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 Gasification India 2016, 11 ‐ 12 ‐ February 2016, New Delhi P Raman, Ph.D. E Energy Environment Technology Development Division E i t T h l D l t Di i i 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 • Issues and challenges related to gasifier based power I d h ll l d ifi b d 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 / / • The growing economy and changing lifestyle have increased the demand h d h l f l h d h d d 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 • The overall power generation efficiency is 21% at and above h ll i ffi i i 2 % d b 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 energy access to all ll

Types of Biomass for Gasification Types of Biomass for Gasification

Biomass a potential resource Biomass a potential resource

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

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 and agro residues d id Sl.No Fuel wood Loose biomass (rice ( Impact p . husk, horticulture and agricultural waste including mustard stalk, cotton stalk etc.) tt t lk t ) 1 Bulk density ≥ 300 kg/ m 3 Fuel flow; airflow; Bulk density<300 kg/ m 3 Flame propagation Flame propagation 2 High calorific value Low calorific value Rector temperature (energy density) (energy density) 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 (by volume) ol me) 1 Hydrogen 21 2 Carbon 21 Monoxide 3 Methane 1 4 4 C Carbon dioxide 11 b di id 11 5 Nitrogen g 46

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 Unit Benchmark Benchmark 1 Tar content at the exit of the gasifier ( primary tar mg Nm -3 <100 reduction, from the source itself) 2 Tar content at the exit of the cleaning system ( By mg Nm -3 g y ( y g <50 the gas cleaning equipment in the downstream) 3 Dust content at the exit of the ash pit ( primary mg Nm -3 <200 reduction, from the source itself) 4 4 Tar content at the exit of the cleaning system ( By Tar content at the exit of the cleaning system ( By mg Nm 3 mg Nm -3 <50 <50 the gas cleaning equipment in the downstream) 5 Heating value of the gas MJ Nm -3 >5.5 6 Cold gas efficiency g y Energy fraction >85 gy Percentage 7 Overall power generation efficiency Energy fraction >20 Percentage 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 0.1 0.1 0.2 (Nm 3 cm -2 h -1 ) Gas Residence Time, in each of the , 0.6 0.6 1.0 gasification Zone(seconds) Solid Residence Time, in each of the 27 27 44 gasification Zone (minutes) 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. 1200 Reactor- II Reactor - I Reactor-III 1000 800 Nm 3 content mg/N 600 600 400 Tar 200 0 0 0 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 . 1600 Reactor - I Reactor -II Reactor-III 1400 m3 content mg/Nm 1200 1000 Dust c 800 600 400 200 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Experiment Number At gasifier exit g After cleaning g

Temperature profile across the nozzles Temperature profile across the nozzles 1150 1150 1100 1050 ure in °C 1000 Temperatu 950 900 850 800 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 Distance in cm Across the top nozzles p Across the bottom nozzles

Producer gas engines and power generation efficiency power generation efficiency

Power generation efficiency of the engine obtained by two different methods 25.0 entage) y = -0.0005x 2 + 0.2337x + 2.5907 R² = 0.9902 ion (in perce 20.0 15.0 wer generat 10.0 ffiency of po 5.0 Ef 0.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Load (in percentage)

Specific fuel consumption rate (fuel wood) at variable load conditions 9.00 8.00 ption y = 20.605x -0.67 y 20.605x 7.00 7 00 consump R² = 0.9936 6.00 Wh-1) 5.00 (kg kW cific fuel c 4.00 3.00 Spec 2 00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0 20 40 60 80 Load in kWe

Specific energy consumption at different load 50 45 mption 40 gy consum 35 J kWh ‐ 1 30 25 ecific energ in MJ 20 15 10 Spe 5 0 25 50 75 100 Load ( in percentage) Producer gas Natural gas Diesel

Comparison of the fuel properties of producer gas with Natural gas and Diesel Energy Energy Air Air- Energy Energy Adiabatic Adiabatic Expansion ratio of the fuel Expansion ratio of the fuel Flame Derating content Fuel density flame temperature mixture Fuel velocity (Percentage) (MJ kg -1 ) Ratio (MJ Nm -3 ) (K) (Volume fraction) (m s -1 ) Producer 5.0 1.2 2.59 50 1800 6.35 21.4 gas Natural 45.0 18 3.00 35 2210 7.34 3.5 gas Diesel 42.5 18 2.83 -------- 2290 7.56 0.0

Power generation efficiency of the producer gas engine in comparison with diesel engine and natural i i i ith di l i d t l gas engine at variable load conditions 30.0 30 0 ercentage) 25.0 eration (in pe 20.0 power gene 15.0 10.0 Efficiency of 5.0 E 0.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 Load (in percentage) Producer gas Producer gas Natural gas Natural gas Diesel 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