AREAS NEED TO BE FOCUSED FOR MAKING GASIFICATION AS A VIABLE - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

AREAS NEED TO BE FOCUSED FOR MAKING GASIFICATION AS A VIABLE TECHNOLOGY FOR GASIFICATION AS A VIABLE TECHNOLOGY FOR POWER GENERATION

BIOMASS Feedstock & Technology

Gasification India 2016, 11‐12‐ February 2016, New Delhi

P Raman, Ph.D. E E i t T h l D l t Di i i

Gasification India 2016, 11 12 February 2016, New Delhi

Energy Environment Technology Development Division The Energy and Resources Institute, New Delhi, India ,

Email ID: praman@teri.res.in; raman03@gmail.com

Outline Outline

• Introduction
• Energy access
• Biomass and biomass based technologies for energy

access

• Biomass gasification technologies‐an over view

I d h ll l d ifi b d

• Issues and challenges related to gasifier based power

generation systems

• Gasification reactor configurations
• Gasification reactor configurations
• Issues related to producer gas engines and power

generation efficiency g y

• Conclusions

Energy Access: electric power for / / lighting/domestic appliances/industrial power

h d h l f l h d h d d

• The growing economy and changing lifestyle have increased the demand

for modern energy, like electricity.

• Globally 1.3 billion people are without access to electricity.

y p p y

• In India about 289 million of people who account for 25% of the

population do not have access to electricity h ll i ffi i i 2 % d b

• The overall power generation efficiency is 21% at and above

85% load.

• Biomass fuels are still contributing to 14% of the world energy demand (in

Biomass fuels are still contributing to 14% of the world energy demand (in 38% of the developing countries)

• There is a need for technology development/ up‐gradation to provide

ll energy access to all

Types of Biomass for Gasification Types of Biomass for Gasification

Biomass a potential resource Biomass a potential resource

l i f i bl bi l Energy Plantation for sustainable biomass supply

Bamboo nodes from bamboo based industries Bamboo nodes from bamboo based industries

Cashew shell

Biomass waste available – Industrial and agricultural waste

Agro residues: i Cotton stalk

• i. Cotton stalk
• ii. Coconut shell
• iii. Cashew shell

iv Groundnut shell

• iv. Groundnut shell

Industrial waste: i. Bamboo nodes ii. Bamboo fibers iii. Rice husk from rice mills

• iv. Sawmill waste:

( fuel wood and sawdust)

Comparative assessment: Fuel wood d id and agro residues

Sl.No Fuel wood Loose biomass (rice Impact . ( husk, horticulture and agricultural waste including mustard stalk, tt t lk t ) p cotton stalk etc.) 1 Bulk density≥ 300 kg/m3 Bulk density<300 kg/m3 Fuel flow; airflow; Flame propagation Flame propagation 2 High calorific value (energy density) Low calorific value (energy density) Rector temperature 3 Ash content<2% High 7-20% Ash removal system 4 High melting point Low melting point Slagging and Clinker formation

Gasification technologies: An overview

Type of gasifiers‐Mostly used Type of gasifiers Mostly used

A typical composition of producer gas

S.No. Component Percentage (b

• l me)

(by volume) 1 Hydrogen 21 2 Carbon Monoxide 21 3 Methane 1 4 C b di id 11 4 Carbon dioxide 11 5 Nitrogen 46 g

Producer gas as transport fuel in 1805 Producer gas as transport fuel in 1805

The Rivaz vehicle from 1805. To the right of H is the leather bag holding the coal gas. The bag had a volume of .4 m3, sufficient to travel 3 km. (from internal fire by Lyle Cummins)

“Otto” gas engine 1885 Typical use of CO rich producer gas for power generation

Main components of biomass gasifier based Main components of biomass gasifier based power generation system using IC engines

Throated design of down draft gasifier, mostly used for power generation Throated design of down draft gasifier, mostly used for power generation

Viking gasifier‐ Two stage gasification technology Courtesy: Biomass Gasification group DTU

A view of dual fired gasification reactor based power generation system

Flam e of producer gas driven from single Stage Biom ass gasification system g g y

Clean flame from dual fired gasification system

Components of the biomass gasifier based power plant

A Schematic diagram of the gas carburetor A Schematic diagram of the gas carburetor manifold with components

Biomass gasification reactors Biomass gasification reactors

Area need to be focused: Challenges and Targeted benchmark

S.No Issues Target benchmark Unit Benchmark . Unit Benchmark 1 Tar content at the exit of the gasifier ( primary tar reduction, from the source itself) mg Nm-3 <100 2 Tar content at the exit of the cleaning system ( By mg Nm-3 <50 g y ( y the gas cleaning equipment in the downstream) g 3 Dust content at the exit of the ash pit ( primary reduction, from the source itself) mg Nm-3 <200 4 Tar content at the exit of the cleaning system ( By mg Nm 3 <50 4 Tar content at the exit of the cleaning system ( By the gas cleaning equipment in the downstream) mg Nm-3 <50 5 Heating value of the gas MJ Nm-3 >5.5 6 Cold gas efficiency Energy fraction >85 g y gy Percentage 7 Overall power generation efficiency Energy fraction Percentage >20

Fernald RH. The present status of the producer–gas power plant in the United States: Contributions to economic geology, Part II. 1906 [Bulletin No. 316]. Washington: Contributions to economic geology, Part II. 1906 [Bulletin No. 316]. Washington: Government Printing Office. Available from: http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/0316g/report.pdf.

Design parameters and performance indicators of the gasification rectors

Design Parameters Reactor –I Reactor – II Reactor – III Specific Gasification Rate (Nm3 cm-2h-1) 0.1 0.1 0.2 Gas Residence Time, in each of the 0.6 0.6 1.0 , gasification Zone(seconds) Solid Residence Time, in each of the gasification Zone (minutes) 27 27 44 gasification Zone (minutes) Insulation layer (in number) One One Two Ash removal system Oscillating Vibrating Vibrating grate grate grate

Reactors Configuration Reactors Configuration

Hot air generation and air cooled systems

Tar content of the producer gas at the exit of the gasifier and after cleaning train.

1000 1200 Reactor-III Reactor - I Reactor- II 600 800 Nm3 400 600 content mg/N 200 Tar 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Experiment Number

At gasifier exit After cleaning

Dust content of the producer gas at the exit of the gasifier and after cleaning train.

1400 1600 m3 Reactor-III Reactor - I Reactor -II 1000 1200 content mg/Nm 600 800 Dust c 200 400 5 10 15 20 25 Experiment Number At gasifier exit After cleaning g g

Temperature profile across the nozzles Temperature profile across the nozzles

1150 1100 1150 1000 1050

ure in °C

900 950

Temperatu

850 800 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0

Distance in cm

Across the top nozzles Across the bottom nozzles p

Producer gas engines and power generation efficiency power generation efficiency

Power generation efficiency of the engine

• btained by two different methods

y = -0.0005x2 + 0.2337x + 2.5907 R² = 0.9902 25.0

entage)

15.0 20.0

ion (in perce

10.0

wer generat

5.0

ffiency of po

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Ef Load (in percentage)

Specific fuel consumption rate (fuel wood) at variable load conditions

y = 20.605x-0.67 7 00 8.00 9.00 ption y 20.605x R² = 0.9936 5.00 6.00 7.00 consump Wh-1) 2 00 3.00 4.00 cific fuel c (kg kW 0.00 1.00 2.00 Spec 0.00 20 40 60 80 Load in kWe

Specific energy consumption at different load

40 45 50

mption

25 30 35

gy consum J kWh‐1

10 15 20

ecific energ in MJ

5 25 50 75 100

Spe

Load ( in percentage)

Producer gas Natural gas Diesel

Comparison of the fuel properties of producer gas with Natural gas and Diesel

Energy Air Energy Adiabatic Expansion ratio of the fuel Fuel Energy content (MJ kg-1) Air- Fuel Ratio Energy density (MJ Nm-3) Flame velocity (m s-1) Adiabatic flame temperature (K) Expansion ratio of the fuel mixture (Volume fraction) Derating (Percentage)

Producer gas 5.0 1.2 2.59 50 1800 6.35 21.4 Natural gas 45.0 18 3.00 35 2210 7.34 3.5 Diesel 42.5 18 2.83

• 2290

7.56 0.0

Power generation efficiency of the producer gas i i i ith di l i d t l engine in comparison with diesel engine and natural gas engine at variable load conditions

30 0 25.0 30.0 ercentage) 20.0 eration (in pe 10.0 15.0 power gene 5.0 Efficiency of 0.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 E Load (in percentage) Producer gas Natural gas Diesel Producer gas Natural gas Diesel

Conclusions Conclusions

• Reactor configurations
• Biomass quality
• Biomass quality
• Ash removal system
• Ease of operation and maintenance
• Ease of operation and maintenance
• Heating value of gas
• Minimum human involvement
• Minimum human involvement
• Appropriate capacity and operating load of the Genset
• Over all system efficiency
• Over all system efficiency
• Economics

Th k Thank you

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ E‐mail Id: praman@teri.res.in raman03@gmail.com Linked in:

h // l k d / b/d / b/ / http://in.linkedin.com/pub/dr‐p‐raman/7b/240/734