as pine cones. Glycerol. there are infinite opportunities for gasification to succeed as an alternate source of energy 65 . was mixed with pine pellets and tested in the gasifier as demonstration project.2676 g/Nm3. able to reproduce simple carbon-hydrogen chains to be used as different fuels.When a tar cracking catalyst was used in the sampling unit. furniture stores and petroleum industries. produced as a side product while converting used vegetable oil to bio-diesel at LSU Agcenter’s W. 5. resulting rich carbon-hydrogen chains. high heating value. municipal waste. These options give us infinite opportunities to study biomass gasification and make the best use of technology available to us. These gasifier results. low mineral content. With the quantity of biomass available today. furniture debris and dairy waste are also being studied at different locations in the world for gasification. the concentration of tars generated from pine pellets dropped from 0. chemical and thermal properties of pine pellets (such as low ash content.8039 g/Nm3 to 0. It can also create opportunities for experimenting new mixtures such as glycerol mixed with pine or corn pellets. high volatile solids content) and the abundance of pine in the state of Louisiana. results from this demo run indicated a high quality SYNGAS (not discussed in this thesis). coupled with ideal physical. Although. The fuel (SYNGAS) can be either used in turbines or liquefied for producing biodiesel. Callegari Environmental Center. make pine pellets an ideal source of alternate energy in Louisiana.A. this experiment was outside the scope of this thesis.

2007.. Hot Gas Conditioning: Recent Progress with Larger-Scale Biomass Gasification Systems. Ohman. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory NERL/SR 510-29952. Feering. 9 Jason Midget J. Biomass Thermal Gasification Project Biomass and Bioenergy.. Ahangari G. State and Outlook 2010: Adapting to Climate Change. 2006. Gref.. Elm Lane. 6 Stevens D. I.. UK. 66–72.. Energy Source 2001. C.. 1991... Dalai K. 13 Rhen. 2010. Dincer I. 50–56. 2005. 66 . Global warming and fluvial geomorphology. Fuel Processing Technology 90 (2009) 472–482. S. IEA Vol 2. 23:69–81. 19 (8) pg: 71 l – 737.. Energy Policy. Colchester CO5 9ES. Geomorphology 79 (2006) 384–394 5 Isoard S. A.. J. 3 4 Goudie A.2800/58998. P.. Gasification Technologies: A Primer for Engineers and Scientists 8 McKendry P.org. 12 Wang.. Thermo-gravimetric studies of the behavior of wheat straw with added coal during combustion.. The European Environment. 2008. Gasification: Redefining Clean Energy. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 299 – 306 11 Hall D.. M. R. 14 Gasification. Thomas P.. Assessing Hydrothermal Liquefaction Process Using Biomass Feedstocks: Louisiana State University. 2001. F. 2007. Energy production from biomass (part 1): overview of biomass Applied Environmental Research Centre Ltd. Effect of raw material composition in woody biomass pellets on combustion characteristics. Wang. P. Q... Cheremisinoff N. 1992.. 2 Energy Information Administration. Yang.. R. 2010 ISBN 978-92-9213-159-3 doi: 10. Nos 1 – 6m pp. Biomass Energy. 7 Rezaiyan J. Biomass Bioenerg.REFERENCE 1 Tavasoli A. Soni C. 2002. European Environmental Agency. O. 2008. 31. C.. Tey Grove.. 2009. 33. Thesis 10 Babu S. Biomass Bioenerg. 2009. M. Environmental issues: I-energy utilization. Production of hydrogen and syngas via gasification of the corn and wheat dry distiller grains (DDGS) in a fixed-bed micro reactor. Wasterlund. Gasification Technology Council. Liang.

F. 24 Douglas S. Ia. 23 Graham. J. E. Seetharamu K .. L. R. 26 Gasification: Robust Growth Forecast.A.R. 2006. Environment Management. Vision 21. Nova Science Publisher. Estrada do Paco do Lumiar.. Processes and Application ISBN: 978 – 1 – 60741 – 461 – 2. RIS-102... Downing M. Walsh M. Updated Nov. Quadir G . Biomass Energy Resources in Louisiana. Portugal. 2003. L. Program Plan: Clean Energy Plants for the 21st Century.. Experimental study on the effects of operational parameters of a downdraft gasifier 21 Zainal Z. Marcel Dekker Inc. Iowa State University. U. Ablow C. D.World Survey Results. W. Inc. Experimental Investigation of a Downdraft Biomass Gasifier.Office of Fossil Energy.C.(1994). Thermodynamics of Pyrolysis and Activation in the Production of Waste or Biomass – Derived Activated Carbon. 19 Lewis M..15 Jackson S. Chp 4. Chapter 23 pp 301 – 314. Plenum Press New – York.. USA... 20: 475485. Gulyurtlu I.. Ali R. Innovation on Biomass Waste Utilization Through Gasification And Co-Gasificaiton Stage of Development and Needs for Further R&D.. Current Industry Perspective. 1996. Ineti.S Department of Energy. Simulation. Biomass And Bioenergy. 67 . 2002. and Equipment Operation. 23. 1999. National Energy Technology Laboratory Pg 4. 1980.209-260. 18 Pinto F. 22. Andre R. Conversion Technology. Southeastern Sun Grant Center Chyrel Mayfield. A Framework to assess regional environmental impacts of dedicated energy crop production. LSU AgCenter 17 Souza-Santos M. 2004. A. P. Thermal Conversion of Solid Wastes and Biomass.. 2004. L. Solid Fuels Combustion and Gasification – Modeling. N. 1649 – 038 Lisboa. 25 United States Department of Energy. Department of Mechanical and Chemical Engineering.. (2005). In the Potential for Biomass Production and Conversion in Iowa-Final Report to Iowa Energy Center. (2006). 283 – 289 22 Brown. Ames.. 20 Wei. 2009. 1985 Coal Combustion and Gasification.N. Texas A&M University 16 LSU AgCenter. M.. Louisiana Biomass and Bioenergy Overview. New – York. Smith. Biomass Gasification: Chemistry.

U. 22... SEC (2005) 1573. 39 Sims R. 239 –48. 1994.. Chang Y.. P. 34 Overend. M.352. Proc. World Renewable Energy Conference. Effect of six operational variables on the quality of the produced raw gas. Final Communication from the Commission. Golden. 36 Stiegel G. Aznar M. Corella J. Aznar M.. Biomass Gasification for Gas Turbine Based Power Generation. A..S. 1994. 2008. 2005. Energy Conversion and Management Volume 42. Maxwell R. Chang C. 36(5):1535–43. Biomass gasification with air in an atmosphere bubbling fluidized bed. Biomass action plan. Electricity Generation From Wood Biomass Fuels Compared With Other Renewable Energy Options. 79 – 97 37 Duret A. Pages 1499-1515 30 Narvaez I. MgO. 40 His C.C. N. Ali R. P. T. Reading. of the ASME Heat Transfer Division. Characteristics of an Air. and CaO–MgO for Hot Raw Gas Cleaning. H. R.. Wang T. NY: American Society of Mechanical Engineers. (1991). Switzerland. 1996. Anson D. 32 Goldman Y. 31 Delgado J.Blown Fixed – Bed Downdraft Biomass Gasifier.. Biomass Power Program. Corella J... World Renewable Energy Congress. Issue 12.. Worrell E. Biomass Electric Power Status and Five-Year Plan. Lean C.A. F. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research. Seetharamu K. 7 December 2005. P. Clean Energy Technologies: A Preliminary Inventory of the Potential for Electricity Generation Energy Analysis Department. Ecole Polytechnique Fe´de´rale de Lausanne. affordable energy in the 21st century.. Colorado. New York.. Tsai C... HTD-Vol.29 Zainal Z. J. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research. 1997. SERI. 33 Paisley M.... p. Fuel Processing Technology 71. Process Design of Synthetic Natural Gas (SNG) Production Using Wood Gasification. 4196–4205 41 Bailey O. Kuo J.. Y. 2000... Arfi P. Biomass Gasification with Steam in Fluidized Bed: Effectiveness of CaO. Friedli C.. Orio A.. C. 97-GT-5. Y. Liu C. 2001. 1997.. A. C. Reading. H. H.. Energy & Fuels. 2001. 1997.. Timnat Y.. Marechal F.. 35(7): 2110–20. Environmental Energy 68 . Gasification Technologies: the path to clean.. Brussels.. Moving Matrix Reactor for Biomass And Organic Waste Gasification. Energetic Potentials Of Invited Cultures Of Plant Cells: Crude Oil Produced By Calli and Cell Of Euphorbia Characias. Ferreira M. Prediction of performance of a downdraft gasifier using equilibrium modeling for different biomass materials. 35 Commission of the European Communities. COM (2005) 628. CH1015 Lausanne 38 Ferreira M.

. 46 Jorapur R. Stavropoulos G.. 49 Whatman Ltd. Queensland Centre for Advanced Technologies. Söderlind U. U. Biomass and Bio-energy. Department of Chemistry... 43 Narvaez I... K. PO Box 883.. 35(7): 2110–20. EPA/540/R-94/514 45 Hughes W. Ilyushechkin A.1185 – 1194 48 Olofsson I. Changchun 130023.Technologies Division. Kenmore.. Sakelarpoulos G. China School of Preventive Medicine. Larson E.. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Wang F. Harris D.. Thambimuthu K. Park D.. D. Tlan X.. 2007.. 1996.. Energy Technology & Thermal Process Chemistry. Morpeth L. Orio A.. Department of Commerce/International Trade Administration. New York. S Environmental Protection Agency Cincinnati OH 45268. A Critical Review of SYNGAS Cleaning Technologies — Fundamental Limitations and Practical Problems. 13(3):141–6.D. Industry & Trade Outlook 2000. Corella J. http://www. Department of Commerce. Nordin A.... Office of Research and Development U. Effect of six operational variables on the quality of the produced raw gas. 1996. Centre for Low Emission Technology. McLennan K. J. Bethune University of Medical Sciences.V.. 2005.aspx 50 Sharma S.. NY: 97-GT-4.. 2000. Effect of Fuel Moisture Content on Biomass-IGCC Performance. ISSN 1653-0551 ETPC Report 05-02.S. Aznar M. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Queensland 4069.. National Risk Management Research Laboratory. 2007 – 2009 Glass Fiber Filter. 1995..whatman. Australia 51 Jin Q. McGraw-Hill. Yang W.com/GlassMicrofiberBinderFree. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy.S. Dolan M.S. Sugarcane Leaf-Bagasse Gasifiers for Industrial Heating Applications. 1997.. 47 Skoulou V. 33. Yua A. Changchun 130021. China 69 . 1997. 2008. P. Biomass gasification with air in an atmosphere bubbling fluidized bed. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research. Initial Review and Evaluation of Process Technologies and Systems Suitable for Cost-Efficient Medium-Scale Gasification for Biomass to Liquid Fuels. Rajvanshi A. SYNGAS Production from Olive Tree Cuttings and Olive Kernels in a Downdraft Fixed – Bed Gasifier. Helium Direct Current Discharge Ionization Detector for Gas Chromatography. 44 Texaco Gasification Process: Innovative Technology Evaluation Report. Zabaniotou A.. U. University of California Berkeley. Jilin University. CA 94720 42 U.

. Bioresource Technology 101 8859–8867 66 Kirubakarana V... Pyrolysis of energy crops including alfalfa stems. 62 Chawdhury M. Instituto Superior Te´cnico. 2010. Process and Applications..htm#moisture 55 Kumar A. pp..G.T. 83 (2002) 55–63 60 Banapurmath N.. G. 90(4): 472-482 65 Gil M.. Energy production from biomass (part 3): gasification technologies Bioresource Technology. Food and Rural Development. Wood Ash: An Alternative Liming Material for Agricultural Soils.. Mechanical Engineering Department.. Heating Value Of Biomass and Biomass Pyrolysis Products.. Yaliwal V.. Oulego P. Pulse and Oilseed Unit. Mechanical durability and combustion characteristics of pellets from biomass blends. 51-64 (2011) 63 Boateng A.3390/20300556.. Ahangari M.. A.. 1995. K. 3 (1). 57 Lickacz J. Ganesh A. A. Fuel Processing Technology. 15. and eastern gamagrass... C. ISSN 19961073 56 Raveendran K. Rubiera F... Jones D. Fuel 85 (2006) 2450–2457 64 Tavasoli A. Nova Science Publishers. S. ISBN: 978 -1-60741-461-2. 12. 556 – 581. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews Vol 13 (2009) 179–186 70 . Subramaniane P.... No. Dalai A. Producer Gas and Vegetable Oils Operated Compression Ignition Engines for Rural Applications. 53 Raveendran K.52 Sheng C.. Thermochemical Biomass Gasification: A Review of the Current Status of Technology. Res. Mahkamov K. 2001. 54 Turare C. Sci. Rovisco Pais. 2002. A review on gasification of biomass. R. 1812-1822. 75.. 58 McKendry P. Germany http://cturare. Portugal. Fuel Vol... Energies 2. Influence of mineral matter on biomass pyrolysis characteristics... Biomass Gasification: Chemistry. Alberta Agriculture. 2009. reed canarygrass. Production of hydrogen and syngas via gasification of the corn and wheat dry distiller grains (DDGS) in a fixed-bed micro reactor.D. Jung H. Hanna M. 2010. Av. 2009. Premalathae M. 2004. Casal M. 21 Andar... Flensburg... Pis J. G. J. Pevida C. 1715-1720.com/fue. A. Sivaramakrishnanb V. Development of a Small Downdraft Biomass Gasifier for Developing Countries. Inc. Azevedo J. 74 No.tripod. Journal of Scientific Research. 1049-001 Lisbon. Soni C. Estimating the higher heating value of biomass fuels from basic analysis data. 2006.. pp. ARTES Institute.L. Tewari P.. 2007. Nalinic R. D.. R. Pavilha˜o de Meca˜nica I. Khilart K. Fuel Vol. 1996.. 2009. University of Flensburg..V. Adler P. Ganesh A. Sekard T.J. doi: 10.

H.67 Demirbas A. A. O. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research. 1995. 2000... Alexander L.. Mann M. A. An ASABE Meeting Presentation.. AAD Document Control. P. C.C. Rechcigal (ed... Theander O. 2008. Mullen C. 431-434 68 DeLong M. (2008) 47: 4115 – 4122. Nitrogen and Ash Content in Stands of Switchgrass and Big Blue Stem in Northwestern Pennsylvania. 74 Akudo C.. 22: 227-247 73 Bowden R. Manure. Production of Bio-oil from Alfalfa Stems by Fluidized. Richard G. M. Wooten J.. C. D. Brick R.. Paper # 074149. Hicks K... Sui R. Syn – Gas Quality Evaluation for Biomass Gasification with a Down-draft Gasifier. Gasification of agricultural residue (biomass): Influence of inorganic constituents.F. Gasification for distributed generation – task 3. 29: 963 – 972. Rosen C. Columbus E. Wiant B.... 2007. 5. 76. 2008. B.5. 78 DeGroot W... Glodberg N. Adriano D. Lewis Publication.. A. M.. Russelle M. 1997. E. A. pp. L.. In J. 76 Mozaffari M. 77 Eck. Stewart B. A Thesis: Quantification of tars and particulates from a pilot scale. P.Bed Fast Pyrolysis.. Chemical characterization of ash from gasification of alfalfa stems: Implications for ash management. Alfalfa Stem feedstock for IGCC power system fuel. No.. J. S.. 71 . A. 72 Carlson. 2008. Sampling and Analysis of Tars and Particulates from a Biomass Downdraft Gasifier. D.. Schmid M. 169 0 199. Fuel Vol. 2009. V. 1990. 69 Boateng A... Journal of Agriculture Food Chemistry 38: 320-323. Allegheny College Center for Environmental and Economic Development Publication CEED-2008-4.. Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College 75 Timpe R.). Journal of Environmental Quality. Qual. P. National Energy Technology Laboratory.... 70 Wei L. Symposium on biomass fuels (ACS Division of Fuel Chemistry) 40 (1995) 699. Vol 52 (1): 21 – 37. 1993.. 2000. Calculation of higher heating values of biomass fuels.. Theegala C. Environmental impact of coal combustion residue.. downdraft biomass gasifier. R. Nater E. Thomasson J. Soil amendments and water quality. Kannan M.. Newyork. Department of Bioloagical and Agricultural Engineering. Conroy A. Oelke E.. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. Environ. 1995... Schmidt D. N. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. Biomass. O. 71 Akudo C. P.. Onishak M. J. D..

Bioenergy 98. 435-441 80 William R. Biomass Bioenergy 10: 149 – 166. Bachovchin D..79 Brushwood J. 72 . Expanding Bioenergy Partnership. P. 1998. WI.. Larson E.. Testing the multi annular swirl burner for the MAP project. 1996. Great Lakes Regional Biomass Energy Program. Madison. Chicago. Biomass gasifier gas turbine power generating technology.. 4 -8 Oct. IL. 1998.

1: Study of Volatile Solids and Ash Percentage of different feedstock (2) Cypress Mulch (3) Hardwood (4) Switch Grass (5) Alfalfa (6) Corn Pellet 73 .APPENDIX SectionA1.1: Volatile Solids and Ash Percentage Calculation 2 3 4 5 6 Section A 1.

04 % of Moistu re 6.02 0.70 1579.37 555.10 1175.23 15.50 1171.20 1166.39 6.20 552.00 5.10 1175.02 16.01 0.60 1677.40 415.12 486.17 99.40 502.01 Volume 492.00 2.53 6.80 Dia 6.94 -0.65 429.95 Mass 499.57 6.70 586.00 0.70 1180.84 1.72 16.38 14.92 16.46 6.60 6.60 10.89 1.58 99.90 1173.37 608.40 % Ash 0.80 508.59 99.00 8.15 6.72 14.08 489.70 1681.82 5.40 540.00 574.21 17.30 484.00 1177.41 6.19 16.90 1172.00 1.25 Densi ty 0.90 499.17 15.51 15.48 0.01 Volum e 492.00 2.49 6.30 433.42 6.41 5.50 1178.52 6.67 Heigh t 15.40 471.60 1178.17 15.95 0.86 435.00 Densit y 0.27 542.31 0.76 Volume 646.80 1594.84 515.88 10.82 Mass of Cups 1165.90 417.32 12.88 533.02 15.20 1584.41 6.47 6.11 7.50 6.59 6.20 471.50 Mass After 105 C 553.00 1162.20 587.57 74 .01 Heigh t 16.60 439.37 15.02 15.20 460.34 5.50 611.10 575.90 506.80 1163.84 0.60 1629.04 1.86 0.22 87.11 5.55 5.66 6.10 Mass After 105 C 555.80 393.99 0.96 0.00 4.00 401.00 5.30 1654.90 1167.00 Dia 7.52 99.50 6.10 1176.38 99.90 1167.25 Mass 612.84 99.30 474.95 Densi ty 0.10 489.40 1169.40 514.40 414.08 0.96 Mass of Cups 1157.88 533.65 429.36 498.60 1182.27 542.20 576.16 1.43 531.86 435.70 Densi ty 0.0 6.20 5.00 3.08 1.02 1.20 1187.40 1173.30 1648.30 484.40 17.53 6.71 99.40 496.29 0.32 12.37 555.12 486.60 1173.80 1180.00 Dia 6.91 1.00 16.20 1715.15 99.00 9.66 6.40 544.40 573.49 6.30 Ash + dish weight 1236.00 Dia 6.35 0.00 550.20 1763.63 500.90 1577.80 590.15 1.30 Dry Pellet + Dish 1630.80 417.37 0.52 492.30 412.40 545.86 14.97 1.67 6.37 15.92 16.67 5.88 0.40 1723.20 510.90 Mass 590.00 8.90 1176.90 Ash + dish weight 1162.52 6.35 5.40 1179.00 4.37 608.01 546.98 1.92 0.55 535.00 413.00 9.62 1.50 1180.00 1175.00 16.86 Ash + dish weight 1167.40 %VS 99.00 0.08 489.69 99.3 7 99.30 1178.52 5.83 0.20 99.70 Mass After 105 C 472.60 6.20 1651.59 6.01 Height 16.23 15.70 15.42 0.92 Ash only 468.60 410.40 Height 18.02 16.18 553.86 14.84 515.40 447.29 556.40 1183.91 1.95 1.11 7.50 611.76 Volum e 646.50 1175.40 423.29 556.20 Ash only 554.40 480.52 99.21 Volum e 597.41 0.40 Dry Pellet + Dish 1722.20 532.20 502.73 0 Alfalfa Sno 1.85 0.32 12.19 16.63 500.90 Densi ty 0.85 0.06 100.65 99.07 16.50 392.07 1.72 16.90 1164.30 Dry Pellet + Dish 1719.00 2.80 1724.01 0.70 1755.20 580.30 548.40 1175.78 12.60 Dia 7.97 0.90 1171.42 Heigh t 18.00 7.57 6.Pinewood pellets Sno 1.60 570.05 % of Moistu re 10.53 99.36 498.38 14.66 10.00 1592.66 6.01 546.40 397.99 1.00 6.73 Height 15.95 0.47 6.95 0.86 0.50 528.66 6.50 438.47 6.07 16.11 98.00 0.72 14.60 Dia 6.40 1173.90 1748.80 1.43 %VS 87.37 5.59 6.28 15.80 0.28 15.00 7.00 1180.30 1238.40 476.49 6.28 0 Hardwood Pellets Sno 1.52 492.46 6.67 6.60 6.00 3.52 6.37 5.48 0.32 12.90 1183.52 5.18 553.00 1630.00 474.20 Densit y 1.50 528.28 Volume 597.96 0.89 0.30 551.60 6.49 6.80 % Ash 12.00 % Ash 0.95 0.40 5.93 0.52 6.70 391.70 15.77 564.74 Ash only 482.16 0.0 6.20 1640.47 0.00 Mass of Cups 1167.00 6.50 504.68 6.10 1161.70 456.43 531.80 628.59 6.07 % of Moistu re 5.55 535.10 1172.77 564.09 98.12 %VS 99.92 0.00 99.90 1186.51 15.04 1.

30 1170.22 668.80 1182.76 20.17 88.76 8.25 17.29 649.93 7.34 11.27 656.97 3.00 1682.13 639.11 Mass 529.91 6.60 1217.20 1242.84 95.90 691.19 516.90 639.22 668.12 Mass of Cups 1171.60 419.00 8.50 Densit y 1.00 6.40 Ash + dish weight 1201.92 6.00 872.13 697.10 473.19 503.31 637.20 612.01 6.15 5.38 20.10 1167.08 1.00 3.55 590.08 22.50 % Ash 3.80 688.09 1.79 11.40 1157.00 4.14 5.45 15.20 5.93 7.50 1875.19 1.70 703.21 3.16 1.03 96.00 5.80 92.09 1.58 7.30 508.50 1690.10 786.20 706.10 1907.70 703.08 22.15 7.94 18.47 0 Switch Grass Sno 1.91 6.82 17.53 7.13 15.70 622.14 817.13 75 .90 547.40 552.78 1.21 20.60 10.40 468.02 0.60 542.62 3.00 Ash + dish weight 1189.63 96.16 93.20 % Ash 8.41 10.90 0.00 6.91 Heigh t 17.14 817.20 1636.06 16.0 7.96 0.28 676.40 656.41 23.16 9.30 538.87 6.78 721.80 576.20 612.3.19 516.27 656.70 1219.91 571.90 1164.50 608.00 3.97 0.14 5.02 5.70 1734.89 11.59 %VS 96.00 4.00 8.00 9.85 91.80 668.00 6.50 746.17 0.60 14.96 6.90 Dry Pellet + Dish 1645.20 1166.03 7.86 Heigh t 16.80 536.80 % of Moistu re 8.80 628.00 1.21 1.00 Dia 6.10 7.17 6.10 533.16 1.91 6.50 1170.00 7.34 Volume 512.18 1.25 17.90 1261.06 25.75 550.13 1.86 Height 16.38 604.90 782.10 1754.50 1888.87 6.25 17.10 1216.85 10.80 634.60 Mass After 105 C 517.53 18.08 8.04 1.50 602.00 6.18 1.00 1789.40 668.80 Volum e 473.87 19.15 5.21 88.40 591.10 756.81 0.04 1.22 97.70 1176.40 569.42 8.41 614.01 6.84 6.06 16.49 563.10 7.42 652.00 9.70 689.00 5.30 1186.91 571.00 4.76 10.20 611.40 1742.01 0.71 9.68 11.19 503.20 5.20 713.34 Volum e 512.20 20.91 0.10 704.10 554.38 20.11 88.96 6.40 1809.80 471.06 5.92 Mass 559.20 477.55 590.70 538.60 1181.97 1.87 19.82 17.27 612.86 1.21 20.80 591.80 1869.13 15.92 Densi ty 1.70 1199.27 0.79 96.80 510.30 756.12 489.44 96.00 2.00 1177.42 652.20 1711.30 496.60 1173.06 5.90 1740.96 6.90 1866.86 0 Bagasse Sno 1.00 1255.50 705.97 5.20 1172.86 5.20 628.47 92.94 18.66 88.05 Ash only 498.91 6.41 9.11 1.20 1.40 1215.76 20.80 Volume 473.46 25.96 97.31 637.30 1174.20 1176.90 1203.96 6.80 1167.46 25.76 0.00 1202.00 1644.20 7.70 1186.06 25.41 614.20 1825.20 Mass After 105 C 483.72 6.80 1252.62 644.01 19.97 5.10 1171.04 9.60 1237.90 1158.37 3.25 17.13 639.92 91.90 520.25 22.16 7.50 645.04 2.56 3.00 Dia 6.47 15.20 809.87 7.80 1176.66 11.70 1775.0 5.30 510.20 461.49 563.18 10.25 23.40 85.00 1234.09 1.23 10.41 23.43 97.83 11.12 7.41 17.50 586.00 7.05 5.87 %VS 91.80 531.45 7.72 6.60 473.90 5.17 1.50 1781.42 22.34 9.20 1986.91 Height 17.78 721.57 2.80 1220.10 1163.40 1175.32 88.20 20.62 644.25 23.50 1198.29 649.02 5.80 531.90 5.01 19.20 767.00 586.38 96.03 1.12 489.88 0.11 Densi ty 0.30 1204.20 1172.68 11.12 1.84 0.03 1.60 Dry Pellet + Dish 1688.92 6.90 1178.30 563.91 6.41 17.05 5.09 0.90 734.15 8.10 1729.45 7.30 571.10 505.10 % of Moistu re 9.90 572.80 1234.16 4.15 Ash only 444.25 Mass of Cups 1161.98 1.20 1188.78 2.00 Densit y 1.00 6.38 604.60 1723.85 11.40 679.23 7.34 88.00 5.10 691.13 697.15 88.94 1.08 0.53 18.30 11.96 1.70 Dia 6.00 1169.10 637.06 1.07 1.80 531.28 676.00 2.00 Dia 6.12 0.30 1188.17 6.42 22.60 542.07 1.25 22.30 631.

00 722.47 92.32 6.41 Volum e 599.10 1855.00 7.70 489.30 429.34 1.32 614.60 9.40 374.70 Dia 6.89 527.32 614.70 611.37 441.60 524.40 471.34 6.05 7.88 5.70 1561.70 537.24 423.70 7.30 315.24 8.29 1.60 1533.50 1207.30 501.17 Volum e 426.90 Dia 5.50 421.10 435.32 6.41 Volume 599.40 1171.31 1.74 12.55 9.70 440.90 1461.90 457.00 3.33 6.64 643.84 Densi ty 0.10 9.42 1.70 859.27 7.10 24.30 21.55 14.02 1.88 Mass of Cups 1170.77 17.45 1.84 Mass 436.70 1219.11 1.30 1174.00 5.77 Ash only 355.10 24.91 0.60 617.90 0.04 16.29 6.70 388.50 364.20 386.90 5.80 1216.40 732.00 10.32 40.00 6.22 8.93 0.70 1705.28 1.40 43.90 1157.49 0 Dairy Manure Sno 1.40 1165.29 6.94 0.20 8.40 670.80 655.70 493.14 501.30 1585.80 Mass 850.50 53.24 455.02 0.19 6.40 868.60 1164.10 947.60 357.92 17.73 92.90 404.92 5.69 %VS 92.68 59.13 10.05 0.20 734.45 %VS 59.90 0.60 1174.00 6.23 1.16 58.10 1821.60 56.10 1442.30 418.40 362.10 749.41 Mass After 105 C 769.01 5.47 7.21 6.12 478.64 498.12 539.98 1.24 10.00 23.78 13.80 1.17 Volume 426.02 559.53 487.70 672.50 479.90 1222.15 1.83 57.60 404.04 16.40 1206.13 12.55 76 .0 0 Corn Sno 1.10 732.30 1.20 1555.21 17.70 622.86 14.70 1907.01 42.90 580.92 21.80 447.00 1172.00 8.70 Dry Pellet + Dish 1554.11 550.90 41.76 91.69 92.60 731.11 550.70 1172.99 57.16 Dia 6.30 92.90 Ash + dish weight 1199.53 487.55 14.98 5.84 91.38 % of Moistu re 13.80 1196.98 602.10 9.47 1.98 6.0 6.89 527.00 5.17 6.30 1828.26 518.20 15.90 13.92 0.07 6.30 1837.07 1.10 2041.7.41 21.01 5.80 1176.50 46.80 347.19 533.85 13.20 675.24 455.94 6.49 Height 13.12 539.10 58.33 6.77 17.68 93.64 580.80 Mass of Cups 1171.98 602.60 1701.90 1210.66 19.0 0 Dia 5.20 393.80 91.40 385.87 6.50 472.00 9.92 21.00 2.10 711.31 7.88 5.79 671.10 % Ash 40.86 0.26 533.67 21.80 Densi ty 1.83 7.26 518.44 43.02 13.60 1817.02 18.00 8.30 1169.20 1688.30 1203.70 1180.95 92.97 0.31 10.18 1.70 1610.84 41.40 822.40 1232.40 1.00 5.00 1159.80 Mass After 105 C 384.50 374.12 478.50 1462.53 7.16 1.98 5.16 8.37 441.80 396.94 6.70 1405.12 1.06 1.50 1476.70 1180.41 1.20 1215.95 1.59 44.52 14.90 486.00 1168.90 581.24 15.00 8.40 1192.00 1721.35 1.66 19.00 9.79 671.10 1606.40 1554.20 651.80 1469.87 6.29 % of Moistu re 10.21 9.66 19.00 4.30 1198.34 6.10 1172.30 21.84 0.70 Ash only 458.10 1605.35 17.41 55.64 643.80 388.35 17.24 15.00 9.88 5.98 6.72 18.00 705.32 6.80 1568.28 1.64 580.01 6.68 13.90 1163.64 498.80 445.00 2033.95 5.18 Heigh t 13.80 457.88 5.30 1208.30 1165.00 2.92 17.30 501.00 Densit y 1.42 6.69 13.20 1893.40 499.67 21.85 26.50 558.16 14.86 14.90 1179.60 1158.00 3.42 1.02 18.00 7.89 92.92 5.66 19.14 Ash + dish weight 1482.00 10.99 Height 21.21 17.14 501.42 6.90 1207.72 10.06 5.20 810.76 93.72 18.06 5.42 469.23 1.36 1.41 21.17 92.70 509.08 0.12 1.50 517.90 Dry Pellet + Dish 1941.95 5.21 6.17 42.00 4.99 Heigh t 21.01 6.40 425.05 13.27 634.02 559.40 1881.20 Densit y 1.34 -5.80 8.52 14.60 1446.20 15.68 20.04 1.10 947.00 1629.87 0.02 1.16 14.42 469.80 582.26 533.10 488.70 399.50 1178.11 7.60 524.53 92.70 % Ash 7.50 1163.27 634.00 23.68 20.70 430.24 423.76 8.24 6.17 6.03 1.18 6.70 781.56 56.19 6.07 6.

49 2.16 99. 20 1161.20 292. 80 1186.10 300.00 18.00 370.19 34.83 Volum e 437.86 %VS 99.50 1598.65 5.10 1. 20 1160. 60 214.27 60.22 5.00 1426.52 1585.39 Densi ty 1.23 0.43 1.89 6.16 98.40 Ash only 343.91 21.30 1354. 10 1180.66 7.82 19.04 5.26 1.17 99.70 1403.80 Ash + Dish 1154.70 1785.37 Volu me 2047 .07 98. 40 1172.02 6.94 10.50 Heigh t 6.30 544.00 3.79 36.20 0.24 17.29 5.50 787.70 503.40 202.00 378.22 466. 40 327.55 4.79 20.38 771.90 340.79 458.06 0.22 0.78 6.23 0.00 6.97 492.90 1703.00 10.90 1659.66 7.16 3.18 1.37 0.24 17.89 21.49 1.65 5. 70 1164.14 12.64 Bark Nugget 77 .78 9.94 Height 25.00 60.43 5.90 453.79 458.Poultry Litter Sno 1.60 1363.70 1948.71 556.37 Volum e 2047.80 99.65 5.05 40.77 454.90 Dry Pellet + Dish 1698.86 99.57 4.00 7.30 494.57 8.09 12.70 551. 80 189.60 2.98 99.50 1470.80 % Ash 40.77 6.80 1374.70 441.00 1158.35 0.28 0.02 6.41 13.10 810.70 566.32 1.30 371.91 16.50 684.32 39.74 48.07 5.80 605. 50 247.49 60.79 20.68 493. 60 Den sity 0.80 619.21 0.51 3.78 22.55 413.86 11.25 1.92 54.10 1550.58 1238 .30 1347.47 12.56 10.40 307.10 372.89 99.09 Den sity 0.0 0 Dia 4.42 5.73 39. 90 1162.65 5.00 9.50 1402.27 0.10 1798.80 1503.87 41.00 5.40 623.70 181.72 3301 .91 16.50 Heigh t 6.06 0.69 4.74 48.77 6.70 5.22 466.01 38.55 3156.53 99.03 59.53 1.39 Mass 651.49 2.66 99.60 541.45 9.83 5.70 1164.60 6.81 9.4 4 612.13 59.82 19.26 7.14 25.55 4.49 99. 50 1174.80 332.48 5. 70 384.40 Dry Pellet + Dish 1752.40 1414. 21 1639 .55 Breath 7.43 5. 90 848.77 454. 00 1166.10 1370.70 1639. 70 Lengt h 43. 60 1173.68 493.08 % of Moistu re 12.51 39.5 8 1238.24 % Moi st 5.00 8.20 Mass of Cups 1174.07 1.78 6.70 1662.81 9.70 4.75 5. 80 1163. 50 1190.35 33. 80 360.20 1.99 61.04 5.07 5.80 % Ash 99.67 25.38 1.50 496.10 237.80 Dia 4.50 1780.60 1.94 Heigh t 25.38 381.68 60.60 1373.30 60.70 269.60 Mass of Cups 1151.78 22.05 448.39 0.41 938.05 40.67 11.86 11.74 4.58 32.47 12.80 1.10 1157.70 1674.1 6 3602.90 1166.96 38.90 4.55 Breat h 7.10 1. 60 1166.24 0.26 0.70 1173.48 99.57 4.44 612.71 4. 10 1183. 00 833.47 5.89 21.70 2.41 13.3 8 771.97 40.16 3602 .18 Mass After 105 C 578.72 99.7 2 3301.42 5.58 32.00 509.49 99.33 0.14 25.71 4.26 7. 30 1162.75 5.10 2.10 617.49 19.00 1667.0 9 Mas s 576.71 556.04 61.97 492.59 Ash + dish weight 1409. 20 1167.00 39.21 1639.79 36.19 34.28 10.30 309.48 5.25 1.00 3.80 1375.10 673.23 1.86 %VS 59.70 5. 30 1168.59 6.14 Cypress Mulch S no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Lengt h 43.25 0.25 Mass After 105 546.85 99.91 21.78 9.12 1.20 1169.96 99.47 0.65 5.49 19.70 39.70 Densit y 1.67 25.98 5.60 1158.30 296.4 1 938.07 1.16 3.87 99. 50 Ash 2.00 18. 70 478.10 1976.92 54.00 1181. 52 1585 .89 6.35 33.89 99.58 11.05 448.38 381.80 1329.55 413.00 2.83 Volume 437.80 1157.29 1.44 0.59 6. 60 1165.22 5. 55 3156 .37 1.70 546.11 1.50 697.70 489.00 4.

26 5.64 6.18 29.36 99. 08 3217.4 0 24. 98 4078.82 32.26 5.66 26.7 6 2639.6 0 % Ash 99. 20 8.86 30.36 7.2 7 9.31 0.50 1765.19 4.31 98.61 17.43 98.56 21.6 0 6.4 5 11.86 30.70 1761.90 1169.36 7.19 4.4 0 1493.S n o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 Length 27.66 26.80 1186.10 1165.08 8.64 99.2 0 1835.57 %VS 99.7 0 874.08 8.56 21.70 2011 .9 6 11.43 23.00 668.20 0.60 18.3 As h 3.42 99.87 99.43 99. 05 1928.55 28.18 29.2 8 Ash + Dish 1177.64 6.30 2069.1 0 601.60 1160. 90 5.00 1156.48 Heigh t 4.50 1667 . 76 2639.98 4078. 34 6519.37 0.93 13.5 0 2.06 33.33 99.70 Mass of Cups 1174. 94 Den sity 0.49 15.4 0 3.43 23.66 Volu me 2473.10 1251.43 99.0 0 9.33 99.90 1162.26 0. 96 7262.40 2811.6 5 11.60 18.43 99.28 0.12 0.24 0.30 0.82 22.9 6 7262.0 5 1928.90 6.73 32.27 0.20 2418.90 911.1 0 8.04 4.60 1177.3 0 14.1 1 10.70 2031.18 0.04 4.28 28.58 9. 08 4211.82 22.06 33.70 Length 27.88 22. 80 1035 .1 1 3805.64 23.9 4 Mas s 651.24 0.10 1903.90 3000.42 99.71 Breat h 21.25 0.9 2 12050.00 1164.41 0.00 Dry Pellet + Dish 1760. 92 12050 .87 99.00 2670.6 5 13.87 19.25 0.64 99.90 6.31 % Mois t 11.20 745.71 Breath 21.10 1163.27 0. 80 Densi ty 0.10 1166.40 1180.87 19.35 Mass After 105 586.66 Volum e 2473.50 1165.4 0 5.50 1423 .23 0.0 8 4211.90 1158. 10 664.48 Heig ht 4.0 8 3217.7 5 11.10 8. 60 1831 .52 41.10 1175.30 1646.73 32. 90 830.43 99.57 78 .61 17.28 28.31 98.40 1158.64 23.23 0.10 1189.43 98.3 4 6519.86 29.00 599.86 29.82 32.36 99.70 1165.10 0. 11 3805.49 15.52 41.50 961.88 22.55 28.30 1163.

2: Temperature Profile and Oxygen Sensor Profiles 79 .SectionA1.

80 .

81 .

82

83

84

85 .

86 .

87 .

141584 0.166535741 0.141584 0.4403 0.4673 0.31099179 3.416229497 7 Bark Nugget 3/11/2010 8 Corn 3/11/2010 3/11/2010 0.141584 0.3421 10 10 10 0.138061285 5.275565762 88 .4576 SC FH 10 10 10 cfm ((.356305925 2.109809551 3.0096 0.141584 0.004719474 0.4689 0.141584 0.141584 0.9056 0.141584 0.004719474 0.4752 0.4661 0.141584 3.4036 0.6275 0.2004 0.5017 0.004719474 30 30 30 0.141584 0.5187 0.004719474 0.4711 0.4864 0.004719474 30 30 30 0.5313 0.2941 10 10 10 0.1806 10 10 10 0.231998298 2 7/3/2009 10/29/200 9 10/29/200 9 10/29/200 9 0.004719474 30 0.0986 1.9439 0.004719474 30 30 30 0.4806 0.0181 10 0.141584 3.431990674 4.4636 0.8051 0.141584 0.004719474 0.4687 0.9365 Differe nce (gm) 0.22623659 0.641 0.4677 0.0677 0.004719474 0.0581 0.127839094 0.9076 0.004719474 0.141584 0.004719474 30 30 30 0.478 0.410356427 0.141584 0.4443 0.471 0.004719474 30 30 30 0.7315 10 10 10 0.141584 0.527340274 3.0326 0.141584 0.004719474 0.230251627 1.4714 0.004719474 0.141584 0.4684 0.004719474 0.141584 0.3272 0. Sn o Feedst Experime Initial No ock nt Date (gm) 1 Pine pellets 5/27/2009 5/29/2009 6/8/2009 pine+c at 0.8107 0.4686 0.SectionA1.141584 0.627 0.4732 0.334076747 0.1024 0.141584 Deposition (g/Nm³) 4.3048 m)³/min) 0.417642084 6 Cypres s 0.4688 0.7805 0.4806 0.085089285 3 Hardw ood 2/18/2010 4 Hardw ood 2/18/2010 2/18/2010 0.4842 0.06780416 2.993048428 2.4864 0.4368 10 10 10 0.4691 0.004719474 0.077208697 11/5/2009 5 Alfalfa 11/5/2009 11/5/2009 11/13/200 9 11/13/200 9 11/13/200 9 11/17/200 9 11/17/200 9 11/17/200 9 0.004719474 0.09111184 2.141584 0.004719474 0.5313 0.3: (i) Concentration of Particulates For Glass Fiber Filter Paper: Particulates.3152 0.4673 0.7188 0.1406 0.0473 0.004719474 0.141584 0.0129 0.478160587 0.004719474 0.141584 2.004719474 Durati on (min) 30 30 30 m³ 0.9223 1.6479 0.3423 10 10 10 0.4779 0.4789 Final (gm) 1.004719474 30 30 30 0.8107 0.4614 0.

0616 3.089 0.788223361 SCFH 10 10 10 m³ 0.004719474 0.14158423 0.3048 m)³/min) 0.004719474 0.16 4.628601068 0.1173 4.004719474 0.004719474 0.111594347 11/5/2009 5 Alfalfa 11/5/2009 11/5/2009 4.004719474 30 30 30 0.0187 4.14158423 0.9722 4.0035 10 10 10 0.018 0.1112 4.1121 4.0639 4.1271328 0.14158423 0.0266 0.0505 4.0409 4.14158423 0.389873921 0.0566 0.004719474 0.841195361 0.0362 4.14158423 0.14158423 0.1003 0.14158423 0.1302 4.14158423 0.004719474 Durat ion (min) 30 30 30 Deposition (g/Nm³) 0.18222368 0.0412 4.1236 4.7032 4.367272534 0.004719474 0.0211 10 10 10 0.0913 4.14158423 0.14158423 0.004719474 30 0.1409 0.052 0.14158423 2 pine+cat 7/3/2009 4.525482241 0.0971 4.0684 4.0078 0.1191 0.998 4.1081 4.0641 10 10 10 0.149027894 2/18/2010 4 Hardwo od 2/18/2010 2/18/2010 4.452734027 11/17/2009 7 Bark Nugget 11/17/2009 11/17/2009 4.1194 0.1555 4.1298 Differen ce (gm) 0.0058 0.0457 0.14158423 0.004719474 0. Feedsto ck Experimen t Date 5/27/2009 1 pine 5/29/2009 6/8/2009 Initial (gm) 4.SectionA1.004719474 0.1955 0.004719474 0.077 4.1036 4.14158423 0.322776054 0.075 0.145 0.14158423 0.380803469 0.995167308 0.14158423 0.085 0.5077 4.1156 0.004719474 30 30 30 0.0379 10 0.14158423 0.033 4.0158 10 10 10 0.004719474 0.267685174 10/29/2009 3 Hardwo od 10/29/2009 10/29/2009 4.042 10 10 10 0.004719474 30 30 30 0.14158423 1.1136 3.14158423 0.14158423 0.1036 4.024720267 89 .004719474 0.1378 4.105944 0.040965013 0.004719474 0.004719474 0.004719474 30 30 30 0.0552 0.0182 Final (gm) 4.0146 4.05509088 0.015 0.0258 0.1262 4.1198 4.26062224 3/11/2010 8 Corn 3/11/2010 3/11/2010 4.187874027 0.1106 4.2966432 11/13/2009 6 Cypress 11/13/2009 11/13/2009 4.3: (ii) Concentration of Tars For Acetone Bottles : Tars Sno No.004719474 30 30 30 0.1251 4.14158423 0.004719474 0.0369 10 10 10 0.1116 cfm ((.0744 0.14158423 0.0962 4.004719474 30 30 30 0.14158423 0.0362 4.

37458 1.4: Gas Chromatography Results Alfalfa Component H2 O2 N2 CO CH4 CO2 Bark Nugget Component H2 O2 N2 CO CH4 CO2 Cypress Mulch Component H2 O2 N2 CO CH4 CO2 Corn Component H2 O2 N2 CO CH4 CO2 Hardwood Component H2 O2 N2 CO 90 10.998059 14.90602 16.555212 2.83399 9.07486 100 16.299128 13.386127 50.97725 100 7.77528 6.20146 15.413195 16.69237 5.55117 11.387682 16.880825 1.45806 100 9.755832 3.919724 60.89815 100 .14757 2.195482 0.607696 54.679034 66.25293 3.36245 1.SectionA1.320185 58.596378 0.

124769 42.CH4 CO2 Pine Component H2 O2 N2 CO CH4 CO2 4.084746 16.26108 3.56786 18.082 1.98619 100 91 .41453 100 18.978105 15.

840 8.767 ND ND 0.634 0.010 0.895 0.01 % % % ND 171.021 Chicken after mg/kg 1525.827 0.410 129.255 279.01 0.459 146.043 857.137 10.498 0.504 ND ND 0.156 2.01 0.7) Sample Lab ID Sample Field ID Unit: Aluminum (Al) Arsenic (As) Boron (B) Barium (Ba) Beryllium (Be) Calcium (Ca) Cadmium (Cd) Cobalt (Co) Chromium (Cr) Copper (Cu) Iron (Fe) Potassium (K) Magnesium (Mg) Manganese (Mn) Molybdenum (Mo) Sodium (Na) Nickel (Ni) Phosphorus (P) Lead (Pb) Sulfur (S) Antimony (Sb) Selenium (Se) Silicone (Si) Tin (Sn) Strontium (Sr) Thallium (Tl) Vanadium (V) Yttrium (Y) Zinc (Zn) %C %N C/N %H Result Chicken Before mg/kg mg/kg 0.006 ND 0.243 ND 142.02 0.256 0.177 0.7 0.779 4.105 1.590 4.209 0.445 1.552 24.039 4166.345 92 .082 2017.345 2890.02 4.120 132.153 22.529 477.625 12.01 20.596 MDL 0.246 1.100 593.444 51.087 618.483 1.442 179.596 0.711 0.01 0.817 0.02 23.957 415.758 260.504 3712.261 0.612 0.260 0.832 1.088 0.106 ND ND 17.851 147.382 2234.193 66.360 1.171 18.347 ND ND ND 0.287 Pine after mg/kg 223.260 1249.344 0.087 0.121 0.840 2.971 110.01 0.405 ND 269.950 5.960 5789.368 0.606 ND 103.011 0.806 2.090 4715.029 0.638 ND ND 4.652 0.281 35.463 1231.163 ND 0.475 3.856 13.02 3670.062 0.758 2.129 251.211 0.997 1738.112 4.964 64.045 71.470 12.781 93.080 3.342 483.029 762.208 29.843 65.583 Pine Before mg/kg 41.785 Switchgrass before mg/kg 92.01 73.199 0.295 18.886 154.790 2.331 ND 411.467 53.024 0.242 690.697 ND 38.162 4.01 0.024 ND 67.773 ND ND 5.810 1.900 411.220 8.008 0.898 N/A 0.01 0.038 0.619 39.300 0.01 0.01 24.06 971.SectionA1.152 2.01 0.741 80.360 21.111 1.535 0.208 2768.285 0.066 2.428 3383.951 0.223 10.834 655.455 0.337 0.01 4839.115 1.032 1018.174 357.706 0.478 ND ND 0.636 0.034 8.398 0.162 1.810 0.995 ND 555.388 5.869 350.01 10.000 alfalfa mg/kg 405.542 3.01 1.876 0.157 0.653 0.01 2696.014 369.172 6210.425 1789.515 2287.01 0.163 0.335 0.298 904.826 0.800 N/A 140.5: Metal Analysis Results Metals (EPA 200.01 0.202 887.225 0.262 0.419 0.465 15124.

075 0.1 25.487 0.856 N/A* 0.682 2.24 H 0.218 0.28 39.255 1.724 N/A 3.352 5.569 5.118 0.838 3.02 41.46 42.683 5.225 Alfalfa Alfalfa After Bark Nugget Bark Nugget After Cypress Mulch Cypress Mulch After Corn Hardwood Pine Pine After Poultry Litter Poultry Litter After Switch Grass Dairy Manure Bagasse *N/A = Not Available 93 .792 5.32 23.207 2.87 64.547 1.553 87.164 0.12 71.461 0.326 5.6: Ultimate Analysis N N/A* 2.541 1.26 23.23 0.785 0.4 1.692 0.268 44.15 74.536 0.933 3.263 6.4 C 2.SectionA1.5 46.59 37.

and graduated May 2006 with a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering. The title of his thesis is ―Assessing the Suitability of Various Feedstocks or Biomass Gasification‖ 94 . India. India. He attended Rajiv Gandhi Technical University. in Rewa. Madhya Pradesh.VITA Akshya Sharma was born in 1983. In January 2008 he was admitted into the Master of Science program in the Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering at Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College and is currently pursuing the degree of Master of Science in Biological and Agricultural Engineering.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful