Biomass Gasification

IFRF Combustion Journal
Article Number 200109 November 2001

ISSN 1562-479X
STATUS OF BIOMASS GASIFICATION FOR POWER

PRODUCTION
SPLIETHOFF, Hartmut
Corresponding Author:
SPLIETHOFF, Hartmut
Delft University of Technology
Section Thermal Power Technology
Mekelweg 2
2628 CD Delft
THE NETHERLANDS
Tel.: + 31 (0)15 278 60 71

Fax: + 31 (0)152 78 24 60
E-mail: h.spliethoff@wbmt.tudelft.nl
 IFRF - Combustion Journal – 1999 - 2001

Email: journal@ifrf.net
IFRF Combustion Journal -2- H. Spliethoff
Article No 200109 November 2001
ABSTRACT
The most commonly used gasification technologies are fixed bed and fluidized bed
gasifiers. Fixed bed gasifiers are employed in the low-capacity range of some MWth,
fluidized bed installations, typically in the range above 5 MWth.
The gas produced in the gasifier can be used in various ways for electricity production
or for the production of process heat. The systems differ with respect to efficiency,
costs, and demand on the gas quality. Engines are suited for electric capacities between
ca. 50 kWe and 10 MWe in connection with atmospheric fixed-bed gasifiers. From a
capacity of about 5 MWe gas turbines, often in combination with a fluidised bed
gasifier, are an alternative. In order to avoid fouling and deposits in the engine, the gas
should be to a large degree tar- and dust-free. The requirements for fuel cells are more
stringent, however a clear concept about allowed concentrations in the product gas is
not yet available.
The gasifiers available on the market today exceed the indicated values by far when
operated without gas cleaning. The removal of both tar and particles is therefore a
requisite. The use of the product gases for thermal purposes does not make such high
demands on the quality regarding tar and dust content. So for those applications it is not
necessary to provide for a special gas cleaning.
Key Words:
Biomass, gasification, fixed bed, fluidized bed, tar

1. INTRODUCTION
The combustion of biomass can largely be considered state-of-the-art technology and

plants ranging in capacity from a few kW up to several MW are available on the market.
Gasification of biomass, in contrast, is a technology that could not yet find a wide use.
Two concepts of the process can be distinguished:
• Gas production for further thermal use, e.g. in a cement kiln, or for co-
combustion in a steam generator.
• Gas production for utilization in a turbine, motor or fuel cell. This technology
offers some important advantages. In power production from biomass in the
range of small and medium capacity plants with reasonable efficiency, it is only
gasification that can virtually be taken into consideration. With small-capacity
plants it is possible already to achieve a fairly good power efficiency (25%) in
combination with gas motors. In the medium- and high-capacity range it is
possible to realize combined gas and steam turbine processes with possible
efficiency levels above 45% [1]. The future concept conceivable is the
combination of biomass gasification and fuel cells, featuring the asset of a high
power generation efficiency.
2. GASIFICATION METHODS
Gasification means the thermochemical conversion of carbonaceous solid fuels into a

gaseous energy medium by adding an oxidizing agent (air, oxygen, water vapour).
Industrial gasification processes run at more than 700°C, depending on the method even
temperatures up to 1200°C can be reached. If air or oxygen is used, the oxidation
reactions can supply the heat necessary for covering the endothermic stages; so external
energy supply is not necessary (autothermal gasification).
The processes in the gasifier can be broken down into different stages:
• Drying: vaporization of the moisture
• Pyrolysis: release of volatile matter
• Gasification: partial oxidation of the char and heterogeneous
reactions with CO2, H2O
• Gas phase reactions: reactions of the gaseous components formed in
the first stages
The gasification reactors are distinguished according to fixed bed gasifier, fluidized bed
gasifier, and other construction types (rotary kiln, entrained flow). The most commonly
used among these are fixed bed and fluidized bed gasifiers. Fixed bed gasifiers are
employed in the low-capacity range of some MWth, fluidized bed installations, typically
in the range above 5 MWth. The fluidized bed types can be divided into bubbling and
circulating systems. An additional distinction with gasifiers is made between
pressurized and atmospheric installations.
2.1. Fixed Bed Gasifier
In fixed bed gasifiers, the fuel is gasified in a bed layer. The fuel goes through different
zones where the gasification reactions take place (drying, pyrolysis, oxidation and
reduction). A distinction regarding the flow is made between counter current and co-
current gasifiers.
The common type of a counter-current gasifier is a vertical reactor where the feedstock
is entered from the top and the gasifying medium added at the bottom (Figure 1). The
directions of fuel flow and gas flow being opposed, separate reaction zones form in the
reactor. The raw gas rises inside the reactor and leaves at the top section, which is why
this type is also designated as updraft gasification. Counter-current gasifiers have the
advantage that they do not require any special fuel preparation thus allowing the
gasification of a wide range of biomass types with different particle sizes and moisture
contents.
Through forced convection, the gas heated by oxidation in a bottom zone rises and
transfers heat to the fuel. The gas leaves the gasifier with a relatively low temperature,
which indicates a high gasification efficiency of this process. The drawback of it results
from volatile matter, produced in the pyrolysis zone, which is carried in the rising gas
stream. In consequence, the raw gas of counter current gasifiers contains a considerable
amount of tar compounds.
Fuel Fuel
Temperature
level
200 °C
Gas
Drying zone 400 °C Drying zone
Pyrolysis zone 600 °C Pyrolysis zone
Oxidation Air 950 °C Reduction zone

Air zone
Reduction zone Grate 1300 °C Oxidation zone

Heart
Gas Air
Ash
Figure 1: Co-current gasifier (downdraft gasification, left) and counter current gasifier
(updraft gasification)
In a co-current gasifier, fuel and gasifying agent move in the same direction (Figure 1).
The pelletized biofuel, at first dried and pyrolyzed nearly in the absence of air in the
upper zones reaches further down the very hot oxidation zone, from where, changed
into char and ash, it falls into the reduction zone. The gases mainly produced in the
pyrolysis zone are heated to fairly more than 1,000°C in the oxidation zone. In this
process, high-tar gaseous compounds in the gas are to a great extent converted into low-
tar components, which then react with the char in the subsequent reduction zone
producing additional gas. The raw gas issues from the bottom reactor section, hence the
other designation of downdraft gasification. In contrast to counter-current gasification,
the heat transfer between biofuel and gasifying agent in co-current gasification is low,
so the raw gas has a relatively high temperature.
There is also a higher tendency of slag formation in co-current than in counter current
gasifiers because of the high temperatures in the oxidation zone. A uniform temperature
distribution within the individual reactor zones and a well-formed perviousness to gas of
the char layer are decisive factors for the gas quality. Co-current gasifiers therefore
make greater demands on the fuel preparation with regard to particle size and moisture
content. The major advantage of co-current gasifiers is that the raw gas produced
contains far less tar products and other high-boiling compounds than the gas from
counter current gasifiers.
2.2. Fluidized-Bed Gasifier
Fluidized-bed gasification makes use of the positive features of fluidized beds regarding
mixing, reaction kinetics, gas-solids contact and heat transfer, and the possibility of
additive injection. The bed material mainly used is silica sand or, in the case of high-ash
fuels, the ash of the fuel. The gasification temperature is typically in the range of 800 -
950°C. The long residence time of the solid fuel and the intensive mixing are the
reasons why very high gasification rates are achieved. The basic construction types are
bubbling (BFB) and circulating (CFB) fluidized beds (Figure 2).
In a bubbling fluidized bed, the velocity is clearly lower than the terminal velocity from
the bed material. The freeboard has therefore a gas flow, which contains only small ash
particles. In the circulating fluidized bed, in contrast, the approach velocity lies in the
order of magnitude of the terminal velocity, as a consequence the bed material is also
carried into the freeboard thus forming a gas/solids flow in the entire reactor. By way of
a cyclone, the carried away bed material is separated from the gas stream and
recirculated into the reactor. The CFB features a clearly higher specific output. In
addition, the gas/solids flow makes the mixing efficiency higher than in a BFB, which
results in a better fuel conversion and lower tar contents. Drawbacks are the higher
demand on the fuel properties (grains) and the clearly higher pressure loss (process
power consumption).
Product gas
Product gas
Cyclone
Fluidized bed
Cyclone
Freeboard
Biomass Biomass
Ash
Fluidized bed
Ash
Air Ash Air Ash
Bubbling Fluidized Bed Circulating Fluidized Bed
Figure 2: Principles of fluidized bed gasifiers
What is more, controlling the bed material and the recirculation flow is more complex
and the construction must be much taller than for an BFB. For lower outputs, a bubbling
fluidized bed is therefore the better solution. Regarding the tar content, bubbling
fluidized beds perform much worse (by about one order of magnitude) than co-current
fixed-bed gasifiers. Circulating fluidized beds are somewhat better, but do not reach the
values of fixed bed gasifiers.
3. GAS UTILIZATION AND REQUIREMENTS
The gas produced in the gasifier can be used in various ways for electricity production
or for the production of process heat. The systems in this respect differ with regard to
efficiency, costs, and demand on the gas quality. Engines are suited for capacities
between ca. 50 kWe and 10 MWe in connection with atmospheric fixed-bed or fluidized-
bed gasifiers. With engines or gas turbines without waste heat recovery, the overall
electricity production efficiency achievable has a maximum of about 30%. Smaller
plants (< 10 MWe), however, will only yield about 25%. The efficiencies are somewhat
above those achievable in this capacity range using a steam turbine process.
From a capacity of about 5 MWe gas turbines are the better technology. Adequate
gasifiers are atmospheric or pressurized fluidized bed reactors. In the case of gas
turbines, it is possible to increase the efficiency up to 48% by topping a waste-heat
boiler with steam turbine (capacities >25 MWe). In the range of 10 MWe this
configuration allows to still achieve about 30%.
Table 1: Required values of the gas quality for the use in gas engines
Component Maximum allowable Concentration to be

concentration achieved
(guideline value)
Particle < 50 mg/m³ < 5 mg/m³
Tar < 100 mg/m³ < 50 mg/m³
Table 2: Required values of the gas quality for the use in gas turbines
Component Allowable concentration (guideline

value)
Particle < 1 ppm
Tar 5 mg/m³
HCl < 0.5 ppm
S (H2S+SO2 etc.) 1 ppm
Na < 1ppm
K < 1ppm
other metals < 1ppm

In order to avoid fouling and deposits in the engine, the gas should be tar- and dust-free
to a large degree. The demand on the gas quality is very high. Typical values to be
achieved for the use in gas engines are listed in Table 1 [2]. Among these, turbo-
charged engines make a higher demand on the gas quality. Table 2 shows the required
values for gas turbines [3].
The gasifiers available on the market today exceed the indicated values by far when
operated without gas cleaning. The removal of both tar and particles is therefore a
requisite. The gas quality values to be achieved are the result of a compromise between
increased expenditure for the gas cleaning and a higher demand on maintenance for the
engine or the turbine, respectively.
The use of the product gases for thermal purposes does not make such high demands on
the quality regarding tar and dust content. So it is not necessary to provide for a special
gas cleaning. In order to avoid condensation of the tar species and to make use of the
sensible heat, the gas should not be cooled down. The use for fuelling furnaces arises in
the industry from the production of lime and cement, cellulose and paper, and ceramics
and glass. There is in addition the possibility to produce steam or hot water in
conventional boilers.
The gas cleaning demand for fuel cells diminishes with increasing operating
temperatures, so the product gas from a gasifier can best be used in molten carbonate
fuel cells, MCFC, or solid oxide fuel cells, SOFC. These two fuel cell types tolerate
CO2 and CO in the product gas. The allowable concentrations for chlorine and sulphur
make it necessary, depending on the biomass type, to remove these components from
the product gas. The requirements concerning the particulate matter content are
expected to be similar to a gas turbine. A clear concept about allowed concentrations in
the product gas is not yet available.
IFRF Combustion Journal - 10 - H. Spliethoff
4. TAR FORMATION AND REDUCTION
4.1. Tar formation in gasification
The tar species formed in gasification consist of aromatic and polyaromatic

hydrocarbons. Major tar components often occurring in concentrations clearly higher
than 5% are toluene, naphthalene, and, with process temperatures lower than 800°C,
phenol. Besides, there is a great number of compounds that only occur as trace
elements, taken as a group though may constitute a considerable fraction of the tar
quantity. Figure 3 shows the structures of some typical tar components. At temperatures
over 800°C in particular, macromolecular components with up to seven benzene rings
may occur in addition.
CH3 CH=CH2 CH3

OH OH
CH3 CH3
Benzene Toluene Styren Xylene Phenol Cresol
CH3 CH3
CH3
Indene Naphthalene Methylnaphthalene Dimethylnaphthalene
Acenaphthylene Phenanthrene Anthracene
Figure 3: Structure of a number of tar components
The literature does not provide any uniform definition of the term "tar species".
Commonly all aromatic hydrocarbons are grouped together under this term. According
to this definition, benzene is one of the tar species as well, although it does not cause
problems by condensate formation in gasification systems for driving engines. Whether
a component condenses when the temperature falls below the boiling point depends on
the steam pressure and on the concentration.
Figure 4 shows the saturated concentration of some typical tar components. Benzene, at
25°C for instance, reveals a saturated concentration of more than 300g/m³. Since this
value is higher by orders of magnitude than the typical concentration in the gas,
condensation of benzene is not to be expected. On the other hand, components such as
fluorene feature saturated concentration values of only a few mg/m³ at 25°C, so an
almost complete condensation has to be taken into account.
Concentration [g/m³]
10 000
1 000
Benzene Phenol
100
Anthracen
10
Toluene
Fluoren
1
Pyrene
0.1
Naphthalene
0.01
1E-3
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Temperature [°C]
Figure 4: Saturated concentrations of some tar components in nitrogen
The use in fuel cells, however, makes not only condensation a decisive factor but rather
puts a limit on the content of all aromatic components.
The tar quantity and composition at the outlet of a gasifier highly depend on its
construction and the operating parameters. Co-current fixed-bed gasifiers produce a gas
with a relatively low tar content whereas the gas from counter-current gasifiers contains
a high level of tar. In a co-current gasifier, the pyrolysis gases flow through the hot
reaction zone so the tar species get cracked. The tar content, resulting in fluidized-bed
gasification lies between the two values.
With increasing process temperatures, the tar content shows a drastic drop. At 900°C,
50% less tar is produced than at 700°C. Below 600°C, tar production strongly increases.
Towards higher temperatures, there is also a shift in the composition. The benzene
concentration increases, and at 900°C, benzene comprises more than 50% of the
aromatics. The other monocyclic compounds by contrast show a strong decrease.
Oxygen-containing components such as phenol occur only at temperatures up until
800°C. The number of detectable compounds diminishes in general [4].
A less marked impact on tar formation could be detected coming from the air ratio.
Increasing air ratios result in a slight decline of tar production. The composition shifts
towards benzene and naphthalene in this process. The oxygen-containing compounds
decrease. Considering the residence time, this study could establish only very little
influence.
The effect of fuel types and a number of operating parameters like air ratio, temperature
and additives was investigated extensively at a fluidized bed plant at the Institute for
Process Engineering and Power Plant Technology (IVD), University of Stuttgart. For
the determination of the tar content, the project team at the institute developed a quasi-
continuous tar measuring method [5].
Figure 5 shows the influence of all investigated parameters on the tar content in the gas.
The reference is the standard test with beech wood at 800 °C and an air ratio of λ = 0.25
with a tar concentration of about 8 g/m³. The graphic shows for each case the changes
caused by the modification of a parameter as opposed to the standard test. The most
effective measure established in the tests was the use of catalytic material, dolomite in
particular. In using this material, rates interesting for the direct utilization of the gas are
reached at temperatures above 900°C. At the optimum, with a dolomite bed, at 920°C,
and an air ratio of λ = 0.35, merely 250 mg/m³ are produced, i.e. only one thirtieth of
the tar compared with the standard test. Although the target value of 100 mg/m³ could
not be achieved even with a dolomite bed, the results can be considered very promising.
Figure 5: Influence on the tar content by the tested operating parameters compared with
the standard test
4.1. Tar reduction by gas cleaning
Removal of the formed tar species from the gas flow is very difficult. When the
temperature stays or falls below the dew point, aerosols form which even with great
effort can only partly be removed. The most important of the commonly used systems
and their efficiencies are given in Table 3.
Table 3: Tar-reducing potential of some gas cleaning methods [6]
Temperature Tar Reduction

Bag filter Ca. 200 °C max. 25 %
Sand bed filter 10 – 20 °C 60 - 95%
Rotating tower scrubber 50 – 60 °C 10 - 25 %
Venturi scrubber 50 - 90 %
wet electrostatic precipitator 40 – 50 °C - 60 %
The best tar removal among these is achieved with a sand bed filter. However, even
here the removal efficiency only reaches a maximum of 95%. In order to attain the
required contents of 100 mg/m³, raw gas contents of 2 g/m³ are the maximum allowable.
Relatively high removal rates of up to 90 % can be achieved with venturi scrubbers as
well. Here though, the content of tar species in the raw gas should be only at about 1
g/m³, a value, which many gasifiers exceed by far. Another problem is the disposal of
the produced scrubber water or the contaminated sand from the sand bed filter.
4.1.1. Catalytic tar reduction
Distinctly higher tar reduction rates than with gas cleaning can be achieved with
catalytic hot gas cleaning. In this process the gasifier is backed by a "tar cracker", which
consists of a fixed bed, a fluidized bed, or a honeycomb structure filled with
catalytically active material. Materials that revealed themselves as extremely effective
in reducing tar are limestone and dolomite. Likewise, nickel catalysts are known to have
a very high reduction efficiency, in particular, commercial catalysts for steam
reforming.
The advantage of these systems is that no waste matter is produced in the ideal case, and
that the chemical energy of the tar species remains in the gas, thus having an efficiency-
enhancing effect. The catalytic hot gas cleaning is a reasonable variant of tar reduction
if high-temperature fuel cells are used. In some investigations, dolomite brought about
tar reduction rates of more than 99.5 %, nickel compounds even achieved up to 99.99 %
[7].
The drawback of such systems, are the relatively high costs for the additional
equipment. What is more, to raise the temperature to the optimum process level, a
certain quantity of air often needs to be added for partially combusting the gas, a factor
unfavourably affecting the efficiency.
A relatively little studied method is the use of catalytically working material in the bed
or as an additive in the gasifier reactor itself. Possible materials for this purpose are
basically limestone, dolomite, and nickel compounds. Nickel catalysts, however, as bed
material or additive involves a number of disadvantages. Firstly, nickel dust is toxic –
concerning in particular the ash, which gets contaminated by nickel. Secondly, the
catalysts very quickly loose their effectiveness in the presence of carbon due to carbon
deposit formation of the surfaces, in consequence are only suited for equipment
connected after a dust removal stage.
5. STATE OF THE ART AND RESEARCH DEMAND
5.1. Fixed bed gasification and utilization of gas in a motor
The gasification of biomass in fixed bed gasifiers and the utilization of the gas in motors
is an attractive possibility to generate heat and power in a power range up to 1-2 MWth.
The co-current bed gasifier is superior to the counter-flow because of lower tar
concentrations in the range of several 100 mg/m3. According to Table 4, a quite large
number of gasifiers and gas utilization systems have been tested, demonstrated or
operated. However most installations experienced operational problems with fuel
feeding, gasifier operation, gas cleaning and prime movers. A successful long term
operation of an integrated installation with gasifier, gas cleaning and gas utilization
system under European boundary conditions is not known to the authors.
Table 4: Selected co-current gasifiers [8].
Manufacturer Location Fuel Power

IISc India Woody biomass 20 – 400 kWel
DASAG/ CH Chatel-St-Denis 40 – 135 kWel
Martezo/ F Different units Wood 20 – 120 kWel
worldwide e.g Hogild
Chevet /F Developing countries Wood, coconut shell 350 kWel
Imbert/ F Weilerwist wood 250 kWel
Wamsler/ Hugo München Wood 600 – 1500 kWth
Petersen/ D
AHT/ D Four gasifiers in D/ Wood 25 – 100 kWel

CH/ A
Bio-Heizstoffwerk Berlin Wood, paper, straw, 10 – 500 kWel

Berlin / D peat
HTV /CH, D Kerstenholz, Waste wood 450 – 700 kWth
Espenhain
Schelde / NL Vlissingen Sludge 1 MWth
Kara / NL Vanuatu, Ecoblok, Wood 35 – 150 kWel

develop. countries
Gabsi/ E Wood 600 – 1500 kWth

Melima / CH Endingen Wood 10 kWel
MHB / D Fürstenwald Wood 3,3 MWth
SRC-Gazel Louvain Wood 150 kWel
NIHPBS /Irl Enniskillen Wood 100kWel; 200 kWth
Fluidyne/ NZ, Terry Bristol Wood 30 kWel
Adams / UK
Rural Generation Londonderry Wood 100 kWel
B9- Energy Biomass Armagh Wood 204 kWel
LtD / UK
Figure 6: Scheme of an open top gasifier /8/

A number of installations have been operated successfully in India for several years.
This system can be characterized by nearly no automation and a wet gas cleaning with a
sand bed filter for final tar removal, see Figure 6. European standards however require
fully automated installations and a gas cleaning system with disposable by-products.
Current developments concentrate to solve problems of automation, fuel feeding,

gasifier operation, gas cleaning and treatment of by-products. Major concern still
remains the tar concentrations.
5.2. Fluidized bed gasification
Nowadays there are several fluidised bed gasifiers for biomass in the world in design
phase, or already operating on a demonstration or (semi-) commercial scale. These are
from:
5.2.1. Battelle (FERCO corp.)
In the late 1970’s Battelle Columbus developed indirectly heated gasification

technology to produce a medium heating value gas (15-17 MJ/m3n, HHV basis) from
biomass [9]. The process features two interconnected atmospheric pressure circulating
fluidised bed (CFB) reactors for separate steam gasification in one reactor and residual
char oxidation with air in the second one with solids exchange between the two reactors.
Several biomass fuels were tested, including pine poplar and switch grass, which are
potential dedicated energy plantation crops suitable for moderate climates. At
Burlington (Vermont/ USA) a demonstration unit runs at the McNeil power station.
5.2.2. Foster Wheeler Energy International Inc.
Bioflow Ltd. was joint venture company initially formed in 1992 to market the
pressurised CFB technology developed by the Swedish Company Sydkraft AB and
Foster Wheel International Inc.. [10,11]. The combined-cycle demonstration unit at
Värnamo comprised a pressurised air-blown CFB gasifier operating at 950-1000 °C and
at approximately 2 MPa, see figure 7. The fuels tested were wood chips, bark, straw and
RDF. The fuel input is circa 18 MWth. The installation was equipped with a 4 MWe
AGT Typhoon gas turbine and a steam turbine in a combined cycle configuration. In
autumn 1999, the plant has been taken out of service again for economical reasons.
In Lahti, Foster Wheeler Energia Oy has designed and constructed a CFB gasifier of
which the low calorific product gas is combusted in a pulverised coal-fired boiler, co-
fired with natural gas. The existing 350 MWth Kymijärvi power plant belongs to the
Finnish power company Lahden Lämpövoima Oy. The fuels are saw dust, wet and dry
wood residues and recycled fuel (like plastics, paper, cardboard and wood). The gasifier
has a capacity in the range of 40-70 MW on thermal basis [12]. The project has been co-
financed by the European Union in the framework of their Thermie program.
5.2.3. Institute of Gas Technology (IGT) / Carbona Inc.
IGT developed the Renugas Process, a pressurised bubbling fluidised bed gasifier
(BFB) which utilises air and steam as fluidising media. [13]. A 15 MWth pilot plant of
this process was constructed in Tampere (Finland) by Enviropower Inc., a subsidiary of
Tampella Power [14]. The installation was commissioned in 1993 as a demonstration
plant and has operated for more than 2000 hours on paper mill wastes, straw and coal
mixtures, alfalfa stems and a variety of wood fuels, in total more than 5000 tonnes. The
pressure at which the gasifier operates is circa 2 MPa [15, 16].
At the Biomass Gasifier Facility (BGF) on the site of the HC&S sugar factory in Paia,
Hawaii (Maui) a Renugas biomass gasifier was constructed and operated until 1998.
The effective capacity of the installation was 50 dry tonnes per day and the pressure of
operation around 2 MPa. Westinghouse Electric Corporation (WEC) used this
demonstration unit to test their high temperature ceramic filter technology for hot gas
cleanup under pressurised gasification conditions [13].
Figure 7: Scheme of the Värnamo BIG GT plant
5.2.4. Lurgi Energy und Umwelt Inc.
The German internationally operating company Lurgi is involved in CFB gasification

technology of biomass as designer/constructor. Since 1983 the CFB reactor in the Lurgi
AG Research and Development Centre has been operated in the gasification mode more
than 8000 hours during test runs. This test gasifier has a thermal capacity of 1.7 MWth.
The company designed and constructed CFB gasifiers for use in cement industry in
Austria (Pöls, 27 MWth based on tree bark fuel, now shut down) and in Germany
(Rüdersdorf, 100 MWth, operating on clean/waste wood, RDF, lignite waste and rubber
waste). Currently two European projects on biomass gasification for power generation
are based on Lurgi technology. In Italy (Pisa) the European Union co-finances a project
“Energy Farm”. The project comprises a CFB air-blown gasifier integrated with a
combined cycle of a 10.9 MWe single shaft Nuovo Pignone PGT10 B/1 gas turbine and
a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) of 5 MWe on rated power basis. The design
fuel consists of a mixture of wood chips from short rotation coppice (SRC), as well as
forest and agricultural residues, including olive-stones and grape-seed flour. The
commissioning phase of the project was envisaged to commence during autumn 2000
[17], however it has been delayed.
The second European project, in which Lurgi contributed to the construction of the
gasifier, is a wood fuel based gasifier, which has been constructed at the site of EPZ’s
Amer power station in the Netherlands. The installation is an 80 MWth air-blown CFB
gasifier with a cold gas cleanup unit consisting of a gas cooler, baghouse filter and
scrubber. The gas is co-fired in a pulverised coal combustor unit [18]. Initial start-up
tests have been performed.
5.2.5. Termiska Processor Sweden AB. (TPS)
TPS is a privately owned research and development company based in Sweden. The
focus of the company is on air-blown circulating fluidised bed technology for biomass
and Refuse Derived Fuels (RDF). Nowadays the company is involved in four main
projects concerning biomass and RDF gasification.
In Italy (Greve-in-Chianti) TPS technology was licensed to Ansaldo Aerimpianti SpA

for use in a waste-fuelled gasification plant [19, 20]. The facility uses 200 tonnes per
day of pelletised RDF, which is fed to two CFB units, with a total capacity of 30 MWth.
The resulting producer gas is burnt in a boiler to generate steam for a 6.7 MWe
condensing steam turbine.
In Brazil two projects are ongoing [16]. First there is the Brazilian wood-fired BIG GT
demonstation project. Main goal of this project is to prove commercial viability of BIG
GT technology using wood from eucalyptus plantations. The net electric power output
is projected to be 32 MWe.
Table 5: Current (semi-) commercial fluidised bed biomass gasification projects,
an overview
Gasifier Fuels Use of product gas Current status

Ruedersdorf/D 100 MW ACFB, Wood, RDF, Cement kiln Operation
Lurgi
lignite, waste
Zeltweg/ A 10 MW ACFB, AEE Wood PC Co-firing 1997-2000
Pietarsaari/ FIN 35 MW ACFB, FW Bark, Lime kiln 1983
Wood, waste
Norrsundet/ S 27 MW ACFB, FW Bark, wood Lime kiln 1985
waste
Rodao Mill/ P 17 MW ACFB, FW Bark, wood Lime kiln 1986

waste
Lahti/ FIN 40-70 MW ACFB, PC/ NG boiler 1997
FW
Geertruidenberg 80 MW ACFB, Wood waste PC Co-firing 2000
Lurgi
/NL
Aerimpianti / I ACFB, RDF Steam cycle 7 MWe Demo
TPS
Burlington (USA) Battelle Columbus Initially steam Demo
interconnected cycle power plant
CFB’s
Granite Falls, Carbona BIG GT, Definition
Minnesota (USA) Pressurised BFB 75 MWe
Hawaii (USA) IGT Renugas Gas cleanup Shut-down
1998
Pressurised BFB Testing
Värnamo/ S 18 MW PCFB, FW IGCC Shut-down
(Bioflow) 1999
Tampere/ FIN 7MWe PBFB IGCC Unknown

Carbona
Biocycle
Pisa /I, (Energy 16 MWe ACFB Wood chips IGCC 2001
Farm) Lurgi
Bahia (Brasil) 32 MWe ACFB, Eucalyptus IGCC Definition

TPS wood
Aire Valley/ UK 8MWe ACFB, TPS Willow, IGCC 2001

(ARBRE) poplar
In Europe TPS air-blown gasification technology has been applied in the EU co-funded
ARBRE project in the United Kingdom. Construction of the unit has been performed by
the Dutch company NEM/Schelde. The site is Eggorough in North Yorkshire. The fuel
used, will be willow and poplar from dedicated short rotation coppice. The power plant
is an IGCC unit, including an AGT gas turbine. The net electric power output is 8
MWe. Start-up was planned at the beginning of the year 2000 [21]. Table 5 gives an
overview of the main demonstration projects.
6. SUMMARY
Gasification of biomass offers the possibility to achieve higher efficiencies in

comparison to biomass combustion by utilization of the product gas in a gas engine, a
gas turbine or in the future in a fuel cell.
Fixed bed gasifiers are employed in the low-capacity range up to some MWth, normally
in combination with a wet gas cleaning system and a gas engine. Although a quite large
number of gasifiers and gas utilization systems have been tested, demonstrated or
operated, operational problems with fuel feeding, gasifier operation, gas cleaning and
prime movers are not yet solved.
Adequate gasifiers for higher capacities above about 5 MWth are atmospheric or
pressurized fluidized bed reactors. In combination with a gas turbine, it is possible to
increase the efficiency up to 48% by topping a waste-heat boiler with steam turbine
(capacities >25 MWe). In the range of 10 MWe this configuration allows to still achieve
about 30%. A Biomass Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle with a Pressurized
circulating Fluidized bed has been demonstrated in Sweden, a IGCC with an
atmospheric CFB gasifier is being demonstrated in the UK.
The thermal utilization of the product gases for example in a pulverized coal power
plant or a cement provides the advantage of lower gas quality requirements and has
been demonstrated or is being operated at several locations.
REFERENCES
[1] BRIDGEWATER A.V.: The Technical and Economical Feasibility of Biomass

Gasification for Power Generation. Fuel 74, pp.631-653, 1995
[2] BEENACKERS A.A.C.M., MANIATIS K.: Gasification technologies for heat

and power from biomass. In Kaltschmitt M. and Bridgewater AV (Hrg):
Biomass Gasification and Pyrolysis, CPL Press Newbury UK, 1997
[3] BRIDGEWATER, A.V.: An Assessment of thermochemical Conversion

Systems for Processing Biomass and Refuse. ETSU Report B/T1/00207/REP,
UK Department of Trade & Industry, 1993
[4] KIOSHITA, C.M., WANG, Y., ZHOU, J.: Tar Formation under different
Biomass Gasification Conditions. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis
29, 1994, Seite 169-181
[5] MOERSCH, O.: Entwicklung einer On-Line-Meßmethode zur Bestimmung des

Teergehaltes im Produktgas der Biomassevergasung. VDI-Fortschrittberichte,
VDI Verlag, Düsseldorf, 2000
[6] HASLER P., BÜHLER R. UND NUßBAUMER T.: Evaluation of gas

cleaning technologies for biomass gasification. Tagungsband Biomass for
Energy and Industry, C.A.R.M.E.N., Rimpar 1998
[7] BEENACKERS AACM UND MANIATIS K.: Gas cleaning in electricity

production via gasisification of biomass: Conclusions of the workshop. In
Bridgwater AV (Hrg): Advances in thermochemical Biomass conversion.
Blackie 1994, page 540-546
[8] KALTSCHMITT, M., HARTMANN, H.: Energie aus Biomasse, Grundlagen,

Techniken und Verfahren. Springer Verlag, 2001
[9] PAISLEY, M.A., FARRIS, G., SLACK, W., IRVING, J.: Commercial
development of the Battelle/Ferco biomass gasification process - initial
operation of the McNeil gasifier, Proceedings of The Third Biomass Conference
of the America’s: making a business from biomass in Energy, Environment,
Chemicals, Fibers and Materials, Pergamon Press, August 24-29, Montreal,
Canada, 1997
[10] STÅHL, K., NEERGAARD, M., NILSSON, P.: Pressurized CFB gasification
– The Värnamo Plant, Proceedings of the International Conference of
Gasification and Pyrolysis of Biomass, pp. 160-171, April 9 –11, 1997, Stuttgart,
Germany
[11] STÅHL, K., NEERGAARD, M.: IGCC Power Plant For Biomass Utilisation,
Värnamo, Sweden, Biomass & Bioenergy,15 (3), pp.205-211, 1998
[12] NIEMINEN, J., KIVELÄ, M.: Biomass CFB gasifier connected to a 350
MWth steam boiler fired with coal and natural gas – Thermie demonstration
project in Lahti in Finland, Biomass & Bioenergy,15 (1998), pp.251-257, 1998.
[13] LAU, F.S.: The Hawaiian Project, Biomass & Bioenergy,15 (1998), pp.233-
238.
[14] SALO, K., HORVATH, A., MOJTAHEDI, W., PATEL, J.: Pressurized
Gasification of Biomass, Paper 98-GT-349 presented at the ASME Turbo Expo
’98, June 2-5, 1998, Stockholm, Sweden.
[15] US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE): DOE Biomass power program,

strategic plan 1996-2015, report number DOE/GO-10096-345 by the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, USA, 1996
[16] ARRIETA, F.R.P., SANCHEZ, C.G.: BIG-GT and CEST Technologies for
Sugar Cane Mill. Thermodynamic and Economic Assessments, Proceedings of
the second Olle Lindström Symposium, pp 184-189, June 9-11 1999,
Stockholm, Sweden.
[17] DE LANGE, H.J., BARBUCCI, P.: The Thermie Energy Farm Project,
Biomass and Bioenergy, 15 (1998), pp. 219-224.
[18] WILLEBOER, W.: AMER demolition wood gasification project, Biomass &
Bioenergy,15(1998), pp. 245-249.
[19] BARDUCCI, G., ULIVIERI, P., PIKE, D.C., MCDONALD, N., REPETTO,
F., CRISTO, F.: The Greve in Chianti Project, Renewable Energy, 16 (1999),
pp. 1041-1044.
[20] RENSFELT, E.K.W. Atmospheric CFB gasification – The Greve plant and
beyond, Proceedings of the International Conference of Gasification and
Pyrolysis of Biomass, pp.139-159, April 9 –11 1997, Stuttgart, Germany.
[21] PITCHER, K., HILTON, B, LUNDBERG, H.: The ARBRE project: Progress
achieved, Biomass & Bioenergy,15 (1998), pp.213-218.

Biomass Gasification

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biomass Gasification

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IFRF Combustion Journal

Article Number 200109 November 2001

STATUS OF BIOMASS GASIFICATION FOR POWER

Tel.: + 31 (0)15 278 60 71

 IFRF - Combustion Journal – 1999 - 2001

Biomass, gasification, fixed bed, fluidized bed, tar

The combustion of biomass can largely be considered state-of-the-art technology and

Gasification means the thermochemical conversion of carbonaceous solid fuels into a

2.1. Fixed Bed Gasifier

Drying zone 400 °C Drying zone

Pyrolysis zone 600 °C Pyrolysis zone

Oxidation Air 950 °C Reduction zone

Reduction zone Grate 1300 °C Oxidation zone

2.2. Fluidized-Bed Gasifier

Air Ash Air Ash

Bubbling Fluidized Bed Circulating Fluidized Bed

Figure 2: Principles of fluidized bed gasifiers

3. GAS UTILIZATION AND REQUIREMENTS

Component Maximum allowable Concentration to be

Particle < 50 mg/m³ < 5 mg/m³

Tar < 100 mg/m³ < 50 mg/m³

Component Allowable concentration (guideline

Particle < 1 ppm

HCl < 0.5 ppm

S (H2S+SO2 etc.) 1 ppm

other metals < 1ppm

4.1. Tar formation in gasification

The tar species formed in gasification consist of aromatic and polyaromatic

CH3 CH=CH2 CH3

Benzene Toluene Styren Xylene Phenol Cresol

Indene Naphthalene Methylnaphthalene Dimethylnaphthalene

Acenaphthylene Phenanthrene Anthracene

Figure 3: Structure of a number of tar components

Figure 4: Saturated concentrations of some tar components in nitrogen

4.1. Tar reduction by gas cleaning

Table 3: Tar-reducing potential of some gas cleaning methods [6]

Temperature Tar Reduction

4.1.1. Catalytic tar reduction

5. STATE OF THE ART AND RESEARCH DEMAND

5.1. Fixed bed gasification and utilization of gas in a motor

Table 4: Selected co-current gasifiers [8].

Manufacturer Location Fuel Power

AHT/ D Four gasifiers in D/ Wood 25 – 100 kWel

Bio-Heizstoffwerk Berlin Wood, paper, straw, 10 – 500 kWel

Kara / NL Vanuatu, Ecoblok, Wood 35 – 150 kWel

Gabsi/ E Wood 600 – 1500 kWth

Figure 6: Scheme of an open top gasifier /8/

Current developments concentrate to solve problems of automation, fuel feeding,

5.2. Fluidized bed gasification

5.2.1. Battelle (FERCO corp.)

In the late 1970’s Battelle Columbus developed indirectly heated gasification

5.2.2. Foster Wheeler Energy International Inc.

5.2.3. Institute of Gas Technology (IGT) / Carbona Inc.

Figure 7: Scheme of the Värnamo BIG GT plant

5.2.4. Lurgi Energy und Umwelt Inc.

The German internationally operating company Lurgi is involved in CFB gasification

5.2.5. Termiska Processor Sweden AB. (TPS)

In Italy (Greve-in-Chianti) TPS technology was licensed to Ansaldo Aerimpianti SpA

Gasifier Fuels Use of product gas Current status

Rodao Mill/ P 17 MW ACFB, FW Bark, wood Lime kiln 1986

Tampere/ FIN 7MWe PBFB IGCC Unknown

Bahia (Brasil) 32 MWe ACFB, Eucalyptus IGCC Definition

Aire Valley/ UK 8MWe ACFB, TPS Willow, IGCC 2001