Innovative downdraft gasifier design utilizing exhaust gas as gasification agent for sustainable syngas production
Vol 7, Issue 1, 2024
VIEWS - 397 (Abstract) 207 (PDF)
Abstract
This study introduces an innovative downdraft gasifier design that harnesses exhaust gas as the gasification agent, showcasing successful operation and extensive experimental investigations using various biomass feedstocks, notably wood pellets of different sizes (<20 mm to 20–50 mm). The gasification system exhibited the ability to produce clean syngas suitable for both heating and electricity generation. Experimental assessments encompassed a temperature range of (620 to 1250 ℃) and an equivalence ratio range of 0.2 to 0.5. The resulting syngas composition featured key constituents such as H2, CO, CO2, and CH4, consistent with conventional gasification processes. The incorporation of exhaust gas as the gasification agent represents a pioneering advancement. This innovative approach not only minimizes energy input but also reduces greenhouse gas emissions, rendering the system more environmentally sustainable. The flow rate of the primary gasification agent was measured at 440 m3/h, and the producer gas’s exit temperature (300–650 ℃) was analyzed based on the moisture content of the biomass feedstock. The temperature within the reaction zone varied depending on the equivalence ratio (ER) for exhaust gas (700–974 ℃) and for air (ranging from 620–850 ℃). Additionally, the temperature was influenced by the moisture content, with ranges of (830–1050 ℃) for exhaust gas and 850–1050 ℃ for air. The syngas produced consisted mainly of carbon monoxide (14.4%–19.2%), hydrogen (16%–20%), carbon dioxide (7.1%–11.2%), and a small amount of methane (2%–3%). This innovative downdraft gasifier design holds substantial promise as a renewable energy system, particularly due to its utilization of low-cost materials and reduced environmental footprint. Such advancements pave the way for the widespread adoption of downdraft gasifiers, making them an attractive technology for thermal and power applications, especially in developing nations.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
1. Canton H. International energy agency—IEA. The Europa Directory of International Organizations 2021. Routledge; 2021. pp. 684–686.
2. Allan RP. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; in press.
3. Renewables 2021 Global Status Report. UN environment programme; 2021.
4. Owusu PA, Asumadu-Sarkodie S. A review of renewable energy sources, sustainability issues and climate change mitigation. Cogent Engineering 2016; 3(1): 1167990. doi: 10.1080/23311916.2016.1167990
5. Ahmed A, Abu Bakar MS, Azad AK, et al. Potential thermochemical conversion of bioenergy from Acacia species in Brunei Darussalam: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2018; 82: 3060–3076. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.10.032
6. Tye YY, Lee KT, Wan Abdullah WN, Leh CP. Second-generation bioethanol as a sustainable energy source in Malaysia transportation sector: Status, potential and future prospects. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2011; 15(9): 4521–4536. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.099
7. Cheng S, Meng L, Wang W. The impact of environmental regulation on green energy technology innovation—Evidence from China. Sustainability 2022; 14(14): 8501. doi: 10.3390/su14148501
8. Suberu MY, Mustafa MW, Bashir N, et al. Power sector renewable energy integration for expanding access to electricity in sub-Saharan Africa. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2013; 25: 630–642. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2013.04.033
9. Osman AI, Chen L, Yang M, et al. Cost, environmental impact, and resilience of renewable energy under a changing climate: A review. Environmental Chemistry Letters 2023; 21(2): 741–764. doi: 10.1007/s10311-022-01532-8
10. Rijo B, Alves O, Garcia B, et al. Technical and market analysis of biomass gasification: Case study in Alentejo, Portugal. Journal of Cleaner Production 2023; 417: 138007. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138007
11. Saravanan A, Kumar PS, Nhung TC, et al. A review on biological methodologies in municipal solid waste management and landfilling: Resource and energy recovery. Chemosphere 2022; 309: 136630. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136630
12. Hoang AT, Varbanov PS, Nižetić S, et al. Perspective review on Municipal Solid Waste-to-energy route: Characteristics, management strategy, and role in circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production 2022; 359: 131897. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131897
13. Ramos A, Rouboa A. Syngas production strategies from biomass gasification: Numerical studies for operational conditions and quality indexes. Renewable Energy 2020; 155: 1211–1221. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2020.03.158
14. Wang L, Weller CL, Jones DD, Hanna MA. Contemporary issues in thermal gasification of biomass and its application to electricity and fuel production. Biomass and Bioenergy 2008; 32(7): 573–581. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.12.007
15. Zhang H, Wang L, Pérez-Fortes M, et al. Techno-economic optimization of biomass-to-methanol with solid-oxide electrolyzer. Applied Energy 2020; 258: 114071. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114071
16. Thomson R, Kwong P, Ahmad E, Nigam KDP. Clean syngas from small commercial biomass gasifiers; A review of gasifier development, recent advances and performance evaluation. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2020; 45(41): 21087–21111. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.05.160
17. Situmorang YA, Zhao Z, Yoshida A, et al. Small-scale biomass gasification systems for power generation (<, 200 kW class): A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2020; 117: 109486. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2019.109486
18. Guangul FM, Sulaiman SA, Ramli A. Gasifier selection, design and gasification of oil palm fronds with preheated and unheated gasifying air. Bioresource Technology 2012; 126: 224–232. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.09.018
19. Ojolo SJ, Orisaleye JI. Design and development of a laboratory scale biomass gasifier. Journal of Energy and Power Engineering 2010; 4(8): 16–23.
20. Patil K, Bhoi P, Huhnke R, et al. Biomass downdraft gasifier with internal cyclonic combustion chamber: Design, construction, and experimental results. Bioresource Technology 2011; 102(10): 6286–6290. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2011.03.033
21. Ahmad AA, Zawawi NA, Kasim FH, et al. Assessing the gasification performance of biomass: A review on biomass gasification process conditions, optimization and economic evaluation. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2016; 53: 1333–1347. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.030
22. Han J, Liang Y, Hu J, et al. Modeling downdraft biomass gasification process by restricting chemical reaction equilibrium with Aspen Plus. Energy Conversion and Management 2017; 153: 641–648. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2017.10.030
23. Ratnadhariya JK, Channiwala SA. Three zone equilibrium and kinetic free modeling of biomass gasifier—A novel approach. Renewable Energy 2009; 34(4): 1050–1058. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2008.08.001
24. Piqueras P, Ruiz MJ, Herreros JM, Tsolakis A. Influence of the cell geometry on the conversion efficiency of oxidation catalysts under real driving conditions. Energy Conversion and Management 2021; 233: 113888. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2021.113888
25. Salam KA, Velasquez-Orta SB, Harvey AP. Kinetics of fast alkali reactive extraction/in situ transesterification of Chlorella vulgaris that identifies process conditions for a significant enhanced rate and water tolerance. Fuel Processing Technology 2016; 144: 212–219. doi: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2015.12.031
26. Reed TB, Das A. Handbook of Biomass Downdraft Gasifier Engine Systems. Biomass Energy Foundation; 1988.
27. Demirbas A. Combustion characteristics of different biomass fuels. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 2004; 30(2): 219–230. doi: 10.1016/j.pecs.2003.10.004
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24294/ace.v7i1.2459
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/