cover thumb - download.e-bookshelf.de · 10.4 PSI’s Catalytic SNG Process 266 10.4.1 Process...

30

Transcript of cover thumb - download.e-bookshelf.de · 10.4 PSI’s Catalytic SNG Process 266 10.4.1 Process...

Page 1: cover thumb - download.e-bookshelf.de · 10.4 PSI’s Catalytic SNG Process 266 10.4.1 Process Description and Layout 266 10.4.2 Mass Balance 268 10.4.3 Energy Balance 269 10.4.4
pg3066
File Attachment
cover_thumbjpg

Synthetic natural GaS from coal Dry BiomaSS anD PoWer-to-GaS aPPlicationS

Synthetic natural GaS from coal Dry BiomaSS anD PoWer-to-GaS aPPlicationS

edited by

tilman J SchilDhauerSerGe ma BiollazPaul Scherrer Institut VilligenSwitzerland

Copyright copy 2016 by John Wiley amp Sons Inc All rights reserved

Published by John Wiley amp Sons Inc Hoboken New JerseyPublished simultaneously in Canada

No part of this publication may be reproduced stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic mechanical photocopying recording scanning or otherwise except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act without either the prior written permission of the Publisher or authorization through payment of the appropriate per‐copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center Inc 222 Rosewood Drive Danvers MA 01923 (978) 750‐8400 fax (978) 750‐4470 or on the web at wwwcopyrightcom Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department John Wiley amp Sons Inc 111 River Street Hoboken NJ 07030 (201) 748‐6011 fax (201) 748‐6008 or online at httpwwwwileycomgopermissions

Limit of LiabilityDisclaimer of Warranty While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation You should consult with a professional where appropriate Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages including but not limited to special incidental consequential or other damages

For general information on our other products and services or for technical support please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at (800) 762‐2974 outside the United States at (317) 572‐3993 or fax (317) 572‐4002

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic formats For more information about Wiley products visit our web site at wwwwileycom

Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data

Names Schildhauer Tilman J editor | Biollaz Serge MA editorTitle Synthetic natural gas from coal dry biomass and power-to-gas applications

[edited by] Tilman J Schildhauer Serge MA BiollazDescription Hoboken New Jersey John Wiley amp Sons 2016 |

Includes bibliographical references and indexIdentifiers LCCN 2016006837 (print) | LCCN 2016014453 (ebook) | ISBN 9781118541814 (cloth) |

ISBN 9781119191254 (pdf) | ISBN 9781119191360 (epub)Subjects LCSH Synthesis gas | Coal gasification | Biomass conversion | Gas manufacture and worksClassification LCC TP360 S96 2016 (print) | LCC TP360 (ebook) | DDC 6602844ndashdc23LC record available at httplccnlocgov2016006837

Set in 1012pt Times by SPi Global Pondicherry India

Printed in the United States of America

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

v

List of Contributors xi

1 Introductory Remarks 1Tilman J Schildhauer

11 Why Produce Synthetic Natural Gas 112 Overview 3

2 Coal and Biomass Gasification for SNG Production 5Stefan Heyne Martin Seemann and Tilman J Schildhauer

21 Introduction ndash Basic Requirements for Gasification in the Framework of SNG Production 5

22 Thermodynamics of Gasification 6221 Gasification Reactions 7222 Overall Gasification Process ndash Equilibrium Based Considerations 7223 Gasification ndash A Multi‐step Process Deviating from Equilibrium 11224 Heat Management of the Gasification Process 13225 Implication of Thermodynamic Considerations for Technology

Choice 1823 Gasification Technologies 18

231 Entrained Flow 19232 Fixed Bed 20233 Direct Fluidized Bed 22234 Indirect Fluidized Bed Gasification 27235 Hydrogasification and Catalytic Gasification 34

References 37

CoNteNtS

vi CONTENTS

3 Gas Cleaning 41Urs Rhyner

31 Introduction 4132 Impurities 42

321 Particulate Matter 42322 Tars 43323 Sulfur Compounds 43324 Halide Compounds 44325 Alkali Compounds 44326 Nitrogen Compounds 44327 Other Impurities 44

33 Cold Warm and Hot Gas Cleaning 45331 Example of B‐IGFC Gas Cleaning Process Chains 45

34 Gas Cleaning Technologies 47341 Particulate Matter 47342 Tars 52343 Sulfur Compounds 57344 Hydrodesulfurization 59345 Chlorine (Halides) 60346 Alkali 61347 Nitrogen‐containing Compounds 61348 Other Impurities 62

35 Reactive Hot Gas Filter 62References 65

4 Methanation for Synthetic Natural Gas Production ndash Chemical Reaction engineering Aspects 77Tilman J Schildhauer

41 Methanation ndash The Synthesis Step in the Production of Synthetic Natural Gas 77411 Feed Gas Mixtures for Methanation Reactors 79412 Thermodynamic Equilibrium 82413 Methanation Catalysts Kinetics and Reaction Mechanisms 88414 Catalyst Deactivation 97

42 Methanation Reactor Types 107421 Adiabatic Fixed Bed Reactors 109422 Cooled Reactors 117423 Comparison of Methanation Reactor Concepts 129

43 Modeling and Simulation of Methanation Reactors 132431 How to Measure (Intrinsic) Kinetics 133432 Modeling of Fixed Bed Reactors 136433 Modeling of Isothermal Fluidized Bed Reactors 139

44 Conclusions and Open Research Questions 14645 Symbol List 148References 149

CONTENTS vii

5 SNG Upgrading 161Renato Baciocchi Giulia Costa and Lidia Lombardi

51 Introduction 16152 Separation Processes for SNG Upgrading 163

521 Bulk CO2CH

4 Separation 163

522 Removal of other Compounds and Impurities 16953 Techno‐Economical Comparison of Selected Separation Options 174References 176

6 SNG from Wood ndash the GoBiGas Project 181Joumlrgen Held

61 Biomethane in Sweden 18162 Conditions and Background for the GoBiGas Project in Gothenburg 18463 Technical Description 18564 Technical Issues and Lessons Learned 18865 Status 18866 Efficiency 18867 Economics 18868 Outlook 189Acknowledgements 189References 189

7 the Power to Gas Process Storage of Renewable energy in the Natural Gas Grid via Fixed Bed Methanation of Co2H2 191Michael Specht Jochen Brellochs Volkmar Frick Bernd Stuumlrmer and Ulrich Zuberbuumlhler

71 Motivation 191711 History ldquoRenewable Fuel Paths at ZSWrdquo 191712 Goal ldquoEnergiewenderdquo 192713 Goal ldquoPower Based Carbon Based Fuelsrdquo 192714 Goal ldquoP2Gregrdquo 192715 Goal ldquoMethanationrdquo 193

72 The Power to Fuel Concept Co‐utilization of (Biogenic) Carbon and Hydrogen 193

73 P2Greg Technology 196731 Methanation Characteristics for CO

2 Based Syngas 197

732 P2Greg Plant Layout of 25 kWel 250 kW

el and 6000 kW

el Plants 202

74 Experimental Results 206741 Methanation Catalysts Screening Cycle Resistance

Contamination by Sulfur Components 206742 Results with the 25 kW

el P2Greg Plant 209

743 Results with the 250 kWel P2Greg Plant 210

744 Results with the 250 kWel P2Greg Plant in Combination

with Membrane Gas Upgrade 21375 P2Greg Process Efficiency 214

viii CONTENTS

76 Conclusion and Outlook 217Acknowledgements 219References 219

8 Fluidized Bed Methanation for SNG Production ndash Process Development at the Paul‐Scherrer Institut 221Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollaz

81 Introduction to Process Development 22182 Methane from Wood ndash Process Development at PSI 223References 229

9 MILeNA Indirect Gasification oLGA tar Removal and eCN Process for Methanation 231Luc PLM Rabou Bram Van der Drift Eric HAJ Van Dijk Christiaan M Van der Meijden and Berend J Vreugdenhil

91 Introduction 23192 Main Process Steps 233

921 MILENA Indirect Gasification 233922 OLGA Tar Removal 236923 HDS and Deep S Removal 237924 Reformer 238925 CO

2 Removal 239

926 Methanation and Upgrading 23993 Process Efficiency and Economy 24094 Results and Status 241

941 MILENA 241942 OLGA 242943 HDS Reformer and Methanation 243

95 Outlook 245951 Pressure 245952 Co‐production 245953 Bio Carbon Capture and Storage 246954 Power to Gas 246

Acknowledgements 246References 247

10 Hydrothermal Production of SNG from Wet Biomass 249Freacutedeacuteric Vogel

101 Introduction 249102 Historical Development 252103 Physical and Chemical Bases 253

1031 Catalysis 2541032 Phase Behavior and Salt Separation 2591033 Liquefaction of the Solid Biomass Tar and Coke Formation 263

CONTENTS ix

104 PSIrsquos Catalytic SNG Process 2661041 Process Description and Layout 2661042 Mass Balance 2681043 Energy Balance 2691044 Status of Process Development at PSI 2691045 Comparison to other SNG Processes 271

105 Open Questions and Outlook 273References 274

11 Agnionrsquos Small Scale SNG Concept 279Thomas Kienberger and Christian Zuber

References 291

12 Integrated Desulfurization and Methanation Concepts for SNG Production 293Christian FJ Koumlnig Maarten Nachtegaal and Tilman J Schildhauer

121 Introduction 293122 Concepts for Integrated Desulfurization and Methanation 295

1221 Sulfur‐Resistant Methanation 2951222 Regeneration of Methanation Catalysts 2971223 Discussion of the Concepts 300

123 Required Future Research 3011231 Sulfur Resistant Methanation 3011232 Periodic Regeneration 302

References 303

Index 307

List of Contributors

renato baciocchi University of Rome Tor Vergata Roma Italy

serge MA biollaz Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Jochen brellochs Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Giulia Costa University of Rome Tor Vergata Roma Italy

Volkmar frick Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Joumlrgen Held Renewable Energy Technology International AB Lund Sweden

stefan Heyne Chalmers University of Technology Goumlteborg Sweden

thomas Kienberger Montanuniversitaumlt Leoben Leoben Austria

Christian fJ Koumlnig Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Lidia Lombardi Niccolograve Cusano University Roma Italy

Maarten nachtegaal Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Luc PLM rabou Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

urs rhyner AGRO Energie Schwyz Schwyz Switzerland

tilman J schildhauer Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Martin seemann Chalmers University of Technology Goumlteborg Sweden

xi

xii LIST Of CONTRIBUTORS

Michael specht Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

bernd stuumlrmer Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Eric HAJ Van Dijk Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

bram Van der Drift Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

Christiaan M Van der Meijden Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

freacutedeacuteric Vogel Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

berend J Vreugdenhil Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

Christian Zuber Agnion Highterm Research GesmbH Graz Austria

ulrich Zuberbuumlhler Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Synthetic Natural Gas from Coal Dry Biomass and Power-to-Gas Applications First EditionEdited by Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollazcopy 2016 John Wiley amp Sons Inc Published 2016 by John Wiley amp Sons Inc

1

1Introductory remarks

Tilman J Schildhauer

11 Why produce synthetIc natural gas

The answer to this question [which may also explain why one should read a book on synthetic natural gas (SNG) production] changes with time

During the years from 1950 to the early 1980s SNG production was an important topic mainly in the United States in the United Kingdom and in Germany The interest was caused by a couple of reasons In these countries a relative abundance of coal and the expected shortage of natural gas triggered several industrial initia-tives partly funded by public authorities to develop processes from coal to SNG Due to the oil crisis during the 1970s the use of domestic coal rather than the import of oil became a second motivation A third motivation is the possibility to make domestic (low quality) energy reserves available de‐centrally as an energy carrier for which the distribution infrastructure already exists and that allows for both clean and efficient use by consumers

These boundary conditions lead in 1984 to the start‐up of the 15 GWSNG

plant in Great Plains which is run by the Dakota Gas Company and converts lignite into SNG and many other products This plant stayed the only commercial SNG production for nearly 30 years because with the drop of the oil price in the mid1980s the explora-tion of natural gas in the North Sea and the gas pipelines between Russia and Europe the interest in SNG from coal ceased

Especially in the United States the interest came back in the years after the turn of the millennium now triggered by the again rising oil price and the meanwhile established use of CO

2 (which is an inherent by‐product of coal to SNG plants) for

2 INTRODUCTORy REmARKS

enhanced oil recovery (EOR) Back then a dozen coal to SNG projects were started including EOR Now due to the rapidly increasing exploitation of the shale gas and the connected possibility for a significant reduction of CO

2 emission all the projects

in the United States have been stoppedHowever all the mentioned motivations for SNG production that is shortage of

domestic natural gas use of domestic coal reserves which are far away from the highly populated areas and the possibility for clean and efficient combustion still prevail in China Therefore China is now by far the most important market for the production of SNG from coal Three large plants have started operation and further plants are planned or under construction

In Europe several aspects triggered a reconsideration of SNG production about 15 years ago Due to its cleaner combustion and inherently lower CO

2 emission

using natural gas in transportation (eg for CNG cars) is supported in many coun-tries and has even been economically beneficial for the past few years due to the lower gas price With the aim of the European Commission to replace up to 20 of European fuel consumption by biofuel replacing natural gas partly with bio‐methane becomes necessary So far bio‐methane is mostly produced by up‐grading biogas from anaerobic digestion However due to the limited amount of substrate this pathway cannot be increased much more and other sources of bio‐methane are sought

Additionally many European countries wish to use their domestic biomass resources for energy production in order to decrease CO

2 emissions and the import

of energy A major part of the biomass is ligno‐cellulosic (mostly wood) and mainly used for heating for example in wood pellet heating As the heat demand is gen-erally decreasing due to better building insulation the conversion of wood to high value forms of energy that is electricity and fuels is of increasing interest Like in the case of coal conversion to fuels requires (so far) gasification as the first step As shown by process simulations and the first demonstration plants the conversion of wood to SNG can reach significantly higher efficiencies than conversion to liquid fuels

Very recently a third aspect began to gain greater importance especially in Central Europe Due to the increasing integration of stochastic renewable sources like photovoltaics and wind energy into electricity generation the demand for balancing the electricity supply and the demand over spatial and temporal distances is increasing For the future even the seasonal storage of electricity may be necessary Here the production of SNG can play an important role While the gasification of solid feedstocks is a more or less continuous process the further conversion to electricity or SNG can be flexibly adjusted to the balancing needs of the electricity grid within so‐called polygeneration schemes

moreover in times where the electricity production from renewables exceeds the actual demand in the electricity grid (a situation that today occasionally is observed in Central Europe and is expected to be more common in future) producing SNG could utilize the excess electricity instead of curtailing photovoltaics or wind tur-bines In so‐called power to gas applications hydrogen is produced from excess electricity by electrolysis of water and then converted to SNG by methanation of

OVERVIEW 3

carbon oxides As a source of carbon oxides biogas producer gas from (biomass) gasification flue gas from industry or even CO

2 from the atmosphere can be consid-

ered opening a pathway to produce SNG without solid feedstock that can be stored or transported over long distances within the existing natural gas infrastructure

12 overvIeW

This book aims at a suitable overview over the different pathways to produce SNG (Figure 11)

The first four chapters cover the main process steps during conversion of coal and dry biomass to SNG gasification gas cleaning methanation and gas upgrading The main technology options will be highlighted and the impact of a technology choice for downstream processes and the complete process chain In these chapters espe-cially in the chapter on methanation reactors the state of the art coal to SNG processes are discussed in detail

The following chapters describe a number of novel processes for the production of SNG with their specific combination of process steps as well as the boundary con-ditions for which the respective process was developed These processes comprise those which are already in operation (eg the 20 mW

SNG bio‐SNG production in

Gothenburg Sweden or the 6 mWSNG

power to gas plant in Werlte Germany) and processes which are still under development

The gasification chapter covers the thermodynamics of gasification and presents both coal and biomass gasification technologies

Coal Dry biomass

gasification

Gas cleaning

Methanation

Methanation

SNG (CH4)

CO2 from air or industry

H2O CO2(H2)

H2 from electrolysis(power-to-gas)

Algae manure

Hydrothermalgasification

Biogas fromdigestion

Raw SNG CH4 H2O (CO2 H2)

Gas upgrading

FIgure 11 The different pathways to produce SNG

4 INTRODUCTORy REmARKS

The gas cleaning chapter discusses the impurities to be expected in gasification‐derived producer gas explains the state of the art gas cleaning technologies and focuses on the innovative gas cleaning steps which are developed for hot gas cleaning

The chapter on methanation reactors presents the chemical reactions proceeding inside the reactors their thermodynamic limitation and their reaction mechanisms Further an overview of the different reactor types with their advantages and chal-lenges is given covering coal to SNG biomass to SNG and power to gas processes The last section of this chapter focuses on the modeling and simulation of methana-tion reactors including the necessary experiments to determine reaction kinetics and to generate data for model validation

The chapter on gas‐upgrading discusses technologies for gas drying CO2 and

hydrogen removal based on adsorption absorption and membranes and includes a techno‐economic comparison

The chapter on the GoBiGas project (ldquoGothenburg Bio Gasrdquo) presents the boundary conditions and technologies applied in the 20 mW

SNG wood to SNG plant

in Gothenburg Sweden which was commissioned in 2014The next chapter explains the development of the power to gas process at the

Zentrum fuumlr solare Wasserstofferzeugung (ZSW) including the 6 mWSNG

plant in Werlte Germany

The chapter on fluidised bed methanation describes the process development at the Paul Scherrer Institut aiming at a flexible technology for efficiently converting wood to SNG and for hydrogen conversion within power to gas applications

The following chapter presents the technologies developed at the Energy Center of the Netherlands (ECN) for efficient SNG production from wood especially their allothermal gasification technology (mILENA) and their broad experience with gas cleaning

The chapter on hydrothermal gasification discusses the unique technology allow-ing for the simultaneous catalytic gasification and methanation of wet biomass under super‐critical conditions

The chapter on agnionrsquos small scale SNG concept focuses on two novel technol-ogies that allow for significant process simplification especially in small scale bio‐SNG plants the pressurized heatpipe reformer and the polytropic fixed bed methanation

The last chapter offers a view on the research for even more simplified SNG processes that is for methanation steps that allow for integrated desulfurization and methanation

The author of these lines wishes to express his gratitude especially to the contrib-utors of this book and to the persons at the publisher for their excellent work but also to all colleagues scientific collaborators partners friends and scientists in the community for many fruitful and interesting discussions All of you bring the field forward and made this book possible

Synthetic Natural Gas from Coal Dry Biomass and Power-to-Gas Applications First EditionEdited by Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollazcopy 2016 John Wiley amp Sons Inc Published 2016 by John Wiley amp Sons Inc

5

2Coal and Biomass GasifiCation for snG ProduCtion

Stefan Heyne Martin Seemann and Tilman J Schildhauer

21 introduCtion ndash BasiC requirements for GasifiCation in the framework of snG ProduCtion

Within the production of synthetic natural gas ndash basically methane ndash from solid feed-stock such as coal or biomass the major conversion step is gasification generating a product gas containing a mixture of permanent and condensable gases as well as solid residues (eg char ash) The gasification step can be conducted in different atmospheres and using different reaction agents Figure 21 represents the basic pathway from solid fuel to methane considering the main elements carbon hydrogen and oxygen It is obvious that an increase in hydrogen content is necessary for all feedstock illustrated At the same time the oxygen content needs to be reduced in particular for biogenic feedstock that is oxygenated to a higher degree

There exist different strategies or pathways for performing the conversion from feedstock towards methane within gasification as illustrated in Figure 21 Adding steam as a gasification agent is common practice not only due to the stoichiometric effect but also for enhanced char gasification and temperature moderation within the reactor H

2 addition is used in hydrogasification leading to a higher initial methane

6 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

content in the product gas [3 4] Co2 removal is an intrinsic part of the SnG produc-

tion process some gasification concepts using adsorptive bed material for direct Co2

removal within the gasification reactor [5] The addition of oxygen (common practice for all direct gasification technologies) actually leads to an increased need for Co

2

removal downstream of the reactor For indirect gasification where ungasified char is combusted in a separate chamber for heat supply the composition is changed towards methane via path (c) in Figure 21 Pretreatment technologies such as torrefaction decrease the oxygen content of the feedstock at the cost of increased energy demand

22 thermodynamiCs of GasifiCation

For an increased understanding of the role of gasification for the overall SnG process the basic thermodynamic aspects within gasification are discussed in the following The gasification process is a series of different conversions involving both homoge-neous and heterogeneous reactions The basic steps from solid fuel to product gas are drying pyrolysis or devolatilization and gasification depending on the physical size of the fuel these different steps occur in a sequential order for small particles or

40

20

0

60

80

0 20 40 60 80

0

20

40

60

80

Oxygen

Carbon

Hyd

roge

n

Feedstock

CH4

H2O

CO2

O2

H2

Carbon1 Biomass (hardwood softwood straw)2 Lignite coal3 Bituminous coal4 Anthracite coal

3

4

1

2

a removing CO2b adding H2c removing char (C)d adding steame adding O2

a

b d

e

c

fiGure 21 CHo diagram for coal and biomass Feedstock composition based on [1 2] data from Higman 2008 [1] Phyllis2 database for biomass and waste httpswwwecnnlphyllis2 Energy research Centre of the netherlands

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 7

overlap in bigger particles The detailed description of the complete process is a com-plex task and the considerations made in the following therefore focus on specific parts of the process and their implications for the overall conversion starting with some stoichiometric aspects for gasification

221 Gasification reactions

The major reactions occurring during the gasification step that commonly are consid-ered relevant are

C s o g Co g kJ mol partial oxidation0 5 1112 (21)

Co g o g Co g kJ mol carbon monoxide combustion0 5 2832 2 (22)

C s o g Co g kJ mol carbon combustion2 2 394ndash (23)

C s Co g Co g kJ mol reverse Boudouard reaction2 2 172 (24)

C s H o g Co g H g kJ mol water gas reaction2 2 131 (25)

Co g H o g H g Co g kJ mol water gas shift reaction2 2 2 41ndash (26)

CH g H o g H g Co g kJ mol steam reforming4 2 23 206 (27)

The char gasification reactions converting carbon into gaseous fuels [Equations (24) and (25)] are endothermic reactions requiring heat supply that is realized either by combusting part of the fuel in the same reactor (direct or autothermal gasification) or by indirect heat supply from an external combustion or heat source (indirect or allo-thermal gasification)

222 overall Gasification Process ndash equilibrium Based Considerations

Considering the overall process from coal or biomass to methane at the example of steam gasification the reaction stoichiometry can be expressed as

C o H o CH Cox y zH a b c2 4 2 (28)

with a xy z

bx y z

cx y z

4 2 2 8 4 2 8 4

Table 21 gives the coefficients for steam gasification to methane [Equation (28)] for different coal and biomass feedstock materials allowing the calculation of the heat

ta

Bl

e 2

1

Com

posi

tion

and

ove

rall

rea

ctio

n d

ata

for

stea

m G

asif

icat

ion

for

dif

fere

nt f

eeds

tock

mat

eria

ls

Feed

stoc

kM

olar

C

ompo

sitio

nl

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]c

rea

ctio

n C

oeff

icie

nts

for

Equ

atio

n (2

8)

ΔH

rM

etha

ne Y

ield

ab

c[M

Jkg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

[kg

CH

4kg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

Coa

laB

row

n co

al ndash

rhe

in

Ger

man

yC

H0

88o

029

262

273

063

20

537

046

3ndash0

19

048

9

lig

nite

ndash n

dak

ota

uSA

CH

072

o0

2526

727

70

697

052

90

471

06

050

9B

itum

inou

s ndash

typi

cal

Sout

h A

fric

aC

H0

68o

008

3435

10

792

056

70

433

12

10

654

Ant

hrac

ite ndash

ruh

r G

erm

any

CH

047

o0

0236

237

00

873

055

30

447

14

60

693

Bio

mas

sbW

illow

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

46o

065

185

199

031

00

520

048

0ndash0

45

035

0B

eech

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

47o

069

179

192

028

60

511

048

9ndash0

71

033

3Fi

r ndash

soft

woo

dC

H1

45o

065

196

210

031

30

520

048

0ndash1

58

035

0Sp

ruce

ndash s

oftw

ood

CH

142

o0

6818

419

70

304

050

80

492

ndash11

70

335

Whe

at s

traw

CH

146

o0

6818

319

60

297

051

20

488

ndash08

40

338

ric

e st

raw

CH

143

o0

6817

518

80

303

050

80

492

ndash02

30

335

a Tak

en f

rom

Hig

man

and

van

der

Bur

gt [

1]

b Tak

en f

rom

Phy

llis

[2]

ndash av

erag

e da

ta f

or m

ater

ial g

roup

c H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

] =

lH

V [

MJ

kg d

af]

+ 2

44

middot 89

4 middot H

[w

t d

af]

100

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 9

of reaction (based on the HHV of feedstock and methane all reactants and products at 25 degC) as well as the stoichiometric methane yield per kilogram of feedstock The heat of reaction for the overall reaction corresponds to well below 10 for all feed-stock materials For coal based feedstock with low oxygen content the reaction is endothermic while for brown coal and biomass feedstock it is exothermic The methane yield per kilogram feedstock also is considerably lower for biomass based feedstock due to the high oxygen content one option to improve the methane yield would be the additional supply of hydrogen as for example considered in hydrogas-ification The only technical conversion process capable of converting carbonaceous feedstock directly to methane and carbon dioxide according to the reaction in Equation (28) is gasification under supercritical conditions so‐called hydrothermal gasification [6ndash8] This technology is capable of handling wet feedstock but not yet available at commercial scale and is not covered in this chapter Common gasifica-tion technology converts the feedstock to a product gas being a mixture of Co Co

2

H2 H

2o CH

4 light and higher hydrocarbons and trace components followed by a

downstream gas cleaning and methane synthesis stepThe major operating parameters for gasification are pressure and temperature

Equilibrium calculations for steam gasification (05 kg H2okg daf feedstock) for a

generic biomass are used to illustrate the basic trends for the product gas composition and heat demand with changing pressure and temperature All feedstock is assumed to be converted to product gas As can be observed from Figure 22 methane formation is favored by lower temperatures and higher pressures Hydrogen and carbon monoxide formation increases with temperature and so does the endothermi-city of the overall reaction The theoretically exothermic reaction to CH

4 and Co

2 at

25 degC [similar to Equation (28)] turns into an endothermic reaction requiring heat supply at higher temperature

light hydrocarbons (represented by C2H

4) and tars (represented by C

10H

8) are only

formed to a very small extent according to equilibrium calculations The amount of steam added for gasification will mainly influence the H

2Co ratio via the water gas

shift reaction Equation (26) In reality the equilibrium state is usually not reached in the shown temperature range but the actual product gas composition resulting from gasification is influenced by a number of other parameters as will be discussed in subsequent sections An increase in gasification pressure favors methane formation predicted by equilibrium calculations at 800 degC the methane molar fraction increases from 0 to about 155 from 1 to 30 bar With more methane being formed the endo-thermic heat of reaction is reduced by 666 from 1 to 30 bar Again no to very little formation of light hydrocarbons and tars is predicted by the equilibrium even at higher pressures At high pressures and moderate temperatures a mixture of basically CH

4 Co

2 and H

2o ndash representing Equation (28) ndash can be obtained A process

example is hydrothermal gasification which is operating at these conditions but still is at development state [6ndash8] The above‐mentioned trends are all under the assumption of complete conversion of feedstock to product gas Many gasification concepts how-ever have a considerable amount of char remaining unconverted being removed with the ashes or in indirect gasification being converted in a separate combustion chamber for supplying the gasification heat The carbon feedstock entering the gas phase

10 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

during gasification will therefore be drastically changed when carbon conversion is incomplete Even minor effects on the hydrogen and oxygen balance in the gas phase can be expected as for example biomass char still contains oxygen and hydrogen [9] Figure 23 depicts the influence of pressure and temperature on carbon conversion at temperatures below 800 degC considerable amounts of solid carbon formation are pre-dicted This will in turn influence the equilibrium conditions in the gas phase as the carbon stock in gas phase is reduced The major reactions affected are the Boudouard water gas and waterndashgas shift reactions Equations (24) to (26) Incomplete carbon conversion leads to a decrease of Co concentration in the product gas as well as a decrease in H

2 compared to equilibrium at complete conversion

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

30minus2000

0

2000

4000

6000

ΔH

r [kJ

kg

daf

feed

]

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

300

01020304

y CH

4y H

2y H

2O

y CO

2y C

O

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

T [degC] T [degC]

T [degC]T [degC]

T [degC] T [degC]

P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar] P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar]

fiGure 22 Pressure and temperature dependence of the molar concentration of major gas species and the heat of reaction for steam gasification (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic

biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH143

o066

) assuming complete carbon conversion calculated by ASPEn PluS

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 11

223 Gasification ndash a multi‐step Process deviating from equilibrium

Equilibrium calculations while useful for identifying trends with changing operating conditions cannot however predict the performance of technical equipment to a full extent They represent a boundary value that can be approached but never reached The gasification process on a physical level is a multi‐stage process starting with drying of the feedstock followed by pyrolysis and gasificationcombustion The kinetics of the numerous homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions occurring ndash as well as the residence time and reactor setup ndash ultimately determine the product gas composition resulting from gasification Figure 24 illustrates a simplified reaction network for the conversion from received fuel to product gas The drying and pri-mary pyrolysis (also referred to as devolatilization) steps are similar for all gasifica-tion technologies whereas the extent of gasification reactions occurring as well as the approach to equilibrium are a strong function of the gasification medium and the reactor setup during pyrolysis a considerable amount of tars a complex mixture of 1‐ to 5‐ring aromatic hydrocarbons is formed that will undergo various conversion pathways during gasification In the final product gas tar can still represent a consid-erable amount of energy for example biomass steam gasification at 800 degC can result in more than 33 g tarsnm3 corresponding to about 8 of the total product gas energy content on a lower heating value basis [10]

200400

600800

10001200

0

10

20

30

04

02

0

06

08

1

T [degC]

P [bar]

Am

ount

of

feed

stoc

k ca

rbon

conv

erte

d to

gas

pha

se

fiGure 23 Carbon conversion predicted by equilibrium calculations for steam gasifica-tion (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt

CH143

o066

)

12 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

The gas composition from primary pyrolysis represents the starting point for the gasification reactions neves et al [9] conducted an extensive literature review of data on pyrolysis experiments and derived an empirical model for estimating gas species yields as well as tar and char yields and elemental composition as a function of peak pyrolysis temperature Figure 25 illustrates the pyrolysis gas composition and the total gas and char yield based on nevesrsquo model In contrast to the equilibrium calculations for gasification represented in Figure 22 the model predicts consider-able amounts of tars as well as a considerable amount of char produced from pyrol-ysis Even light hydrocarbons are present in the pyrolysis gas Generally speaking the product distribution from pyrolysis as presented in Figure 25 undergoes conversion towards the equilibrium conditions during the final conversion step in Figure 24 ndash the gasification step

The extent of conversion towards the equilibrium state is a function of a large number of parameters such as pressure and temperature reactor design and associated residence time for gas and solids as well as gasndashsolid mixing and the presence of catalytically active materials promoting specific reactions among others

Secondary PyrolysisGasication

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

DehydrationPolymerizationGasication

ReformingCrackingOxidationWater-gas shift

dry fuel

Primary Pyrolysis

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

Drying

As-receivedfuel particle Moisture

Dry fuel

Gasication medium(H2O H2 O2 CO2

)

Productgas

fiGure 24 Conversion process of a fuel particle during gasification (adopted and modi-fied from neves et al [9])

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 13

224 heat management of the Gasification Process

As temperature is the major influencing parameter on the kinetics of the different gasification reactions the thermal management of the gasification reactor is of particular importance The conversion steps from solid fuel to product gas as illus-trated in Figure 24 occur at different temperature levels A qualitative representation

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

Temperature (ordmC)

Tars (C10H8)

CxHy

CH4

CO

CO2

H2O

H2

Mol

ar f

ract

ion

of c

ompo

nent

i

(a)

Temperature (ordmC)

Yie

ld (

kgk

g da

f fu

el)

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1

Char yield

Total yield per kg daf fuelGases tars and pyrolytic water

(b)

fiGure 25 Pyrolysis gas molar composition (a) and overall mass yields (b) as a function of temperature (based on neves [9]) for a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066)

14 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of the temperature profile for a fuel particle over time is illustrated in Figure 26a After particle heat‐up the moisture is evaporated The dry fuel particle is further heated releasing pyrolysis gases and finally the char particle is gasified Heat for gasification needs to be supplied by the hot environment Particle combustion indicated by the dashed line occurs at a particle temperature above environ-ment due to the exothermic nature of the combustion reactions For complete conversion of a biomass fuel with initial moisture content of 20 wt the distribution of the heat demand for conversion on the different processes is illustrated in Figure 26b The gasification heat demand is dominant but even pyrolysis and drying

Dry

ing

Time

(a)

(b)

Tem

pera

ture

Dev

olat

iliza

tion

Pyro

lysi

s Char gasication

Char combustion

Surrounding temperature

a dcb

a ndash Preheating ndash 40b ndash Drying ndash 82

c ndash Pyrolysis ndash 76d ndash Gasication ndash 802

Fraction of total heat demand(6566 kJkg daf fuel)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat demand [kJkg daf fuel]

Gasication temperature (850 degC)

Pyrolysistemperature

(450 degC)

fiGure 26 (a) Qualitative representation of the temperature evolution of a fuel particle during gasification (b) Steam gasification heat demand profile for full conversion of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) at equilibrium (SB ratio = 05

steam supply at 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture)

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 15

represent a considerable share of the specific heat demand for conversion of course in reality pyrolysis and gasification rather occur over a certain temperature range instead of the fixed temperatures used for the calculation (nevesrsquo model for pyrolysis [9] and equilibrium calculations for the gasification) In addition the processes are not strictly sequential but partly occur in parallel within a gasification reactor nevertheless the gasification heat demand will be largest and above all requires the highest temperature level

All heat for the conversion process within the gasification unit needs to be supplied by combustion of part of the fuel or additional external fuel at high temperature Changing the initial moisture content of the biomass will reduce the drying heat demand [b in Figure 26b] and therefore improve the conversion efficiency External drying also allows for using a heat source at lower temperature improving the conversion process from an exergy perspective Even the pyrolysis process can be conducted in a separate reactor with a separate heat source For these considerations in relation to the thermal management of the gasification process temperaturendashheat load graphs can be a useful tool for identifying improvements for the energy efficiency of the gasification process Figure 27 presents such a graph as an example of an indirect gasification process modelled using nevesrsquo pyrolysis model and gasification at equilibrium It is assumed that the amount of char combusted is set to ensure that the combustion heat covers the heat demand for fuel heat‐up drying pyrolysis and gasification The supply of steam to gasification (400 degC) and hot air to combustion (400 degC) is an additional heat demand that needs to be covered The thick curve in Figure 27 represents the aggregation of all the above‐mentioned heat demands whereas the dashed curve is a representation of all heat sources namely the combustion

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat load [kJkg daf fuel]

Preheating biomass air and water (steam)

Moisture evaporationand steam generation

Pyrolysis andpreheating air and steam

Gasific

ation

Tpyrolysis = 450 ordmC

Tgasification = 850 ordmC

Tcombustion = 900 ordmCChar combustion

Gas

coo

ling

(pro

duct

gas

and

com

busti

on fl

ue g

as)Maximum amount

of excess heat3610 kJkg daf

fiGure 27 Temperature heat load curve for indirect steam gasification of a generic bio-mass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) SB ratio = 05 air and steam supply

at 25 degC and heated to 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture

16 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of char and the cooling of hot product gas and combustion flue gases to ambient tem-perature It is obvious that for ideal heat transfer the process has a considerable amount of excess heat allowing for a further increase in conversion to product gas by more efficient use of the heat and reducing the char combustion Converting more solid fuel to product gas will increase the heat demand while at the same time the heat supply will decrease as less char is burnt Even considering the overall SnG process these curves can be used for a holistic analysis of the heat integration of sinks and sources including the operations up‐ and downstream of the gasification step Heat from the methanation reaction might for example be used for biomass drying or for regeneration of an amine solution used for downstream Co

2 removal

The slope of the heat demand curves for pyrolysis and gasification also is dependent on the gas composition that actually is obtained during the different processes A deviation from equilibrium conditions for the gasification will result in considerable changes of the conversion heat demand Two parameters commonly used in thermal conversion processes are used to illustrate the influence of different parameters on the energy performance of the gasification process The first param-eter is the relative air to fuel ratio λ defining the amount of air (oxygen) actually supplied to the reaction in relation to the amount necessary for complete combustion according to stoichiometry

n

nair o actual

air o stoichiometric

2

2

(27)

The second parameter commonly used in gasification is the chemical efficiency ηch

relating the chemical energy content of the product gas to the fuel chemical energy η

ch can be defined on both a lower and a higher heating value basis but in order to

avoid confusion with respect to moisture content the higher heating value is used here

ch HHV

PG

fuel fuel

HHV

HHV

i

i i

n

n (28)

Figure 28 shows λ and ηchHHV

for the base case as illustrated in Figure 27 as well as the influence of changes in different operating parameters Increasing the feed tem-perature for both steam to gasification (Point 1 in Figure 28) and air to combustion (Point 3 in Figure 28) increases the chemical efficiency and reduces λ as less char needs to be burnt reducing the incoming moisture content of the biomass from 20 to 10 wt (Point 4 in Figure 28) results in a remarkable effect reducing the necessary air to fuel ratio and gives a relative increase of the chemical efficiency of 32 Assuming heat losses from the gasification unit (point 6 in Figure 28) corresponding to 2 of the thermal input on a higher heating value basis on the other hand considerably increases the air to fuel ratio and leads to a relative decrease of the chemical efficiency by 3 All changes except for points 5 7 and 8 represent thermal

Page 2: cover thumb - download.e-bookshelf.de · 10.4 PSI’s Catalytic SNG Process 266 10.4.1 Process Description and Layout 266 10.4.2 Mass Balance 268 10.4.3 Energy Balance 269 10.4.4

Synthetic natural GaS from coal Dry BiomaSS anD PoWer-to-GaS aPPlicationS

Synthetic natural GaS from coal Dry BiomaSS anD PoWer-to-GaS aPPlicationS

edited by

tilman J SchilDhauerSerGe ma BiollazPaul Scherrer Institut VilligenSwitzerland

Copyright copy 2016 by John Wiley amp Sons Inc All rights reserved

Published by John Wiley amp Sons Inc Hoboken New JerseyPublished simultaneously in Canada

No part of this publication may be reproduced stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic mechanical photocopying recording scanning or otherwise except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act without either the prior written permission of the Publisher or authorization through payment of the appropriate per‐copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center Inc 222 Rosewood Drive Danvers MA 01923 (978) 750‐8400 fax (978) 750‐4470 or on the web at wwwcopyrightcom Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department John Wiley amp Sons Inc 111 River Street Hoboken NJ 07030 (201) 748‐6011 fax (201) 748‐6008 or online at httpwwwwileycomgopermissions

Limit of LiabilityDisclaimer of Warranty While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation You should consult with a professional where appropriate Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages including but not limited to special incidental consequential or other damages

For general information on our other products and services or for technical support please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at (800) 762‐2974 outside the United States at (317) 572‐3993 or fax (317) 572‐4002

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic formats For more information about Wiley products visit our web site at wwwwileycom

Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data

Names Schildhauer Tilman J editor | Biollaz Serge MA editorTitle Synthetic natural gas from coal dry biomass and power-to-gas applications

[edited by] Tilman J Schildhauer Serge MA BiollazDescription Hoboken New Jersey John Wiley amp Sons 2016 |

Includes bibliographical references and indexIdentifiers LCCN 2016006837 (print) | LCCN 2016014453 (ebook) | ISBN 9781118541814 (cloth) |

ISBN 9781119191254 (pdf) | ISBN 9781119191360 (epub)Subjects LCSH Synthesis gas | Coal gasification | Biomass conversion | Gas manufacture and worksClassification LCC TP360 S96 2016 (print) | LCC TP360 (ebook) | DDC 6602844ndashdc23LC record available at httplccnlocgov2016006837

Set in 1012pt Times by SPi Global Pondicherry India

Printed in the United States of America

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

v

List of Contributors xi

1 Introductory Remarks 1Tilman J Schildhauer

11 Why Produce Synthetic Natural Gas 112 Overview 3

2 Coal and Biomass Gasification for SNG Production 5Stefan Heyne Martin Seemann and Tilman J Schildhauer

21 Introduction ndash Basic Requirements for Gasification in the Framework of SNG Production 5

22 Thermodynamics of Gasification 6221 Gasification Reactions 7222 Overall Gasification Process ndash Equilibrium Based Considerations 7223 Gasification ndash A Multi‐step Process Deviating from Equilibrium 11224 Heat Management of the Gasification Process 13225 Implication of Thermodynamic Considerations for Technology

Choice 1823 Gasification Technologies 18

231 Entrained Flow 19232 Fixed Bed 20233 Direct Fluidized Bed 22234 Indirect Fluidized Bed Gasification 27235 Hydrogasification and Catalytic Gasification 34

References 37

CoNteNtS

vi CONTENTS

3 Gas Cleaning 41Urs Rhyner

31 Introduction 4132 Impurities 42

321 Particulate Matter 42322 Tars 43323 Sulfur Compounds 43324 Halide Compounds 44325 Alkali Compounds 44326 Nitrogen Compounds 44327 Other Impurities 44

33 Cold Warm and Hot Gas Cleaning 45331 Example of B‐IGFC Gas Cleaning Process Chains 45

34 Gas Cleaning Technologies 47341 Particulate Matter 47342 Tars 52343 Sulfur Compounds 57344 Hydrodesulfurization 59345 Chlorine (Halides) 60346 Alkali 61347 Nitrogen‐containing Compounds 61348 Other Impurities 62

35 Reactive Hot Gas Filter 62References 65

4 Methanation for Synthetic Natural Gas Production ndash Chemical Reaction engineering Aspects 77Tilman J Schildhauer

41 Methanation ndash The Synthesis Step in the Production of Synthetic Natural Gas 77411 Feed Gas Mixtures for Methanation Reactors 79412 Thermodynamic Equilibrium 82413 Methanation Catalysts Kinetics and Reaction Mechanisms 88414 Catalyst Deactivation 97

42 Methanation Reactor Types 107421 Adiabatic Fixed Bed Reactors 109422 Cooled Reactors 117423 Comparison of Methanation Reactor Concepts 129

43 Modeling and Simulation of Methanation Reactors 132431 How to Measure (Intrinsic) Kinetics 133432 Modeling of Fixed Bed Reactors 136433 Modeling of Isothermal Fluidized Bed Reactors 139

44 Conclusions and Open Research Questions 14645 Symbol List 148References 149

CONTENTS vii

5 SNG Upgrading 161Renato Baciocchi Giulia Costa and Lidia Lombardi

51 Introduction 16152 Separation Processes for SNG Upgrading 163

521 Bulk CO2CH

4 Separation 163

522 Removal of other Compounds and Impurities 16953 Techno‐Economical Comparison of Selected Separation Options 174References 176

6 SNG from Wood ndash the GoBiGas Project 181Joumlrgen Held

61 Biomethane in Sweden 18162 Conditions and Background for the GoBiGas Project in Gothenburg 18463 Technical Description 18564 Technical Issues and Lessons Learned 18865 Status 18866 Efficiency 18867 Economics 18868 Outlook 189Acknowledgements 189References 189

7 the Power to Gas Process Storage of Renewable energy in the Natural Gas Grid via Fixed Bed Methanation of Co2H2 191Michael Specht Jochen Brellochs Volkmar Frick Bernd Stuumlrmer and Ulrich Zuberbuumlhler

71 Motivation 191711 History ldquoRenewable Fuel Paths at ZSWrdquo 191712 Goal ldquoEnergiewenderdquo 192713 Goal ldquoPower Based Carbon Based Fuelsrdquo 192714 Goal ldquoP2Gregrdquo 192715 Goal ldquoMethanationrdquo 193

72 The Power to Fuel Concept Co‐utilization of (Biogenic) Carbon and Hydrogen 193

73 P2Greg Technology 196731 Methanation Characteristics for CO

2 Based Syngas 197

732 P2Greg Plant Layout of 25 kWel 250 kW

el and 6000 kW

el Plants 202

74 Experimental Results 206741 Methanation Catalysts Screening Cycle Resistance

Contamination by Sulfur Components 206742 Results with the 25 kW

el P2Greg Plant 209

743 Results with the 250 kWel P2Greg Plant 210

744 Results with the 250 kWel P2Greg Plant in Combination

with Membrane Gas Upgrade 21375 P2Greg Process Efficiency 214

viii CONTENTS

76 Conclusion and Outlook 217Acknowledgements 219References 219

8 Fluidized Bed Methanation for SNG Production ndash Process Development at the Paul‐Scherrer Institut 221Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollaz

81 Introduction to Process Development 22182 Methane from Wood ndash Process Development at PSI 223References 229

9 MILeNA Indirect Gasification oLGA tar Removal and eCN Process for Methanation 231Luc PLM Rabou Bram Van der Drift Eric HAJ Van Dijk Christiaan M Van der Meijden and Berend J Vreugdenhil

91 Introduction 23192 Main Process Steps 233

921 MILENA Indirect Gasification 233922 OLGA Tar Removal 236923 HDS and Deep S Removal 237924 Reformer 238925 CO

2 Removal 239

926 Methanation and Upgrading 23993 Process Efficiency and Economy 24094 Results and Status 241

941 MILENA 241942 OLGA 242943 HDS Reformer and Methanation 243

95 Outlook 245951 Pressure 245952 Co‐production 245953 Bio Carbon Capture and Storage 246954 Power to Gas 246

Acknowledgements 246References 247

10 Hydrothermal Production of SNG from Wet Biomass 249Freacutedeacuteric Vogel

101 Introduction 249102 Historical Development 252103 Physical and Chemical Bases 253

1031 Catalysis 2541032 Phase Behavior and Salt Separation 2591033 Liquefaction of the Solid Biomass Tar and Coke Formation 263

CONTENTS ix

104 PSIrsquos Catalytic SNG Process 2661041 Process Description and Layout 2661042 Mass Balance 2681043 Energy Balance 2691044 Status of Process Development at PSI 2691045 Comparison to other SNG Processes 271

105 Open Questions and Outlook 273References 274

11 Agnionrsquos Small Scale SNG Concept 279Thomas Kienberger and Christian Zuber

References 291

12 Integrated Desulfurization and Methanation Concepts for SNG Production 293Christian FJ Koumlnig Maarten Nachtegaal and Tilman J Schildhauer

121 Introduction 293122 Concepts for Integrated Desulfurization and Methanation 295

1221 Sulfur‐Resistant Methanation 2951222 Regeneration of Methanation Catalysts 2971223 Discussion of the Concepts 300

123 Required Future Research 3011231 Sulfur Resistant Methanation 3011232 Periodic Regeneration 302

References 303

Index 307

List of Contributors

renato baciocchi University of Rome Tor Vergata Roma Italy

serge MA biollaz Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Jochen brellochs Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Giulia Costa University of Rome Tor Vergata Roma Italy

Volkmar frick Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Joumlrgen Held Renewable Energy Technology International AB Lund Sweden

stefan Heyne Chalmers University of Technology Goumlteborg Sweden

thomas Kienberger Montanuniversitaumlt Leoben Leoben Austria

Christian fJ Koumlnig Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Lidia Lombardi Niccolograve Cusano University Roma Italy

Maarten nachtegaal Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Luc PLM rabou Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

urs rhyner AGRO Energie Schwyz Schwyz Switzerland

tilman J schildhauer Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Martin seemann Chalmers University of Technology Goumlteborg Sweden

xi

xii LIST Of CONTRIBUTORS

Michael specht Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

bernd stuumlrmer Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Eric HAJ Van Dijk Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

bram Van der Drift Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

Christiaan M Van der Meijden Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

freacutedeacuteric Vogel Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

berend J Vreugdenhil Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

Christian Zuber Agnion Highterm Research GesmbH Graz Austria

ulrich Zuberbuumlhler Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Synthetic Natural Gas from Coal Dry Biomass and Power-to-Gas Applications First EditionEdited by Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollazcopy 2016 John Wiley amp Sons Inc Published 2016 by John Wiley amp Sons Inc

1

1Introductory remarks

Tilman J Schildhauer

11 Why produce synthetIc natural gas

The answer to this question [which may also explain why one should read a book on synthetic natural gas (SNG) production] changes with time

During the years from 1950 to the early 1980s SNG production was an important topic mainly in the United States in the United Kingdom and in Germany The interest was caused by a couple of reasons In these countries a relative abundance of coal and the expected shortage of natural gas triggered several industrial initia-tives partly funded by public authorities to develop processes from coal to SNG Due to the oil crisis during the 1970s the use of domestic coal rather than the import of oil became a second motivation A third motivation is the possibility to make domestic (low quality) energy reserves available de‐centrally as an energy carrier for which the distribution infrastructure already exists and that allows for both clean and efficient use by consumers

These boundary conditions lead in 1984 to the start‐up of the 15 GWSNG

plant in Great Plains which is run by the Dakota Gas Company and converts lignite into SNG and many other products This plant stayed the only commercial SNG production for nearly 30 years because with the drop of the oil price in the mid1980s the explora-tion of natural gas in the North Sea and the gas pipelines between Russia and Europe the interest in SNG from coal ceased

Especially in the United States the interest came back in the years after the turn of the millennium now triggered by the again rising oil price and the meanwhile established use of CO

2 (which is an inherent by‐product of coal to SNG plants) for

2 INTRODUCTORy REmARKS

enhanced oil recovery (EOR) Back then a dozen coal to SNG projects were started including EOR Now due to the rapidly increasing exploitation of the shale gas and the connected possibility for a significant reduction of CO

2 emission all the projects

in the United States have been stoppedHowever all the mentioned motivations for SNG production that is shortage of

domestic natural gas use of domestic coal reserves which are far away from the highly populated areas and the possibility for clean and efficient combustion still prevail in China Therefore China is now by far the most important market for the production of SNG from coal Three large plants have started operation and further plants are planned or under construction

In Europe several aspects triggered a reconsideration of SNG production about 15 years ago Due to its cleaner combustion and inherently lower CO

2 emission

using natural gas in transportation (eg for CNG cars) is supported in many coun-tries and has even been economically beneficial for the past few years due to the lower gas price With the aim of the European Commission to replace up to 20 of European fuel consumption by biofuel replacing natural gas partly with bio‐methane becomes necessary So far bio‐methane is mostly produced by up‐grading biogas from anaerobic digestion However due to the limited amount of substrate this pathway cannot be increased much more and other sources of bio‐methane are sought

Additionally many European countries wish to use their domestic biomass resources for energy production in order to decrease CO

2 emissions and the import

of energy A major part of the biomass is ligno‐cellulosic (mostly wood) and mainly used for heating for example in wood pellet heating As the heat demand is gen-erally decreasing due to better building insulation the conversion of wood to high value forms of energy that is electricity and fuels is of increasing interest Like in the case of coal conversion to fuels requires (so far) gasification as the first step As shown by process simulations and the first demonstration plants the conversion of wood to SNG can reach significantly higher efficiencies than conversion to liquid fuels

Very recently a third aspect began to gain greater importance especially in Central Europe Due to the increasing integration of stochastic renewable sources like photovoltaics and wind energy into electricity generation the demand for balancing the electricity supply and the demand over spatial and temporal distances is increasing For the future even the seasonal storage of electricity may be necessary Here the production of SNG can play an important role While the gasification of solid feedstocks is a more or less continuous process the further conversion to electricity or SNG can be flexibly adjusted to the balancing needs of the electricity grid within so‐called polygeneration schemes

moreover in times where the electricity production from renewables exceeds the actual demand in the electricity grid (a situation that today occasionally is observed in Central Europe and is expected to be more common in future) producing SNG could utilize the excess electricity instead of curtailing photovoltaics or wind tur-bines In so‐called power to gas applications hydrogen is produced from excess electricity by electrolysis of water and then converted to SNG by methanation of

OVERVIEW 3

carbon oxides As a source of carbon oxides biogas producer gas from (biomass) gasification flue gas from industry or even CO

2 from the atmosphere can be consid-

ered opening a pathway to produce SNG without solid feedstock that can be stored or transported over long distances within the existing natural gas infrastructure

12 overvIeW

This book aims at a suitable overview over the different pathways to produce SNG (Figure 11)

The first four chapters cover the main process steps during conversion of coal and dry biomass to SNG gasification gas cleaning methanation and gas upgrading The main technology options will be highlighted and the impact of a technology choice for downstream processes and the complete process chain In these chapters espe-cially in the chapter on methanation reactors the state of the art coal to SNG processes are discussed in detail

The following chapters describe a number of novel processes for the production of SNG with their specific combination of process steps as well as the boundary con-ditions for which the respective process was developed These processes comprise those which are already in operation (eg the 20 mW

SNG bio‐SNG production in

Gothenburg Sweden or the 6 mWSNG

power to gas plant in Werlte Germany) and processes which are still under development

The gasification chapter covers the thermodynamics of gasification and presents both coal and biomass gasification technologies

Coal Dry biomass

gasification

Gas cleaning

Methanation

Methanation

SNG (CH4)

CO2 from air or industry

H2O CO2(H2)

H2 from electrolysis(power-to-gas)

Algae manure

Hydrothermalgasification

Biogas fromdigestion

Raw SNG CH4 H2O (CO2 H2)

Gas upgrading

FIgure 11 The different pathways to produce SNG

4 INTRODUCTORy REmARKS

The gas cleaning chapter discusses the impurities to be expected in gasification‐derived producer gas explains the state of the art gas cleaning technologies and focuses on the innovative gas cleaning steps which are developed for hot gas cleaning

The chapter on methanation reactors presents the chemical reactions proceeding inside the reactors their thermodynamic limitation and their reaction mechanisms Further an overview of the different reactor types with their advantages and chal-lenges is given covering coal to SNG biomass to SNG and power to gas processes The last section of this chapter focuses on the modeling and simulation of methana-tion reactors including the necessary experiments to determine reaction kinetics and to generate data for model validation

The chapter on gas‐upgrading discusses technologies for gas drying CO2 and

hydrogen removal based on adsorption absorption and membranes and includes a techno‐economic comparison

The chapter on the GoBiGas project (ldquoGothenburg Bio Gasrdquo) presents the boundary conditions and technologies applied in the 20 mW

SNG wood to SNG plant

in Gothenburg Sweden which was commissioned in 2014The next chapter explains the development of the power to gas process at the

Zentrum fuumlr solare Wasserstofferzeugung (ZSW) including the 6 mWSNG

plant in Werlte Germany

The chapter on fluidised bed methanation describes the process development at the Paul Scherrer Institut aiming at a flexible technology for efficiently converting wood to SNG and for hydrogen conversion within power to gas applications

The following chapter presents the technologies developed at the Energy Center of the Netherlands (ECN) for efficient SNG production from wood especially their allothermal gasification technology (mILENA) and their broad experience with gas cleaning

The chapter on hydrothermal gasification discusses the unique technology allow-ing for the simultaneous catalytic gasification and methanation of wet biomass under super‐critical conditions

The chapter on agnionrsquos small scale SNG concept focuses on two novel technol-ogies that allow for significant process simplification especially in small scale bio‐SNG plants the pressurized heatpipe reformer and the polytropic fixed bed methanation

The last chapter offers a view on the research for even more simplified SNG processes that is for methanation steps that allow for integrated desulfurization and methanation

The author of these lines wishes to express his gratitude especially to the contrib-utors of this book and to the persons at the publisher for their excellent work but also to all colleagues scientific collaborators partners friends and scientists in the community for many fruitful and interesting discussions All of you bring the field forward and made this book possible

Synthetic Natural Gas from Coal Dry Biomass and Power-to-Gas Applications First EditionEdited by Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollazcopy 2016 John Wiley amp Sons Inc Published 2016 by John Wiley amp Sons Inc

5

2Coal and Biomass GasifiCation for snG ProduCtion

Stefan Heyne Martin Seemann and Tilman J Schildhauer

21 introduCtion ndash BasiC requirements for GasifiCation in the framework of snG ProduCtion

Within the production of synthetic natural gas ndash basically methane ndash from solid feed-stock such as coal or biomass the major conversion step is gasification generating a product gas containing a mixture of permanent and condensable gases as well as solid residues (eg char ash) The gasification step can be conducted in different atmospheres and using different reaction agents Figure 21 represents the basic pathway from solid fuel to methane considering the main elements carbon hydrogen and oxygen It is obvious that an increase in hydrogen content is necessary for all feedstock illustrated At the same time the oxygen content needs to be reduced in particular for biogenic feedstock that is oxygenated to a higher degree

There exist different strategies or pathways for performing the conversion from feedstock towards methane within gasification as illustrated in Figure 21 Adding steam as a gasification agent is common practice not only due to the stoichiometric effect but also for enhanced char gasification and temperature moderation within the reactor H

2 addition is used in hydrogasification leading to a higher initial methane

6 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

content in the product gas [3 4] Co2 removal is an intrinsic part of the SnG produc-

tion process some gasification concepts using adsorptive bed material for direct Co2

removal within the gasification reactor [5] The addition of oxygen (common practice for all direct gasification technologies) actually leads to an increased need for Co

2

removal downstream of the reactor For indirect gasification where ungasified char is combusted in a separate chamber for heat supply the composition is changed towards methane via path (c) in Figure 21 Pretreatment technologies such as torrefaction decrease the oxygen content of the feedstock at the cost of increased energy demand

22 thermodynamiCs of GasifiCation

For an increased understanding of the role of gasification for the overall SnG process the basic thermodynamic aspects within gasification are discussed in the following The gasification process is a series of different conversions involving both homoge-neous and heterogeneous reactions The basic steps from solid fuel to product gas are drying pyrolysis or devolatilization and gasification depending on the physical size of the fuel these different steps occur in a sequential order for small particles or

40

20

0

60

80

0 20 40 60 80

0

20

40

60

80

Oxygen

Carbon

Hyd

roge

n

Feedstock

CH4

H2O

CO2

O2

H2

Carbon1 Biomass (hardwood softwood straw)2 Lignite coal3 Bituminous coal4 Anthracite coal

3

4

1

2

a removing CO2b adding H2c removing char (C)d adding steame adding O2

a

b d

e

c

fiGure 21 CHo diagram for coal and biomass Feedstock composition based on [1 2] data from Higman 2008 [1] Phyllis2 database for biomass and waste httpswwwecnnlphyllis2 Energy research Centre of the netherlands

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 7

overlap in bigger particles The detailed description of the complete process is a com-plex task and the considerations made in the following therefore focus on specific parts of the process and their implications for the overall conversion starting with some stoichiometric aspects for gasification

221 Gasification reactions

The major reactions occurring during the gasification step that commonly are consid-ered relevant are

C s o g Co g kJ mol partial oxidation0 5 1112 (21)

Co g o g Co g kJ mol carbon monoxide combustion0 5 2832 2 (22)

C s o g Co g kJ mol carbon combustion2 2 394ndash (23)

C s Co g Co g kJ mol reverse Boudouard reaction2 2 172 (24)

C s H o g Co g H g kJ mol water gas reaction2 2 131 (25)

Co g H o g H g Co g kJ mol water gas shift reaction2 2 2 41ndash (26)

CH g H o g H g Co g kJ mol steam reforming4 2 23 206 (27)

The char gasification reactions converting carbon into gaseous fuels [Equations (24) and (25)] are endothermic reactions requiring heat supply that is realized either by combusting part of the fuel in the same reactor (direct or autothermal gasification) or by indirect heat supply from an external combustion or heat source (indirect or allo-thermal gasification)

222 overall Gasification Process ndash equilibrium Based Considerations

Considering the overall process from coal or biomass to methane at the example of steam gasification the reaction stoichiometry can be expressed as

C o H o CH Cox y zH a b c2 4 2 (28)

with a xy z

bx y z

cx y z

4 2 2 8 4 2 8 4

Table 21 gives the coefficients for steam gasification to methane [Equation (28)] for different coal and biomass feedstock materials allowing the calculation of the heat

ta

Bl

e 2

1

Com

posi

tion

and

ove

rall

rea

ctio

n d

ata

for

stea

m G

asif

icat

ion

for

dif

fere

nt f

eeds

tock

mat

eria

ls

Feed

stoc

kM

olar

C

ompo

sitio

nl

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]c

rea

ctio

n C

oeff

icie

nts

for

Equ

atio

n (2

8)

ΔH

rM

etha

ne Y

ield

ab

c[M

Jkg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

[kg

CH

4kg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

Coa

laB

row

n co

al ndash

rhe

in

Ger

man

yC

H0

88o

029

262

273

063

20

537

046

3ndash0

19

048

9

lig

nite

ndash n

dak

ota

uSA

CH

072

o0

2526

727

70

697

052

90

471

06

050

9B

itum

inou

s ndash

typi

cal

Sout

h A

fric

aC

H0

68o

008

3435

10

792

056

70

433

12

10

654

Ant

hrac

ite ndash

ruh

r G

erm

any

CH

047

o0

0236

237

00

873

055

30

447

14

60

693

Bio

mas

sbW

illow

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

46o

065

185

199

031

00

520

048

0ndash0

45

035

0B

eech

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

47o

069

179

192

028

60

511

048

9ndash0

71

033

3Fi

r ndash

soft

woo

dC

H1

45o

065

196

210

031

30

520

048

0ndash1

58

035

0Sp

ruce

ndash s

oftw

ood

CH

142

o0

6818

419

70

304

050

80

492

ndash11

70

335

Whe

at s

traw

CH

146

o0

6818

319

60

297

051

20

488

ndash08

40

338

ric

e st

raw

CH

143

o0

6817

518

80

303

050

80

492

ndash02

30

335

a Tak

en f

rom

Hig

man

and

van

der

Bur

gt [

1]

b Tak

en f

rom

Phy

llis

[2]

ndash av

erag

e da

ta f

or m

ater

ial g

roup

c H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

] =

lH

V [

MJ

kg d

af]

+ 2

44

middot 89

4 middot H

[w

t d

af]

100

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 9

of reaction (based on the HHV of feedstock and methane all reactants and products at 25 degC) as well as the stoichiometric methane yield per kilogram of feedstock The heat of reaction for the overall reaction corresponds to well below 10 for all feed-stock materials For coal based feedstock with low oxygen content the reaction is endothermic while for brown coal and biomass feedstock it is exothermic The methane yield per kilogram feedstock also is considerably lower for biomass based feedstock due to the high oxygen content one option to improve the methane yield would be the additional supply of hydrogen as for example considered in hydrogas-ification The only technical conversion process capable of converting carbonaceous feedstock directly to methane and carbon dioxide according to the reaction in Equation (28) is gasification under supercritical conditions so‐called hydrothermal gasification [6ndash8] This technology is capable of handling wet feedstock but not yet available at commercial scale and is not covered in this chapter Common gasifica-tion technology converts the feedstock to a product gas being a mixture of Co Co

2

H2 H

2o CH

4 light and higher hydrocarbons and trace components followed by a

downstream gas cleaning and methane synthesis stepThe major operating parameters for gasification are pressure and temperature

Equilibrium calculations for steam gasification (05 kg H2okg daf feedstock) for a

generic biomass are used to illustrate the basic trends for the product gas composition and heat demand with changing pressure and temperature All feedstock is assumed to be converted to product gas As can be observed from Figure 22 methane formation is favored by lower temperatures and higher pressures Hydrogen and carbon monoxide formation increases with temperature and so does the endothermi-city of the overall reaction The theoretically exothermic reaction to CH

4 and Co

2 at

25 degC [similar to Equation (28)] turns into an endothermic reaction requiring heat supply at higher temperature

light hydrocarbons (represented by C2H

4) and tars (represented by C

10H

8) are only

formed to a very small extent according to equilibrium calculations The amount of steam added for gasification will mainly influence the H

2Co ratio via the water gas

shift reaction Equation (26) In reality the equilibrium state is usually not reached in the shown temperature range but the actual product gas composition resulting from gasification is influenced by a number of other parameters as will be discussed in subsequent sections An increase in gasification pressure favors methane formation predicted by equilibrium calculations at 800 degC the methane molar fraction increases from 0 to about 155 from 1 to 30 bar With more methane being formed the endo-thermic heat of reaction is reduced by 666 from 1 to 30 bar Again no to very little formation of light hydrocarbons and tars is predicted by the equilibrium even at higher pressures At high pressures and moderate temperatures a mixture of basically CH

4 Co

2 and H

2o ndash representing Equation (28) ndash can be obtained A process

example is hydrothermal gasification which is operating at these conditions but still is at development state [6ndash8] The above‐mentioned trends are all under the assumption of complete conversion of feedstock to product gas Many gasification concepts how-ever have a considerable amount of char remaining unconverted being removed with the ashes or in indirect gasification being converted in a separate combustion chamber for supplying the gasification heat The carbon feedstock entering the gas phase

10 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

during gasification will therefore be drastically changed when carbon conversion is incomplete Even minor effects on the hydrogen and oxygen balance in the gas phase can be expected as for example biomass char still contains oxygen and hydrogen [9] Figure 23 depicts the influence of pressure and temperature on carbon conversion at temperatures below 800 degC considerable amounts of solid carbon formation are pre-dicted This will in turn influence the equilibrium conditions in the gas phase as the carbon stock in gas phase is reduced The major reactions affected are the Boudouard water gas and waterndashgas shift reactions Equations (24) to (26) Incomplete carbon conversion leads to a decrease of Co concentration in the product gas as well as a decrease in H

2 compared to equilibrium at complete conversion

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

30minus2000

0

2000

4000

6000

ΔH

r [kJ

kg

daf

feed

]

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

300

01020304

y CH

4y H

2y H

2O

y CO

2y C

O

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

T [degC] T [degC]

T [degC]T [degC]

T [degC] T [degC]

P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar] P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar]

fiGure 22 Pressure and temperature dependence of the molar concentration of major gas species and the heat of reaction for steam gasification (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic

biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH143

o066

) assuming complete carbon conversion calculated by ASPEn PluS

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 11

223 Gasification ndash a multi‐step Process deviating from equilibrium

Equilibrium calculations while useful for identifying trends with changing operating conditions cannot however predict the performance of technical equipment to a full extent They represent a boundary value that can be approached but never reached The gasification process on a physical level is a multi‐stage process starting with drying of the feedstock followed by pyrolysis and gasificationcombustion The kinetics of the numerous homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions occurring ndash as well as the residence time and reactor setup ndash ultimately determine the product gas composition resulting from gasification Figure 24 illustrates a simplified reaction network for the conversion from received fuel to product gas The drying and pri-mary pyrolysis (also referred to as devolatilization) steps are similar for all gasifica-tion technologies whereas the extent of gasification reactions occurring as well as the approach to equilibrium are a strong function of the gasification medium and the reactor setup during pyrolysis a considerable amount of tars a complex mixture of 1‐ to 5‐ring aromatic hydrocarbons is formed that will undergo various conversion pathways during gasification In the final product gas tar can still represent a consid-erable amount of energy for example biomass steam gasification at 800 degC can result in more than 33 g tarsnm3 corresponding to about 8 of the total product gas energy content on a lower heating value basis [10]

200400

600800

10001200

0

10

20

30

04

02

0

06

08

1

T [degC]

P [bar]

Am

ount

of

feed

stoc

k ca

rbon

conv

erte

d to

gas

pha

se

fiGure 23 Carbon conversion predicted by equilibrium calculations for steam gasifica-tion (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt

CH143

o066

)

12 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

The gas composition from primary pyrolysis represents the starting point for the gasification reactions neves et al [9] conducted an extensive literature review of data on pyrolysis experiments and derived an empirical model for estimating gas species yields as well as tar and char yields and elemental composition as a function of peak pyrolysis temperature Figure 25 illustrates the pyrolysis gas composition and the total gas and char yield based on nevesrsquo model In contrast to the equilibrium calculations for gasification represented in Figure 22 the model predicts consider-able amounts of tars as well as a considerable amount of char produced from pyrol-ysis Even light hydrocarbons are present in the pyrolysis gas Generally speaking the product distribution from pyrolysis as presented in Figure 25 undergoes conversion towards the equilibrium conditions during the final conversion step in Figure 24 ndash the gasification step

The extent of conversion towards the equilibrium state is a function of a large number of parameters such as pressure and temperature reactor design and associated residence time for gas and solids as well as gasndashsolid mixing and the presence of catalytically active materials promoting specific reactions among others

Secondary PyrolysisGasication

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

DehydrationPolymerizationGasication

ReformingCrackingOxidationWater-gas shift

dry fuel

Primary Pyrolysis

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

Drying

As-receivedfuel particle Moisture

Dry fuel

Gasication medium(H2O H2 O2 CO2

)

Productgas

fiGure 24 Conversion process of a fuel particle during gasification (adopted and modi-fied from neves et al [9])

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 13

224 heat management of the Gasification Process

As temperature is the major influencing parameter on the kinetics of the different gasification reactions the thermal management of the gasification reactor is of particular importance The conversion steps from solid fuel to product gas as illus-trated in Figure 24 occur at different temperature levels A qualitative representation

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

Temperature (ordmC)

Tars (C10H8)

CxHy

CH4

CO

CO2

H2O

H2

Mol

ar f

ract

ion

of c

ompo

nent

i

(a)

Temperature (ordmC)

Yie

ld (

kgk

g da

f fu

el)

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1

Char yield

Total yield per kg daf fuelGases tars and pyrolytic water

(b)

fiGure 25 Pyrolysis gas molar composition (a) and overall mass yields (b) as a function of temperature (based on neves [9]) for a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066)

14 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of the temperature profile for a fuel particle over time is illustrated in Figure 26a After particle heat‐up the moisture is evaporated The dry fuel particle is further heated releasing pyrolysis gases and finally the char particle is gasified Heat for gasification needs to be supplied by the hot environment Particle combustion indicated by the dashed line occurs at a particle temperature above environ-ment due to the exothermic nature of the combustion reactions For complete conversion of a biomass fuel with initial moisture content of 20 wt the distribution of the heat demand for conversion on the different processes is illustrated in Figure 26b The gasification heat demand is dominant but even pyrolysis and drying

Dry

ing

Time

(a)

(b)

Tem

pera

ture

Dev

olat

iliza

tion

Pyro

lysi

s Char gasication

Char combustion

Surrounding temperature

a dcb

a ndash Preheating ndash 40b ndash Drying ndash 82

c ndash Pyrolysis ndash 76d ndash Gasication ndash 802

Fraction of total heat demand(6566 kJkg daf fuel)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat demand [kJkg daf fuel]

Gasication temperature (850 degC)

Pyrolysistemperature

(450 degC)

fiGure 26 (a) Qualitative representation of the temperature evolution of a fuel particle during gasification (b) Steam gasification heat demand profile for full conversion of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) at equilibrium (SB ratio = 05

steam supply at 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture)

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 15

represent a considerable share of the specific heat demand for conversion of course in reality pyrolysis and gasification rather occur over a certain temperature range instead of the fixed temperatures used for the calculation (nevesrsquo model for pyrolysis [9] and equilibrium calculations for the gasification) In addition the processes are not strictly sequential but partly occur in parallel within a gasification reactor nevertheless the gasification heat demand will be largest and above all requires the highest temperature level

All heat for the conversion process within the gasification unit needs to be supplied by combustion of part of the fuel or additional external fuel at high temperature Changing the initial moisture content of the biomass will reduce the drying heat demand [b in Figure 26b] and therefore improve the conversion efficiency External drying also allows for using a heat source at lower temperature improving the conversion process from an exergy perspective Even the pyrolysis process can be conducted in a separate reactor with a separate heat source For these considerations in relation to the thermal management of the gasification process temperaturendashheat load graphs can be a useful tool for identifying improvements for the energy efficiency of the gasification process Figure 27 presents such a graph as an example of an indirect gasification process modelled using nevesrsquo pyrolysis model and gasification at equilibrium It is assumed that the amount of char combusted is set to ensure that the combustion heat covers the heat demand for fuel heat‐up drying pyrolysis and gasification The supply of steam to gasification (400 degC) and hot air to combustion (400 degC) is an additional heat demand that needs to be covered The thick curve in Figure 27 represents the aggregation of all the above‐mentioned heat demands whereas the dashed curve is a representation of all heat sources namely the combustion

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat load [kJkg daf fuel]

Preheating biomass air and water (steam)

Moisture evaporationand steam generation

Pyrolysis andpreheating air and steam

Gasific

ation

Tpyrolysis = 450 ordmC

Tgasification = 850 ordmC

Tcombustion = 900 ordmCChar combustion

Gas

coo

ling

(pro

duct

gas

and

com

busti

on fl

ue g

as)Maximum amount

of excess heat3610 kJkg daf

fiGure 27 Temperature heat load curve for indirect steam gasification of a generic bio-mass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) SB ratio = 05 air and steam supply

at 25 degC and heated to 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture

16 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of char and the cooling of hot product gas and combustion flue gases to ambient tem-perature It is obvious that for ideal heat transfer the process has a considerable amount of excess heat allowing for a further increase in conversion to product gas by more efficient use of the heat and reducing the char combustion Converting more solid fuel to product gas will increase the heat demand while at the same time the heat supply will decrease as less char is burnt Even considering the overall SnG process these curves can be used for a holistic analysis of the heat integration of sinks and sources including the operations up‐ and downstream of the gasification step Heat from the methanation reaction might for example be used for biomass drying or for regeneration of an amine solution used for downstream Co

2 removal

The slope of the heat demand curves for pyrolysis and gasification also is dependent on the gas composition that actually is obtained during the different processes A deviation from equilibrium conditions for the gasification will result in considerable changes of the conversion heat demand Two parameters commonly used in thermal conversion processes are used to illustrate the influence of different parameters on the energy performance of the gasification process The first param-eter is the relative air to fuel ratio λ defining the amount of air (oxygen) actually supplied to the reaction in relation to the amount necessary for complete combustion according to stoichiometry

n

nair o actual

air o stoichiometric

2

2

(27)

The second parameter commonly used in gasification is the chemical efficiency ηch

relating the chemical energy content of the product gas to the fuel chemical energy η

ch can be defined on both a lower and a higher heating value basis but in order to

avoid confusion with respect to moisture content the higher heating value is used here

ch HHV

PG

fuel fuel

HHV

HHV

i

i i

n

n (28)

Figure 28 shows λ and ηchHHV

for the base case as illustrated in Figure 27 as well as the influence of changes in different operating parameters Increasing the feed tem-perature for both steam to gasification (Point 1 in Figure 28) and air to combustion (Point 3 in Figure 28) increases the chemical efficiency and reduces λ as less char needs to be burnt reducing the incoming moisture content of the biomass from 20 to 10 wt (Point 4 in Figure 28) results in a remarkable effect reducing the necessary air to fuel ratio and gives a relative increase of the chemical efficiency of 32 Assuming heat losses from the gasification unit (point 6 in Figure 28) corresponding to 2 of the thermal input on a higher heating value basis on the other hand considerably increases the air to fuel ratio and leads to a relative decrease of the chemical efficiency by 3 All changes except for points 5 7 and 8 represent thermal

Page 3: cover thumb - download.e-bookshelf.de · 10.4 PSI’s Catalytic SNG Process 266 10.4.1 Process Description and Layout 266 10.4.2 Mass Balance 268 10.4.3 Energy Balance 269 10.4.4

Synthetic natural GaS from coal Dry BiomaSS anD PoWer-to-GaS aPPlicationS

edited by

tilman J SchilDhauerSerGe ma BiollazPaul Scherrer Institut VilligenSwitzerland

Copyright copy 2016 by John Wiley amp Sons Inc All rights reserved

Published by John Wiley amp Sons Inc Hoboken New JerseyPublished simultaneously in Canada

No part of this publication may be reproduced stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic mechanical photocopying recording scanning or otherwise except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act without either the prior written permission of the Publisher or authorization through payment of the appropriate per‐copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center Inc 222 Rosewood Drive Danvers MA 01923 (978) 750‐8400 fax (978) 750‐4470 or on the web at wwwcopyrightcom Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department John Wiley amp Sons Inc 111 River Street Hoboken NJ 07030 (201) 748‐6011 fax (201) 748‐6008 or online at httpwwwwileycomgopermissions

Limit of LiabilityDisclaimer of Warranty While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation You should consult with a professional where appropriate Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages including but not limited to special incidental consequential or other damages

For general information on our other products and services or for technical support please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at (800) 762‐2974 outside the United States at (317) 572‐3993 or fax (317) 572‐4002

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic formats For more information about Wiley products visit our web site at wwwwileycom

Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data

Names Schildhauer Tilman J editor | Biollaz Serge MA editorTitle Synthetic natural gas from coal dry biomass and power-to-gas applications

[edited by] Tilman J Schildhauer Serge MA BiollazDescription Hoboken New Jersey John Wiley amp Sons 2016 |

Includes bibliographical references and indexIdentifiers LCCN 2016006837 (print) | LCCN 2016014453 (ebook) | ISBN 9781118541814 (cloth) |

ISBN 9781119191254 (pdf) | ISBN 9781119191360 (epub)Subjects LCSH Synthesis gas | Coal gasification | Biomass conversion | Gas manufacture and worksClassification LCC TP360 S96 2016 (print) | LCC TP360 (ebook) | DDC 6602844ndashdc23LC record available at httplccnlocgov2016006837

Set in 1012pt Times by SPi Global Pondicherry India

Printed in the United States of America

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

v

List of Contributors xi

1 Introductory Remarks 1Tilman J Schildhauer

11 Why Produce Synthetic Natural Gas 112 Overview 3

2 Coal and Biomass Gasification for SNG Production 5Stefan Heyne Martin Seemann and Tilman J Schildhauer

21 Introduction ndash Basic Requirements for Gasification in the Framework of SNG Production 5

22 Thermodynamics of Gasification 6221 Gasification Reactions 7222 Overall Gasification Process ndash Equilibrium Based Considerations 7223 Gasification ndash A Multi‐step Process Deviating from Equilibrium 11224 Heat Management of the Gasification Process 13225 Implication of Thermodynamic Considerations for Technology

Choice 1823 Gasification Technologies 18

231 Entrained Flow 19232 Fixed Bed 20233 Direct Fluidized Bed 22234 Indirect Fluidized Bed Gasification 27235 Hydrogasification and Catalytic Gasification 34

References 37

CoNteNtS

vi CONTENTS

3 Gas Cleaning 41Urs Rhyner

31 Introduction 4132 Impurities 42

321 Particulate Matter 42322 Tars 43323 Sulfur Compounds 43324 Halide Compounds 44325 Alkali Compounds 44326 Nitrogen Compounds 44327 Other Impurities 44

33 Cold Warm and Hot Gas Cleaning 45331 Example of B‐IGFC Gas Cleaning Process Chains 45

34 Gas Cleaning Technologies 47341 Particulate Matter 47342 Tars 52343 Sulfur Compounds 57344 Hydrodesulfurization 59345 Chlorine (Halides) 60346 Alkali 61347 Nitrogen‐containing Compounds 61348 Other Impurities 62

35 Reactive Hot Gas Filter 62References 65

4 Methanation for Synthetic Natural Gas Production ndash Chemical Reaction engineering Aspects 77Tilman J Schildhauer

41 Methanation ndash The Synthesis Step in the Production of Synthetic Natural Gas 77411 Feed Gas Mixtures for Methanation Reactors 79412 Thermodynamic Equilibrium 82413 Methanation Catalysts Kinetics and Reaction Mechanisms 88414 Catalyst Deactivation 97

42 Methanation Reactor Types 107421 Adiabatic Fixed Bed Reactors 109422 Cooled Reactors 117423 Comparison of Methanation Reactor Concepts 129

43 Modeling and Simulation of Methanation Reactors 132431 How to Measure (Intrinsic) Kinetics 133432 Modeling of Fixed Bed Reactors 136433 Modeling of Isothermal Fluidized Bed Reactors 139

44 Conclusions and Open Research Questions 14645 Symbol List 148References 149

CONTENTS vii

5 SNG Upgrading 161Renato Baciocchi Giulia Costa and Lidia Lombardi

51 Introduction 16152 Separation Processes for SNG Upgrading 163

521 Bulk CO2CH

4 Separation 163

522 Removal of other Compounds and Impurities 16953 Techno‐Economical Comparison of Selected Separation Options 174References 176

6 SNG from Wood ndash the GoBiGas Project 181Joumlrgen Held

61 Biomethane in Sweden 18162 Conditions and Background for the GoBiGas Project in Gothenburg 18463 Technical Description 18564 Technical Issues and Lessons Learned 18865 Status 18866 Efficiency 18867 Economics 18868 Outlook 189Acknowledgements 189References 189

7 the Power to Gas Process Storage of Renewable energy in the Natural Gas Grid via Fixed Bed Methanation of Co2H2 191Michael Specht Jochen Brellochs Volkmar Frick Bernd Stuumlrmer and Ulrich Zuberbuumlhler

71 Motivation 191711 History ldquoRenewable Fuel Paths at ZSWrdquo 191712 Goal ldquoEnergiewenderdquo 192713 Goal ldquoPower Based Carbon Based Fuelsrdquo 192714 Goal ldquoP2Gregrdquo 192715 Goal ldquoMethanationrdquo 193

72 The Power to Fuel Concept Co‐utilization of (Biogenic) Carbon and Hydrogen 193

73 P2Greg Technology 196731 Methanation Characteristics for CO

2 Based Syngas 197

732 P2Greg Plant Layout of 25 kWel 250 kW

el and 6000 kW

el Plants 202

74 Experimental Results 206741 Methanation Catalysts Screening Cycle Resistance

Contamination by Sulfur Components 206742 Results with the 25 kW

el P2Greg Plant 209

743 Results with the 250 kWel P2Greg Plant 210

744 Results with the 250 kWel P2Greg Plant in Combination

with Membrane Gas Upgrade 21375 P2Greg Process Efficiency 214

viii CONTENTS

76 Conclusion and Outlook 217Acknowledgements 219References 219

8 Fluidized Bed Methanation for SNG Production ndash Process Development at the Paul‐Scherrer Institut 221Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollaz

81 Introduction to Process Development 22182 Methane from Wood ndash Process Development at PSI 223References 229

9 MILeNA Indirect Gasification oLGA tar Removal and eCN Process for Methanation 231Luc PLM Rabou Bram Van der Drift Eric HAJ Van Dijk Christiaan M Van der Meijden and Berend J Vreugdenhil

91 Introduction 23192 Main Process Steps 233

921 MILENA Indirect Gasification 233922 OLGA Tar Removal 236923 HDS and Deep S Removal 237924 Reformer 238925 CO

2 Removal 239

926 Methanation and Upgrading 23993 Process Efficiency and Economy 24094 Results and Status 241

941 MILENA 241942 OLGA 242943 HDS Reformer and Methanation 243

95 Outlook 245951 Pressure 245952 Co‐production 245953 Bio Carbon Capture and Storage 246954 Power to Gas 246

Acknowledgements 246References 247

10 Hydrothermal Production of SNG from Wet Biomass 249Freacutedeacuteric Vogel

101 Introduction 249102 Historical Development 252103 Physical and Chemical Bases 253

1031 Catalysis 2541032 Phase Behavior and Salt Separation 2591033 Liquefaction of the Solid Biomass Tar and Coke Formation 263

CONTENTS ix

104 PSIrsquos Catalytic SNG Process 2661041 Process Description and Layout 2661042 Mass Balance 2681043 Energy Balance 2691044 Status of Process Development at PSI 2691045 Comparison to other SNG Processes 271

105 Open Questions and Outlook 273References 274

11 Agnionrsquos Small Scale SNG Concept 279Thomas Kienberger and Christian Zuber

References 291

12 Integrated Desulfurization and Methanation Concepts for SNG Production 293Christian FJ Koumlnig Maarten Nachtegaal and Tilman J Schildhauer

121 Introduction 293122 Concepts for Integrated Desulfurization and Methanation 295

1221 Sulfur‐Resistant Methanation 2951222 Regeneration of Methanation Catalysts 2971223 Discussion of the Concepts 300

123 Required Future Research 3011231 Sulfur Resistant Methanation 3011232 Periodic Regeneration 302

References 303

Index 307

List of Contributors

renato baciocchi University of Rome Tor Vergata Roma Italy

serge MA biollaz Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Jochen brellochs Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Giulia Costa University of Rome Tor Vergata Roma Italy

Volkmar frick Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Joumlrgen Held Renewable Energy Technology International AB Lund Sweden

stefan Heyne Chalmers University of Technology Goumlteborg Sweden

thomas Kienberger Montanuniversitaumlt Leoben Leoben Austria

Christian fJ Koumlnig Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Lidia Lombardi Niccolograve Cusano University Roma Italy

Maarten nachtegaal Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Luc PLM rabou Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

urs rhyner AGRO Energie Schwyz Schwyz Switzerland

tilman J schildhauer Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Martin seemann Chalmers University of Technology Goumlteborg Sweden

xi

xii LIST Of CONTRIBUTORS

Michael specht Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

bernd stuumlrmer Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Eric HAJ Van Dijk Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

bram Van der Drift Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

Christiaan M Van der Meijden Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

freacutedeacuteric Vogel Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

berend J Vreugdenhil Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

Christian Zuber Agnion Highterm Research GesmbH Graz Austria

ulrich Zuberbuumlhler Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Synthetic Natural Gas from Coal Dry Biomass and Power-to-Gas Applications First EditionEdited by Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollazcopy 2016 John Wiley amp Sons Inc Published 2016 by John Wiley amp Sons Inc

1

1Introductory remarks

Tilman J Schildhauer

11 Why produce synthetIc natural gas

The answer to this question [which may also explain why one should read a book on synthetic natural gas (SNG) production] changes with time

During the years from 1950 to the early 1980s SNG production was an important topic mainly in the United States in the United Kingdom and in Germany The interest was caused by a couple of reasons In these countries a relative abundance of coal and the expected shortage of natural gas triggered several industrial initia-tives partly funded by public authorities to develop processes from coal to SNG Due to the oil crisis during the 1970s the use of domestic coal rather than the import of oil became a second motivation A third motivation is the possibility to make domestic (low quality) energy reserves available de‐centrally as an energy carrier for which the distribution infrastructure already exists and that allows for both clean and efficient use by consumers

These boundary conditions lead in 1984 to the start‐up of the 15 GWSNG

plant in Great Plains which is run by the Dakota Gas Company and converts lignite into SNG and many other products This plant stayed the only commercial SNG production for nearly 30 years because with the drop of the oil price in the mid1980s the explora-tion of natural gas in the North Sea and the gas pipelines between Russia and Europe the interest in SNG from coal ceased

Especially in the United States the interest came back in the years after the turn of the millennium now triggered by the again rising oil price and the meanwhile established use of CO

2 (which is an inherent by‐product of coal to SNG plants) for

2 INTRODUCTORy REmARKS

enhanced oil recovery (EOR) Back then a dozen coal to SNG projects were started including EOR Now due to the rapidly increasing exploitation of the shale gas and the connected possibility for a significant reduction of CO

2 emission all the projects

in the United States have been stoppedHowever all the mentioned motivations for SNG production that is shortage of

domestic natural gas use of domestic coal reserves which are far away from the highly populated areas and the possibility for clean and efficient combustion still prevail in China Therefore China is now by far the most important market for the production of SNG from coal Three large plants have started operation and further plants are planned or under construction

In Europe several aspects triggered a reconsideration of SNG production about 15 years ago Due to its cleaner combustion and inherently lower CO

2 emission

using natural gas in transportation (eg for CNG cars) is supported in many coun-tries and has even been economically beneficial for the past few years due to the lower gas price With the aim of the European Commission to replace up to 20 of European fuel consumption by biofuel replacing natural gas partly with bio‐methane becomes necessary So far bio‐methane is mostly produced by up‐grading biogas from anaerobic digestion However due to the limited amount of substrate this pathway cannot be increased much more and other sources of bio‐methane are sought

Additionally many European countries wish to use their domestic biomass resources for energy production in order to decrease CO

2 emissions and the import

of energy A major part of the biomass is ligno‐cellulosic (mostly wood) and mainly used for heating for example in wood pellet heating As the heat demand is gen-erally decreasing due to better building insulation the conversion of wood to high value forms of energy that is electricity and fuels is of increasing interest Like in the case of coal conversion to fuels requires (so far) gasification as the first step As shown by process simulations and the first demonstration plants the conversion of wood to SNG can reach significantly higher efficiencies than conversion to liquid fuels

Very recently a third aspect began to gain greater importance especially in Central Europe Due to the increasing integration of stochastic renewable sources like photovoltaics and wind energy into electricity generation the demand for balancing the electricity supply and the demand over spatial and temporal distances is increasing For the future even the seasonal storage of electricity may be necessary Here the production of SNG can play an important role While the gasification of solid feedstocks is a more or less continuous process the further conversion to electricity or SNG can be flexibly adjusted to the balancing needs of the electricity grid within so‐called polygeneration schemes

moreover in times where the electricity production from renewables exceeds the actual demand in the electricity grid (a situation that today occasionally is observed in Central Europe and is expected to be more common in future) producing SNG could utilize the excess electricity instead of curtailing photovoltaics or wind tur-bines In so‐called power to gas applications hydrogen is produced from excess electricity by electrolysis of water and then converted to SNG by methanation of

OVERVIEW 3

carbon oxides As a source of carbon oxides biogas producer gas from (biomass) gasification flue gas from industry or even CO

2 from the atmosphere can be consid-

ered opening a pathway to produce SNG without solid feedstock that can be stored or transported over long distances within the existing natural gas infrastructure

12 overvIeW

This book aims at a suitable overview over the different pathways to produce SNG (Figure 11)

The first four chapters cover the main process steps during conversion of coal and dry biomass to SNG gasification gas cleaning methanation and gas upgrading The main technology options will be highlighted and the impact of a technology choice for downstream processes and the complete process chain In these chapters espe-cially in the chapter on methanation reactors the state of the art coal to SNG processes are discussed in detail

The following chapters describe a number of novel processes for the production of SNG with their specific combination of process steps as well as the boundary con-ditions for which the respective process was developed These processes comprise those which are already in operation (eg the 20 mW

SNG bio‐SNG production in

Gothenburg Sweden or the 6 mWSNG

power to gas plant in Werlte Germany) and processes which are still under development

The gasification chapter covers the thermodynamics of gasification and presents both coal and biomass gasification technologies

Coal Dry biomass

gasification

Gas cleaning

Methanation

Methanation

SNG (CH4)

CO2 from air or industry

H2O CO2(H2)

H2 from electrolysis(power-to-gas)

Algae manure

Hydrothermalgasification

Biogas fromdigestion

Raw SNG CH4 H2O (CO2 H2)

Gas upgrading

FIgure 11 The different pathways to produce SNG

4 INTRODUCTORy REmARKS

The gas cleaning chapter discusses the impurities to be expected in gasification‐derived producer gas explains the state of the art gas cleaning technologies and focuses on the innovative gas cleaning steps which are developed for hot gas cleaning

The chapter on methanation reactors presents the chemical reactions proceeding inside the reactors their thermodynamic limitation and their reaction mechanisms Further an overview of the different reactor types with their advantages and chal-lenges is given covering coal to SNG biomass to SNG and power to gas processes The last section of this chapter focuses on the modeling and simulation of methana-tion reactors including the necessary experiments to determine reaction kinetics and to generate data for model validation

The chapter on gas‐upgrading discusses technologies for gas drying CO2 and

hydrogen removal based on adsorption absorption and membranes and includes a techno‐economic comparison

The chapter on the GoBiGas project (ldquoGothenburg Bio Gasrdquo) presents the boundary conditions and technologies applied in the 20 mW

SNG wood to SNG plant

in Gothenburg Sweden which was commissioned in 2014The next chapter explains the development of the power to gas process at the

Zentrum fuumlr solare Wasserstofferzeugung (ZSW) including the 6 mWSNG

plant in Werlte Germany

The chapter on fluidised bed methanation describes the process development at the Paul Scherrer Institut aiming at a flexible technology for efficiently converting wood to SNG and for hydrogen conversion within power to gas applications

The following chapter presents the technologies developed at the Energy Center of the Netherlands (ECN) for efficient SNG production from wood especially their allothermal gasification technology (mILENA) and their broad experience with gas cleaning

The chapter on hydrothermal gasification discusses the unique technology allow-ing for the simultaneous catalytic gasification and methanation of wet biomass under super‐critical conditions

The chapter on agnionrsquos small scale SNG concept focuses on two novel technol-ogies that allow for significant process simplification especially in small scale bio‐SNG plants the pressurized heatpipe reformer and the polytropic fixed bed methanation

The last chapter offers a view on the research for even more simplified SNG processes that is for methanation steps that allow for integrated desulfurization and methanation

The author of these lines wishes to express his gratitude especially to the contrib-utors of this book and to the persons at the publisher for their excellent work but also to all colleagues scientific collaborators partners friends and scientists in the community for many fruitful and interesting discussions All of you bring the field forward and made this book possible

Synthetic Natural Gas from Coal Dry Biomass and Power-to-Gas Applications First EditionEdited by Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollazcopy 2016 John Wiley amp Sons Inc Published 2016 by John Wiley amp Sons Inc

5

2Coal and Biomass GasifiCation for snG ProduCtion

Stefan Heyne Martin Seemann and Tilman J Schildhauer

21 introduCtion ndash BasiC requirements for GasifiCation in the framework of snG ProduCtion

Within the production of synthetic natural gas ndash basically methane ndash from solid feed-stock such as coal or biomass the major conversion step is gasification generating a product gas containing a mixture of permanent and condensable gases as well as solid residues (eg char ash) The gasification step can be conducted in different atmospheres and using different reaction agents Figure 21 represents the basic pathway from solid fuel to methane considering the main elements carbon hydrogen and oxygen It is obvious that an increase in hydrogen content is necessary for all feedstock illustrated At the same time the oxygen content needs to be reduced in particular for biogenic feedstock that is oxygenated to a higher degree

There exist different strategies or pathways for performing the conversion from feedstock towards methane within gasification as illustrated in Figure 21 Adding steam as a gasification agent is common practice not only due to the stoichiometric effect but also for enhanced char gasification and temperature moderation within the reactor H

2 addition is used in hydrogasification leading to a higher initial methane

6 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

content in the product gas [3 4] Co2 removal is an intrinsic part of the SnG produc-

tion process some gasification concepts using adsorptive bed material for direct Co2

removal within the gasification reactor [5] The addition of oxygen (common practice for all direct gasification technologies) actually leads to an increased need for Co

2

removal downstream of the reactor For indirect gasification where ungasified char is combusted in a separate chamber for heat supply the composition is changed towards methane via path (c) in Figure 21 Pretreatment technologies such as torrefaction decrease the oxygen content of the feedstock at the cost of increased energy demand

22 thermodynamiCs of GasifiCation

For an increased understanding of the role of gasification for the overall SnG process the basic thermodynamic aspects within gasification are discussed in the following The gasification process is a series of different conversions involving both homoge-neous and heterogeneous reactions The basic steps from solid fuel to product gas are drying pyrolysis or devolatilization and gasification depending on the physical size of the fuel these different steps occur in a sequential order for small particles or

40

20

0

60

80

0 20 40 60 80

0

20

40

60

80

Oxygen

Carbon

Hyd

roge

n

Feedstock

CH4

H2O

CO2

O2

H2

Carbon1 Biomass (hardwood softwood straw)2 Lignite coal3 Bituminous coal4 Anthracite coal

3

4

1

2

a removing CO2b adding H2c removing char (C)d adding steame adding O2

a

b d

e

c

fiGure 21 CHo diagram for coal and biomass Feedstock composition based on [1 2] data from Higman 2008 [1] Phyllis2 database for biomass and waste httpswwwecnnlphyllis2 Energy research Centre of the netherlands

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 7

overlap in bigger particles The detailed description of the complete process is a com-plex task and the considerations made in the following therefore focus on specific parts of the process and their implications for the overall conversion starting with some stoichiometric aspects for gasification

221 Gasification reactions

The major reactions occurring during the gasification step that commonly are consid-ered relevant are

C s o g Co g kJ mol partial oxidation0 5 1112 (21)

Co g o g Co g kJ mol carbon monoxide combustion0 5 2832 2 (22)

C s o g Co g kJ mol carbon combustion2 2 394ndash (23)

C s Co g Co g kJ mol reverse Boudouard reaction2 2 172 (24)

C s H o g Co g H g kJ mol water gas reaction2 2 131 (25)

Co g H o g H g Co g kJ mol water gas shift reaction2 2 2 41ndash (26)

CH g H o g H g Co g kJ mol steam reforming4 2 23 206 (27)

The char gasification reactions converting carbon into gaseous fuels [Equations (24) and (25)] are endothermic reactions requiring heat supply that is realized either by combusting part of the fuel in the same reactor (direct or autothermal gasification) or by indirect heat supply from an external combustion or heat source (indirect or allo-thermal gasification)

222 overall Gasification Process ndash equilibrium Based Considerations

Considering the overall process from coal or biomass to methane at the example of steam gasification the reaction stoichiometry can be expressed as

C o H o CH Cox y zH a b c2 4 2 (28)

with a xy z

bx y z

cx y z

4 2 2 8 4 2 8 4

Table 21 gives the coefficients for steam gasification to methane [Equation (28)] for different coal and biomass feedstock materials allowing the calculation of the heat

ta

Bl

e 2

1

Com

posi

tion

and

ove

rall

rea

ctio

n d

ata

for

stea

m G

asif

icat

ion

for

dif

fere

nt f

eeds

tock

mat

eria

ls

Feed

stoc

kM

olar

C

ompo

sitio

nl

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]c

rea

ctio

n C

oeff

icie

nts

for

Equ

atio

n (2

8)

ΔH

rM

etha

ne Y

ield

ab

c[M

Jkg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

[kg

CH

4kg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

Coa

laB

row

n co

al ndash

rhe

in

Ger

man

yC

H0

88o

029

262

273

063

20

537

046

3ndash0

19

048

9

lig

nite

ndash n

dak

ota

uSA

CH

072

o0

2526

727

70

697

052

90

471

06

050

9B

itum

inou

s ndash

typi

cal

Sout

h A

fric

aC

H0

68o

008

3435

10

792

056

70

433

12

10

654

Ant

hrac

ite ndash

ruh

r G

erm

any

CH

047

o0

0236

237

00

873

055

30

447

14

60

693

Bio

mas

sbW

illow

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

46o

065

185

199

031

00

520

048

0ndash0

45

035

0B

eech

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

47o

069

179

192

028

60

511

048

9ndash0

71

033

3Fi

r ndash

soft

woo

dC

H1

45o

065

196

210

031

30

520

048

0ndash1

58

035

0Sp

ruce

ndash s

oftw

ood

CH

142

o0

6818

419

70

304

050

80

492

ndash11

70

335

Whe

at s

traw

CH

146

o0

6818

319

60

297

051

20

488

ndash08

40

338

ric

e st

raw

CH

143

o0

6817

518

80

303

050

80

492

ndash02

30

335

a Tak

en f

rom

Hig

man

and

van

der

Bur

gt [

1]

b Tak

en f

rom

Phy

llis

[2]

ndash av

erag

e da

ta f

or m

ater

ial g

roup

c H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

] =

lH

V [

MJ

kg d

af]

+ 2

44

middot 89

4 middot H

[w

t d

af]

100

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 9

of reaction (based on the HHV of feedstock and methane all reactants and products at 25 degC) as well as the stoichiometric methane yield per kilogram of feedstock The heat of reaction for the overall reaction corresponds to well below 10 for all feed-stock materials For coal based feedstock with low oxygen content the reaction is endothermic while for brown coal and biomass feedstock it is exothermic The methane yield per kilogram feedstock also is considerably lower for biomass based feedstock due to the high oxygen content one option to improve the methane yield would be the additional supply of hydrogen as for example considered in hydrogas-ification The only technical conversion process capable of converting carbonaceous feedstock directly to methane and carbon dioxide according to the reaction in Equation (28) is gasification under supercritical conditions so‐called hydrothermal gasification [6ndash8] This technology is capable of handling wet feedstock but not yet available at commercial scale and is not covered in this chapter Common gasifica-tion technology converts the feedstock to a product gas being a mixture of Co Co

2

H2 H

2o CH

4 light and higher hydrocarbons and trace components followed by a

downstream gas cleaning and methane synthesis stepThe major operating parameters for gasification are pressure and temperature

Equilibrium calculations for steam gasification (05 kg H2okg daf feedstock) for a

generic biomass are used to illustrate the basic trends for the product gas composition and heat demand with changing pressure and temperature All feedstock is assumed to be converted to product gas As can be observed from Figure 22 methane formation is favored by lower temperatures and higher pressures Hydrogen and carbon monoxide formation increases with temperature and so does the endothermi-city of the overall reaction The theoretically exothermic reaction to CH

4 and Co

2 at

25 degC [similar to Equation (28)] turns into an endothermic reaction requiring heat supply at higher temperature

light hydrocarbons (represented by C2H

4) and tars (represented by C

10H

8) are only

formed to a very small extent according to equilibrium calculations The amount of steam added for gasification will mainly influence the H

2Co ratio via the water gas

shift reaction Equation (26) In reality the equilibrium state is usually not reached in the shown temperature range but the actual product gas composition resulting from gasification is influenced by a number of other parameters as will be discussed in subsequent sections An increase in gasification pressure favors methane formation predicted by equilibrium calculations at 800 degC the methane molar fraction increases from 0 to about 155 from 1 to 30 bar With more methane being formed the endo-thermic heat of reaction is reduced by 666 from 1 to 30 bar Again no to very little formation of light hydrocarbons and tars is predicted by the equilibrium even at higher pressures At high pressures and moderate temperatures a mixture of basically CH

4 Co

2 and H

2o ndash representing Equation (28) ndash can be obtained A process

example is hydrothermal gasification which is operating at these conditions but still is at development state [6ndash8] The above‐mentioned trends are all under the assumption of complete conversion of feedstock to product gas Many gasification concepts how-ever have a considerable amount of char remaining unconverted being removed with the ashes or in indirect gasification being converted in a separate combustion chamber for supplying the gasification heat The carbon feedstock entering the gas phase

10 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

during gasification will therefore be drastically changed when carbon conversion is incomplete Even minor effects on the hydrogen and oxygen balance in the gas phase can be expected as for example biomass char still contains oxygen and hydrogen [9] Figure 23 depicts the influence of pressure and temperature on carbon conversion at temperatures below 800 degC considerable amounts of solid carbon formation are pre-dicted This will in turn influence the equilibrium conditions in the gas phase as the carbon stock in gas phase is reduced The major reactions affected are the Boudouard water gas and waterndashgas shift reactions Equations (24) to (26) Incomplete carbon conversion leads to a decrease of Co concentration in the product gas as well as a decrease in H

2 compared to equilibrium at complete conversion

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

30minus2000

0

2000

4000

6000

ΔH

r [kJ

kg

daf

feed

]

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

300

01020304

y CH

4y H

2y H

2O

y CO

2y C

O

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

T [degC] T [degC]

T [degC]T [degC]

T [degC] T [degC]

P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar] P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar]

fiGure 22 Pressure and temperature dependence of the molar concentration of major gas species and the heat of reaction for steam gasification (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic

biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH143

o066

) assuming complete carbon conversion calculated by ASPEn PluS

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 11

223 Gasification ndash a multi‐step Process deviating from equilibrium

Equilibrium calculations while useful for identifying trends with changing operating conditions cannot however predict the performance of technical equipment to a full extent They represent a boundary value that can be approached but never reached The gasification process on a physical level is a multi‐stage process starting with drying of the feedstock followed by pyrolysis and gasificationcombustion The kinetics of the numerous homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions occurring ndash as well as the residence time and reactor setup ndash ultimately determine the product gas composition resulting from gasification Figure 24 illustrates a simplified reaction network for the conversion from received fuel to product gas The drying and pri-mary pyrolysis (also referred to as devolatilization) steps are similar for all gasifica-tion technologies whereas the extent of gasification reactions occurring as well as the approach to equilibrium are a strong function of the gasification medium and the reactor setup during pyrolysis a considerable amount of tars a complex mixture of 1‐ to 5‐ring aromatic hydrocarbons is formed that will undergo various conversion pathways during gasification In the final product gas tar can still represent a consid-erable amount of energy for example biomass steam gasification at 800 degC can result in more than 33 g tarsnm3 corresponding to about 8 of the total product gas energy content on a lower heating value basis [10]

200400

600800

10001200

0

10

20

30

04

02

0

06

08

1

T [degC]

P [bar]

Am

ount

of

feed

stoc

k ca

rbon

conv

erte

d to

gas

pha

se

fiGure 23 Carbon conversion predicted by equilibrium calculations for steam gasifica-tion (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt

CH143

o066

)

12 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

The gas composition from primary pyrolysis represents the starting point for the gasification reactions neves et al [9] conducted an extensive literature review of data on pyrolysis experiments and derived an empirical model for estimating gas species yields as well as tar and char yields and elemental composition as a function of peak pyrolysis temperature Figure 25 illustrates the pyrolysis gas composition and the total gas and char yield based on nevesrsquo model In contrast to the equilibrium calculations for gasification represented in Figure 22 the model predicts consider-able amounts of tars as well as a considerable amount of char produced from pyrol-ysis Even light hydrocarbons are present in the pyrolysis gas Generally speaking the product distribution from pyrolysis as presented in Figure 25 undergoes conversion towards the equilibrium conditions during the final conversion step in Figure 24 ndash the gasification step

The extent of conversion towards the equilibrium state is a function of a large number of parameters such as pressure and temperature reactor design and associated residence time for gas and solids as well as gasndashsolid mixing and the presence of catalytically active materials promoting specific reactions among others

Secondary PyrolysisGasication

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

DehydrationPolymerizationGasication

ReformingCrackingOxidationWater-gas shift

dry fuel

Primary Pyrolysis

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

Drying

As-receivedfuel particle Moisture

Dry fuel

Gasication medium(H2O H2 O2 CO2

)

Productgas

fiGure 24 Conversion process of a fuel particle during gasification (adopted and modi-fied from neves et al [9])

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 13

224 heat management of the Gasification Process

As temperature is the major influencing parameter on the kinetics of the different gasification reactions the thermal management of the gasification reactor is of particular importance The conversion steps from solid fuel to product gas as illus-trated in Figure 24 occur at different temperature levels A qualitative representation

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

Temperature (ordmC)

Tars (C10H8)

CxHy

CH4

CO

CO2

H2O

H2

Mol

ar f

ract

ion

of c

ompo

nent

i

(a)

Temperature (ordmC)

Yie

ld (

kgk

g da

f fu

el)

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1

Char yield

Total yield per kg daf fuelGases tars and pyrolytic water

(b)

fiGure 25 Pyrolysis gas molar composition (a) and overall mass yields (b) as a function of temperature (based on neves [9]) for a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066)

14 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of the temperature profile for a fuel particle over time is illustrated in Figure 26a After particle heat‐up the moisture is evaporated The dry fuel particle is further heated releasing pyrolysis gases and finally the char particle is gasified Heat for gasification needs to be supplied by the hot environment Particle combustion indicated by the dashed line occurs at a particle temperature above environ-ment due to the exothermic nature of the combustion reactions For complete conversion of a biomass fuel with initial moisture content of 20 wt the distribution of the heat demand for conversion on the different processes is illustrated in Figure 26b The gasification heat demand is dominant but even pyrolysis and drying

Dry

ing

Time

(a)

(b)

Tem

pera

ture

Dev

olat

iliza

tion

Pyro

lysi

s Char gasication

Char combustion

Surrounding temperature

a dcb

a ndash Preheating ndash 40b ndash Drying ndash 82

c ndash Pyrolysis ndash 76d ndash Gasication ndash 802

Fraction of total heat demand(6566 kJkg daf fuel)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat demand [kJkg daf fuel]

Gasication temperature (850 degC)

Pyrolysistemperature

(450 degC)

fiGure 26 (a) Qualitative representation of the temperature evolution of a fuel particle during gasification (b) Steam gasification heat demand profile for full conversion of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) at equilibrium (SB ratio = 05

steam supply at 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture)

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 15

represent a considerable share of the specific heat demand for conversion of course in reality pyrolysis and gasification rather occur over a certain temperature range instead of the fixed temperatures used for the calculation (nevesrsquo model for pyrolysis [9] and equilibrium calculations for the gasification) In addition the processes are not strictly sequential but partly occur in parallel within a gasification reactor nevertheless the gasification heat demand will be largest and above all requires the highest temperature level

All heat for the conversion process within the gasification unit needs to be supplied by combustion of part of the fuel or additional external fuel at high temperature Changing the initial moisture content of the biomass will reduce the drying heat demand [b in Figure 26b] and therefore improve the conversion efficiency External drying also allows for using a heat source at lower temperature improving the conversion process from an exergy perspective Even the pyrolysis process can be conducted in a separate reactor with a separate heat source For these considerations in relation to the thermal management of the gasification process temperaturendashheat load graphs can be a useful tool for identifying improvements for the energy efficiency of the gasification process Figure 27 presents such a graph as an example of an indirect gasification process modelled using nevesrsquo pyrolysis model and gasification at equilibrium It is assumed that the amount of char combusted is set to ensure that the combustion heat covers the heat demand for fuel heat‐up drying pyrolysis and gasification The supply of steam to gasification (400 degC) and hot air to combustion (400 degC) is an additional heat demand that needs to be covered The thick curve in Figure 27 represents the aggregation of all the above‐mentioned heat demands whereas the dashed curve is a representation of all heat sources namely the combustion

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat load [kJkg daf fuel]

Preheating biomass air and water (steam)

Moisture evaporationand steam generation

Pyrolysis andpreheating air and steam

Gasific

ation

Tpyrolysis = 450 ordmC

Tgasification = 850 ordmC

Tcombustion = 900 ordmCChar combustion

Gas

coo

ling

(pro

duct

gas

and

com

busti

on fl

ue g

as)Maximum amount

of excess heat3610 kJkg daf

fiGure 27 Temperature heat load curve for indirect steam gasification of a generic bio-mass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) SB ratio = 05 air and steam supply

at 25 degC and heated to 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture

16 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of char and the cooling of hot product gas and combustion flue gases to ambient tem-perature It is obvious that for ideal heat transfer the process has a considerable amount of excess heat allowing for a further increase in conversion to product gas by more efficient use of the heat and reducing the char combustion Converting more solid fuel to product gas will increase the heat demand while at the same time the heat supply will decrease as less char is burnt Even considering the overall SnG process these curves can be used for a holistic analysis of the heat integration of sinks and sources including the operations up‐ and downstream of the gasification step Heat from the methanation reaction might for example be used for biomass drying or for regeneration of an amine solution used for downstream Co

2 removal

The slope of the heat demand curves for pyrolysis and gasification also is dependent on the gas composition that actually is obtained during the different processes A deviation from equilibrium conditions for the gasification will result in considerable changes of the conversion heat demand Two parameters commonly used in thermal conversion processes are used to illustrate the influence of different parameters on the energy performance of the gasification process The first param-eter is the relative air to fuel ratio λ defining the amount of air (oxygen) actually supplied to the reaction in relation to the amount necessary for complete combustion according to stoichiometry

n

nair o actual

air o stoichiometric

2

2

(27)

The second parameter commonly used in gasification is the chemical efficiency ηch

relating the chemical energy content of the product gas to the fuel chemical energy η

ch can be defined on both a lower and a higher heating value basis but in order to

avoid confusion with respect to moisture content the higher heating value is used here

ch HHV

PG

fuel fuel

HHV

HHV

i

i i

n

n (28)

Figure 28 shows λ and ηchHHV

for the base case as illustrated in Figure 27 as well as the influence of changes in different operating parameters Increasing the feed tem-perature for both steam to gasification (Point 1 in Figure 28) and air to combustion (Point 3 in Figure 28) increases the chemical efficiency and reduces λ as less char needs to be burnt reducing the incoming moisture content of the biomass from 20 to 10 wt (Point 4 in Figure 28) results in a remarkable effect reducing the necessary air to fuel ratio and gives a relative increase of the chemical efficiency of 32 Assuming heat losses from the gasification unit (point 6 in Figure 28) corresponding to 2 of the thermal input on a higher heating value basis on the other hand considerably increases the air to fuel ratio and leads to a relative decrease of the chemical efficiency by 3 All changes except for points 5 7 and 8 represent thermal

Page 4: cover thumb - download.e-bookshelf.de · 10.4 PSI’s Catalytic SNG Process 266 10.4.1 Process Description and Layout 266 10.4.2 Mass Balance 268 10.4.3 Energy Balance 269 10.4.4

Copyright copy 2016 by John Wiley amp Sons Inc All rights reserved

Published by John Wiley amp Sons Inc Hoboken New JerseyPublished simultaneously in Canada

No part of this publication may be reproduced stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic mechanical photocopying recording scanning or otherwise except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act without either the prior written permission of the Publisher or authorization through payment of the appropriate per‐copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center Inc 222 Rosewood Drive Danvers MA 01923 (978) 750‐8400 fax (978) 750‐4470 or on the web at wwwcopyrightcom Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department John Wiley amp Sons Inc 111 River Street Hoboken NJ 07030 (201) 748‐6011 fax (201) 748‐6008 or online at httpwwwwileycomgopermissions

Limit of LiabilityDisclaimer of Warranty While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation You should consult with a professional where appropriate Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages including but not limited to special incidental consequential or other damages

For general information on our other products and services or for technical support please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at (800) 762‐2974 outside the United States at (317) 572‐3993 or fax (317) 572‐4002

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic formats For more information about Wiley products visit our web site at wwwwileycom

Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data

Names Schildhauer Tilman J editor | Biollaz Serge MA editorTitle Synthetic natural gas from coal dry biomass and power-to-gas applications

[edited by] Tilman J Schildhauer Serge MA BiollazDescription Hoboken New Jersey John Wiley amp Sons 2016 |

Includes bibliographical references and indexIdentifiers LCCN 2016006837 (print) | LCCN 2016014453 (ebook) | ISBN 9781118541814 (cloth) |

ISBN 9781119191254 (pdf) | ISBN 9781119191360 (epub)Subjects LCSH Synthesis gas | Coal gasification | Biomass conversion | Gas manufacture and worksClassification LCC TP360 S96 2016 (print) | LCC TP360 (ebook) | DDC 6602844ndashdc23LC record available at httplccnlocgov2016006837

Set in 1012pt Times by SPi Global Pondicherry India

Printed in the United States of America

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

v

List of Contributors xi

1 Introductory Remarks 1Tilman J Schildhauer

11 Why Produce Synthetic Natural Gas 112 Overview 3

2 Coal and Biomass Gasification for SNG Production 5Stefan Heyne Martin Seemann and Tilman J Schildhauer

21 Introduction ndash Basic Requirements for Gasification in the Framework of SNG Production 5

22 Thermodynamics of Gasification 6221 Gasification Reactions 7222 Overall Gasification Process ndash Equilibrium Based Considerations 7223 Gasification ndash A Multi‐step Process Deviating from Equilibrium 11224 Heat Management of the Gasification Process 13225 Implication of Thermodynamic Considerations for Technology

Choice 1823 Gasification Technologies 18

231 Entrained Flow 19232 Fixed Bed 20233 Direct Fluidized Bed 22234 Indirect Fluidized Bed Gasification 27235 Hydrogasification and Catalytic Gasification 34

References 37

CoNteNtS

vi CONTENTS

3 Gas Cleaning 41Urs Rhyner

31 Introduction 4132 Impurities 42

321 Particulate Matter 42322 Tars 43323 Sulfur Compounds 43324 Halide Compounds 44325 Alkali Compounds 44326 Nitrogen Compounds 44327 Other Impurities 44

33 Cold Warm and Hot Gas Cleaning 45331 Example of B‐IGFC Gas Cleaning Process Chains 45

34 Gas Cleaning Technologies 47341 Particulate Matter 47342 Tars 52343 Sulfur Compounds 57344 Hydrodesulfurization 59345 Chlorine (Halides) 60346 Alkali 61347 Nitrogen‐containing Compounds 61348 Other Impurities 62

35 Reactive Hot Gas Filter 62References 65

4 Methanation for Synthetic Natural Gas Production ndash Chemical Reaction engineering Aspects 77Tilman J Schildhauer

41 Methanation ndash The Synthesis Step in the Production of Synthetic Natural Gas 77411 Feed Gas Mixtures for Methanation Reactors 79412 Thermodynamic Equilibrium 82413 Methanation Catalysts Kinetics and Reaction Mechanisms 88414 Catalyst Deactivation 97

42 Methanation Reactor Types 107421 Adiabatic Fixed Bed Reactors 109422 Cooled Reactors 117423 Comparison of Methanation Reactor Concepts 129

43 Modeling and Simulation of Methanation Reactors 132431 How to Measure (Intrinsic) Kinetics 133432 Modeling of Fixed Bed Reactors 136433 Modeling of Isothermal Fluidized Bed Reactors 139

44 Conclusions and Open Research Questions 14645 Symbol List 148References 149

CONTENTS vii

5 SNG Upgrading 161Renato Baciocchi Giulia Costa and Lidia Lombardi

51 Introduction 16152 Separation Processes for SNG Upgrading 163

521 Bulk CO2CH

4 Separation 163

522 Removal of other Compounds and Impurities 16953 Techno‐Economical Comparison of Selected Separation Options 174References 176

6 SNG from Wood ndash the GoBiGas Project 181Joumlrgen Held

61 Biomethane in Sweden 18162 Conditions and Background for the GoBiGas Project in Gothenburg 18463 Technical Description 18564 Technical Issues and Lessons Learned 18865 Status 18866 Efficiency 18867 Economics 18868 Outlook 189Acknowledgements 189References 189

7 the Power to Gas Process Storage of Renewable energy in the Natural Gas Grid via Fixed Bed Methanation of Co2H2 191Michael Specht Jochen Brellochs Volkmar Frick Bernd Stuumlrmer and Ulrich Zuberbuumlhler

71 Motivation 191711 History ldquoRenewable Fuel Paths at ZSWrdquo 191712 Goal ldquoEnergiewenderdquo 192713 Goal ldquoPower Based Carbon Based Fuelsrdquo 192714 Goal ldquoP2Gregrdquo 192715 Goal ldquoMethanationrdquo 193

72 The Power to Fuel Concept Co‐utilization of (Biogenic) Carbon and Hydrogen 193

73 P2Greg Technology 196731 Methanation Characteristics for CO

2 Based Syngas 197

732 P2Greg Plant Layout of 25 kWel 250 kW

el and 6000 kW

el Plants 202

74 Experimental Results 206741 Methanation Catalysts Screening Cycle Resistance

Contamination by Sulfur Components 206742 Results with the 25 kW

el P2Greg Plant 209

743 Results with the 250 kWel P2Greg Plant 210

744 Results with the 250 kWel P2Greg Plant in Combination

with Membrane Gas Upgrade 21375 P2Greg Process Efficiency 214

viii CONTENTS

76 Conclusion and Outlook 217Acknowledgements 219References 219

8 Fluidized Bed Methanation for SNG Production ndash Process Development at the Paul‐Scherrer Institut 221Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollaz

81 Introduction to Process Development 22182 Methane from Wood ndash Process Development at PSI 223References 229

9 MILeNA Indirect Gasification oLGA tar Removal and eCN Process for Methanation 231Luc PLM Rabou Bram Van der Drift Eric HAJ Van Dijk Christiaan M Van der Meijden and Berend J Vreugdenhil

91 Introduction 23192 Main Process Steps 233

921 MILENA Indirect Gasification 233922 OLGA Tar Removal 236923 HDS and Deep S Removal 237924 Reformer 238925 CO

2 Removal 239

926 Methanation and Upgrading 23993 Process Efficiency and Economy 24094 Results and Status 241

941 MILENA 241942 OLGA 242943 HDS Reformer and Methanation 243

95 Outlook 245951 Pressure 245952 Co‐production 245953 Bio Carbon Capture and Storage 246954 Power to Gas 246

Acknowledgements 246References 247

10 Hydrothermal Production of SNG from Wet Biomass 249Freacutedeacuteric Vogel

101 Introduction 249102 Historical Development 252103 Physical and Chemical Bases 253

1031 Catalysis 2541032 Phase Behavior and Salt Separation 2591033 Liquefaction of the Solid Biomass Tar and Coke Formation 263

CONTENTS ix

104 PSIrsquos Catalytic SNG Process 2661041 Process Description and Layout 2661042 Mass Balance 2681043 Energy Balance 2691044 Status of Process Development at PSI 2691045 Comparison to other SNG Processes 271

105 Open Questions and Outlook 273References 274

11 Agnionrsquos Small Scale SNG Concept 279Thomas Kienberger and Christian Zuber

References 291

12 Integrated Desulfurization and Methanation Concepts for SNG Production 293Christian FJ Koumlnig Maarten Nachtegaal and Tilman J Schildhauer

121 Introduction 293122 Concepts for Integrated Desulfurization and Methanation 295

1221 Sulfur‐Resistant Methanation 2951222 Regeneration of Methanation Catalysts 2971223 Discussion of the Concepts 300

123 Required Future Research 3011231 Sulfur Resistant Methanation 3011232 Periodic Regeneration 302

References 303

Index 307

List of Contributors

renato baciocchi University of Rome Tor Vergata Roma Italy

serge MA biollaz Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Jochen brellochs Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Giulia Costa University of Rome Tor Vergata Roma Italy

Volkmar frick Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Joumlrgen Held Renewable Energy Technology International AB Lund Sweden

stefan Heyne Chalmers University of Technology Goumlteborg Sweden

thomas Kienberger Montanuniversitaumlt Leoben Leoben Austria

Christian fJ Koumlnig Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Lidia Lombardi Niccolograve Cusano University Roma Italy

Maarten nachtegaal Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Luc PLM rabou Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

urs rhyner AGRO Energie Schwyz Schwyz Switzerland

tilman J schildhauer Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Martin seemann Chalmers University of Technology Goumlteborg Sweden

xi

xii LIST Of CONTRIBUTORS

Michael specht Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

bernd stuumlrmer Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Eric HAJ Van Dijk Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

bram Van der Drift Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

Christiaan M Van der Meijden Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

freacutedeacuteric Vogel Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

berend J Vreugdenhil Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

Christian Zuber Agnion Highterm Research GesmbH Graz Austria

ulrich Zuberbuumlhler Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Synthetic Natural Gas from Coal Dry Biomass and Power-to-Gas Applications First EditionEdited by Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollazcopy 2016 John Wiley amp Sons Inc Published 2016 by John Wiley amp Sons Inc

1

1Introductory remarks

Tilman J Schildhauer

11 Why produce synthetIc natural gas

The answer to this question [which may also explain why one should read a book on synthetic natural gas (SNG) production] changes with time

During the years from 1950 to the early 1980s SNG production was an important topic mainly in the United States in the United Kingdom and in Germany The interest was caused by a couple of reasons In these countries a relative abundance of coal and the expected shortage of natural gas triggered several industrial initia-tives partly funded by public authorities to develop processes from coal to SNG Due to the oil crisis during the 1970s the use of domestic coal rather than the import of oil became a second motivation A third motivation is the possibility to make domestic (low quality) energy reserves available de‐centrally as an energy carrier for which the distribution infrastructure already exists and that allows for both clean and efficient use by consumers

These boundary conditions lead in 1984 to the start‐up of the 15 GWSNG

plant in Great Plains which is run by the Dakota Gas Company and converts lignite into SNG and many other products This plant stayed the only commercial SNG production for nearly 30 years because with the drop of the oil price in the mid1980s the explora-tion of natural gas in the North Sea and the gas pipelines between Russia and Europe the interest in SNG from coal ceased

Especially in the United States the interest came back in the years after the turn of the millennium now triggered by the again rising oil price and the meanwhile established use of CO

2 (which is an inherent by‐product of coal to SNG plants) for

2 INTRODUCTORy REmARKS

enhanced oil recovery (EOR) Back then a dozen coal to SNG projects were started including EOR Now due to the rapidly increasing exploitation of the shale gas and the connected possibility for a significant reduction of CO

2 emission all the projects

in the United States have been stoppedHowever all the mentioned motivations for SNG production that is shortage of

domestic natural gas use of domestic coal reserves which are far away from the highly populated areas and the possibility for clean and efficient combustion still prevail in China Therefore China is now by far the most important market for the production of SNG from coal Three large plants have started operation and further plants are planned or under construction

In Europe several aspects triggered a reconsideration of SNG production about 15 years ago Due to its cleaner combustion and inherently lower CO

2 emission

using natural gas in transportation (eg for CNG cars) is supported in many coun-tries and has even been economically beneficial for the past few years due to the lower gas price With the aim of the European Commission to replace up to 20 of European fuel consumption by biofuel replacing natural gas partly with bio‐methane becomes necessary So far bio‐methane is mostly produced by up‐grading biogas from anaerobic digestion However due to the limited amount of substrate this pathway cannot be increased much more and other sources of bio‐methane are sought

Additionally many European countries wish to use their domestic biomass resources for energy production in order to decrease CO

2 emissions and the import

of energy A major part of the biomass is ligno‐cellulosic (mostly wood) and mainly used for heating for example in wood pellet heating As the heat demand is gen-erally decreasing due to better building insulation the conversion of wood to high value forms of energy that is electricity and fuels is of increasing interest Like in the case of coal conversion to fuels requires (so far) gasification as the first step As shown by process simulations and the first demonstration plants the conversion of wood to SNG can reach significantly higher efficiencies than conversion to liquid fuels

Very recently a third aspect began to gain greater importance especially in Central Europe Due to the increasing integration of stochastic renewable sources like photovoltaics and wind energy into electricity generation the demand for balancing the electricity supply and the demand over spatial and temporal distances is increasing For the future even the seasonal storage of electricity may be necessary Here the production of SNG can play an important role While the gasification of solid feedstocks is a more or less continuous process the further conversion to electricity or SNG can be flexibly adjusted to the balancing needs of the electricity grid within so‐called polygeneration schemes

moreover in times where the electricity production from renewables exceeds the actual demand in the electricity grid (a situation that today occasionally is observed in Central Europe and is expected to be more common in future) producing SNG could utilize the excess electricity instead of curtailing photovoltaics or wind tur-bines In so‐called power to gas applications hydrogen is produced from excess electricity by electrolysis of water and then converted to SNG by methanation of

OVERVIEW 3

carbon oxides As a source of carbon oxides biogas producer gas from (biomass) gasification flue gas from industry or even CO

2 from the atmosphere can be consid-

ered opening a pathway to produce SNG without solid feedstock that can be stored or transported over long distances within the existing natural gas infrastructure

12 overvIeW

This book aims at a suitable overview over the different pathways to produce SNG (Figure 11)

The first four chapters cover the main process steps during conversion of coal and dry biomass to SNG gasification gas cleaning methanation and gas upgrading The main technology options will be highlighted and the impact of a technology choice for downstream processes and the complete process chain In these chapters espe-cially in the chapter on methanation reactors the state of the art coal to SNG processes are discussed in detail

The following chapters describe a number of novel processes for the production of SNG with their specific combination of process steps as well as the boundary con-ditions for which the respective process was developed These processes comprise those which are already in operation (eg the 20 mW

SNG bio‐SNG production in

Gothenburg Sweden or the 6 mWSNG

power to gas plant in Werlte Germany) and processes which are still under development

The gasification chapter covers the thermodynamics of gasification and presents both coal and biomass gasification technologies

Coal Dry biomass

gasification

Gas cleaning

Methanation

Methanation

SNG (CH4)

CO2 from air or industry

H2O CO2(H2)

H2 from electrolysis(power-to-gas)

Algae manure

Hydrothermalgasification

Biogas fromdigestion

Raw SNG CH4 H2O (CO2 H2)

Gas upgrading

FIgure 11 The different pathways to produce SNG

4 INTRODUCTORy REmARKS

The gas cleaning chapter discusses the impurities to be expected in gasification‐derived producer gas explains the state of the art gas cleaning technologies and focuses on the innovative gas cleaning steps which are developed for hot gas cleaning

The chapter on methanation reactors presents the chemical reactions proceeding inside the reactors their thermodynamic limitation and their reaction mechanisms Further an overview of the different reactor types with their advantages and chal-lenges is given covering coal to SNG biomass to SNG and power to gas processes The last section of this chapter focuses on the modeling and simulation of methana-tion reactors including the necessary experiments to determine reaction kinetics and to generate data for model validation

The chapter on gas‐upgrading discusses technologies for gas drying CO2 and

hydrogen removal based on adsorption absorption and membranes and includes a techno‐economic comparison

The chapter on the GoBiGas project (ldquoGothenburg Bio Gasrdquo) presents the boundary conditions and technologies applied in the 20 mW

SNG wood to SNG plant

in Gothenburg Sweden which was commissioned in 2014The next chapter explains the development of the power to gas process at the

Zentrum fuumlr solare Wasserstofferzeugung (ZSW) including the 6 mWSNG

plant in Werlte Germany

The chapter on fluidised bed methanation describes the process development at the Paul Scherrer Institut aiming at a flexible technology for efficiently converting wood to SNG and for hydrogen conversion within power to gas applications

The following chapter presents the technologies developed at the Energy Center of the Netherlands (ECN) for efficient SNG production from wood especially their allothermal gasification technology (mILENA) and their broad experience with gas cleaning

The chapter on hydrothermal gasification discusses the unique technology allow-ing for the simultaneous catalytic gasification and methanation of wet biomass under super‐critical conditions

The chapter on agnionrsquos small scale SNG concept focuses on two novel technol-ogies that allow for significant process simplification especially in small scale bio‐SNG plants the pressurized heatpipe reformer and the polytropic fixed bed methanation

The last chapter offers a view on the research for even more simplified SNG processes that is for methanation steps that allow for integrated desulfurization and methanation

The author of these lines wishes to express his gratitude especially to the contrib-utors of this book and to the persons at the publisher for their excellent work but also to all colleagues scientific collaborators partners friends and scientists in the community for many fruitful and interesting discussions All of you bring the field forward and made this book possible

Synthetic Natural Gas from Coal Dry Biomass and Power-to-Gas Applications First EditionEdited by Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollazcopy 2016 John Wiley amp Sons Inc Published 2016 by John Wiley amp Sons Inc

5

2Coal and Biomass GasifiCation for snG ProduCtion

Stefan Heyne Martin Seemann and Tilman J Schildhauer

21 introduCtion ndash BasiC requirements for GasifiCation in the framework of snG ProduCtion

Within the production of synthetic natural gas ndash basically methane ndash from solid feed-stock such as coal or biomass the major conversion step is gasification generating a product gas containing a mixture of permanent and condensable gases as well as solid residues (eg char ash) The gasification step can be conducted in different atmospheres and using different reaction agents Figure 21 represents the basic pathway from solid fuel to methane considering the main elements carbon hydrogen and oxygen It is obvious that an increase in hydrogen content is necessary for all feedstock illustrated At the same time the oxygen content needs to be reduced in particular for biogenic feedstock that is oxygenated to a higher degree

There exist different strategies or pathways for performing the conversion from feedstock towards methane within gasification as illustrated in Figure 21 Adding steam as a gasification agent is common practice not only due to the stoichiometric effect but also for enhanced char gasification and temperature moderation within the reactor H

2 addition is used in hydrogasification leading to a higher initial methane

6 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

content in the product gas [3 4] Co2 removal is an intrinsic part of the SnG produc-

tion process some gasification concepts using adsorptive bed material for direct Co2

removal within the gasification reactor [5] The addition of oxygen (common practice for all direct gasification technologies) actually leads to an increased need for Co

2

removal downstream of the reactor For indirect gasification where ungasified char is combusted in a separate chamber for heat supply the composition is changed towards methane via path (c) in Figure 21 Pretreatment technologies such as torrefaction decrease the oxygen content of the feedstock at the cost of increased energy demand

22 thermodynamiCs of GasifiCation

For an increased understanding of the role of gasification for the overall SnG process the basic thermodynamic aspects within gasification are discussed in the following The gasification process is a series of different conversions involving both homoge-neous and heterogeneous reactions The basic steps from solid fuel to product gas are drying pyrolysis or devolatilization and gasification depending on the physical size of the fuel these different steps occur in a sequential order for small particles or

40

20

0

60

80

0 20 40 60 80

0

20

40

60

80

Oxygen

Carbon

Hyd

roge

n

Feedstock

CH4

H2O

CO2

O2

H2

Carbon1 Biomass (hardwood softwood straw)2 Lignite coal3 Bituminous coal4 Anthracite coal

3

4

1

2

a removing CO2b adding H2c removing char (C)d adding steame adding O2

a

b d

e

c

fiGure 21 CHo diagram for coal and biomass Feedstock composition based on [1 2] data from Higman 2008 [1] Phyllis2 database for biomass and waste httpswwwecnnlphyllis2 Energy research Centre of the netherlands

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 7

overlap in bigger particles The detailed description of the complete process is a com-plex task and the considerations made in the following therefore focus on specific parts of the process and their implications for the overall conversion starting with some stoichiometric aspects for gasification

221 Gasification reactions

The major reactions occurring during the gasification step that commonly are consid-ered relevant are

C s o g Co g kJ mol partial oxidation0 5 1112 (21)

Co g o g Co g kJ mol carbon monoxide combustion0 5 2832 2 (22)

C s o g Co g kJ mol carbon combustion2 2 394ndash (23)

C s Co g Co g kJ mol reverse Boudouard reaction2 2 172 (24)

C s H o g Co g H g kJ mol water gas reaction2 2 131 (25)

Co g H o g H g Co g kJ mol water gas shift reaction2 2 2 41ndash (26)

CH g H o g H g Co g kJ mol steam reforming4 2 23 206 (27)

The char gasification reactions converting carbon into gaseous fuels [Equations (24) and (25)] are endothermic reactions requiring heat supply that is realized either by combusting part of the fuel in the same reactor (direct or autothermal gasification) or by indirect heat supply from an external combustion or heat source (indirect or allo-thermal gasification)

222 overall Gasification Process ndash equilibrium Based Considerations

Considering the overall process from coal or biomass to methane at the example of steam gasification the reaction stoichiometry can be expressed as

C o H o CH Cox y zH a b c2 4 2 (28)

with a xy z

bx y z

cx y z

4 2 2 8 4 2 8 4

Table 21 gives the coefficients for steam gasification to methane [Equation (28)] for different coal and biomass feedstock materials allowing the calculation of the heat

ta

Bl

e 2

1

Com

posi

tion

and

ove

rall

rea

ctio

n d

ata

for

stea

m G

asif

icat

ion

for

dif

fere

nt f

eeds

tock

mat

eria

ls

Feed

stoc

kM

olar

C

ompo

sitio

nl

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]c

rea

ctio

n C

oeff

icie

nts

for

Equ

atio

n (2

8)

ΔH

rM

etha

ne Y

ield

ab

c[M

Jkg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

[kg

CH

4kg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

Coa

laB

row

n co

al ndash

rhe

in

Ger

man

yC

H0

88o

029

262

273

063

20

537

046

3ndash0

19

048

9

lig

nite

ndash n

dak

ota

uSA

CH

072

o0

2526

727

70

697

052

90

471

06

050

9B

itum

inou

s ndash

typi

cal

Sout

h A

fric

aC

H0

68o

008

3435

10

792

056

70

433

12

10

654

Ant

hrac

ite ndash

ruh

r G

erm

any

CH

047

o0

0236

237

00

873

055

30

447

14

60

693

Bio

mas

sbW

illow

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

46o

065

185

199

031

00

520

048

0ndash0

45

035

0B

eech

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

47o

069

179

192

028

60

511

048

9ndash0

71

033

3Fi

r ndash

soft

woo

dC

H1

45o

065

196

210

031

30

520

048

0ndash1

58

035

0Sp

ruce

ndash s

oftw

ood

CH

142

o0

6818

419

70

304

050

80

492

ndash11

70

335

Whe

at s

traw

CH

146

o0

6818

319

60

297

051

20

488

ndash08

40

338

ric

e st

raw

CH

143

o0

6817

518

80

303

050

80

492

ndash02

30

335

a Tak

en f

rom

Hig

man

and

van

der

Bur

gt [

1]

b Tak

en f

rom

Phy

llis

[2]

ndash av

erag

e da

ta f

or m

ater

ial g

roup

c H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

] =

lH

V [

MJ

kg d

af]

+ 2

44

middot 89

4 middot H

[w

t d

af]

100

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 9

of reaction (based on the HHV of feedstock and methane all reactants and products at 25 degC) as well as the stoichiometric methane yield per kilogram of feedstock The heat of reaction for the overall reaction corresponds to well below 10 for all feed-stock materials For coal based feedstock with low oxygen content the reaction is endothermic while for brown coal and biomass feedstock it is exothermic The methane yield per kilogram feedstock also is considerably lower for biomass based feedstock due to the high oxygen content one option to improve the methane yield would be the additional supply of hydrogen as for example considered in hydrogas-ification The only technical conversion process capable of converting carbonaceous feedstock directly to methane and carbon dioxide according to the reaction in Equation (28) is gasification under supercritical conditions so‐called hydrothermal gasification [6ndash8] This technology is capable of handling wet feedstock but not yet available at commercial scale and is not covered in this chapter Common gasifica-tion technology converts the feedstock to a product gas being a mixture of Co Co

2

H2 H

2o CH

4 light and higher hydrocarbons and trace components followed by a

downstream gas cleaning and methane synthesis stepThe major operating parameters for gasification are pressure and temperature

Equilibrium calculations for steam gasification (05 kg H2okg daf feedstock) for a

generic biomass are used to illustrate the basic trends for the product gas composition and heat demand with changing pressure and temperature All feedstock is assumed to be converted to product gas As can be observed from Figure 22 methane formation is favored by lower temperatures and higher pressures Hydrogen and carbon monoxide formation increases with temperature and so does the endothermi-city of the overall reaction The theoretically exothermic reaction to CH

4 and Co

2 at

25 degC [similar to Equation (28)] turns into an endothermic reaction requiring heat supply at higher temperature

light hydrocarbons (represented by C2H

4) and tars (represented by C

10H

8) are only

formed to a very small extent according to equilibrium calculations The amount of steam added for gasification will mainly influence the H

2Co ratio via the water gas

shift reaction Equation (26) In reality the equilibrium state is usually not reached in the shown temperature range but the actual product gas composition resulting from gasification is influenced by a number of other parameters as will be discussed in subsequent sections An increase in gasification pressure favors methane formation predicted by equilibrium calculations at 800 degC the methane molar fraction increases from 0 to about 155 from 1 to 30 bar With more methane being formed the endo-thermic heat of reaction is reduced by 666 from 1 to 30 bar Again no to very little formation of light hydrocarbons and tars is predicted by the equilibrium even at higher pressures At high pressures and moderate temperatures a mixture of basically CH

4 Co

2 and H

2o ndash representing Equation (28) ndash can be obtained A process

example is hydrothermal gasification which is operating at these conditions but still is at development state [6ndash8] The above‐mentioned trends are all under the assumption of complete conversion of feedstock to product gas Many gasification concepts how-ever have a considerable amount of char remaining unconverted being removed with the ashes or in indirect gasification being converted in a separate combustion chamber for supplying the gasification heat The carbon feedstock entering the gas phase

10 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

during gasification will therefore be drastically changed when carbon conversion is incomplete Even minor effects on the hydrogen and oxygen balance in the gas phase can be expected as for example biomass char still contains oxygen and hydrogen [9] Figure 23 depicts the influence of pressure and temperature on carbon conversion at temperatures below 800 degC considerable amounts of solid carbon formation are pre-dicted This will in turn influence the equilibrium conditions in the gas phase as the carbon stock in gas phase is reduced The major reactions affected are the Boudouard water gas and waterndashgas shift reactions Equations (24) to (26) Incomplete carbon conversion leads to a decrease of Co concentration in the product gas as well as a decrease in H

2 compared to equilibrium at complete conversion

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

30minus2000

0

2000

4000

6000

ΔH

r [kJ

kg

daf

feed

]

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

300

01020304

y CH

4y H

2y H

2O

y CO

2y C

O

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

T [degC] T [degC]

T [degC]T [degC]

T [degC] T [degC]

P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar] P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar]

fiGure 22 Pressure and temperature dependence of the molar concentration of major gas species and the heat of reaction for steam gasification (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic

biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH143

o066

) assuming complete carbon conversion calculated by ASPEn PluS

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 11

223 Gasification ndash a multi‐step Process deviating from equilibrium

Equilibrium calculations while useful for identifying trends with changing operating conditions cannot however predict the performance of technical equipment to a full extent They represent a boundary value that can be approached but never reached The gasification process on a physical level is a multi‐stage process starting with drying of the feedstock followed by pyrolysis and gasificationcombustion The kinetics of the numerous homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions occurring ndash as well as the residence time and reactor setup ndash ultimately determine the product gas composition resulting from gasification Figure 24 illustrates a simplified reaction network for the conversion from received fuel to product gas The drying and pri-mary pyrolysis (also referred to as devolatilization) steps are similar for all gasifica-tion technologies whereas the extent of gasification reactions occurring as well as the approach to equilibrium are a strong function of the gasification medium and the reactor setup during pyrolysis a considerable amount of tars a complex mixture of 1‐ to 5‐ring aromatic hydrocarbons is formed that will undergo various conversion pathways during gasification In the final product gas tar can still represent a consid-erable amount of energy for example biomass steam gasification at 800 degC can result in more than 33 g tarsnm3 corresponding to about 8 of the total product gas energy content on a lower heating value basis [10]

200400

600800

10001200

0

10

20

30

04

02

0

06

08

1

T [degC]

P [bar]

Am

ount

of

feed

stoc

k ca

rbon

conv

erte

d to

gas

pha

se

fiGure 23 Carbon conversion predicted by equilibrium calculations for steam gasifica-tion (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt

CH143

o066

)

12 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

The gas composition from primary pyrolysis represents the starting point for the gasification reactions neves et al [9] conducted an extensive literature review of data on pyrolysis experiments and derived an empirical model for estimating gas species yields as well as tar and char yields and elemental composition as a function of peak pyrolysis temperature Figure 25 illustrates the pyrolysis gas composition and the total gas and char yield based on nevesrsquo model In contrast to the equilibrium calculations for gasification represented in Figure 22 the model predicts consider-able amounts of tars as well as a considerable amount of char produced from pyrol-ysis Even light hydrocarbons are present in the pyrolysis gas Generally speaking the product distribution from pyrolysis as presented in Figure 25 undergoes conversion towards the equilibrium conditions during the final conversion step in Figure 24 ndash the gasification step

The extent of conversion towards the equilibrium state is a function of a large number of parameters such as pressure and temperature reactor design and associated residence time for gas and solids as well as gasndashsolid mixing and the presence of catalytically active materials promoting specific reactions among others

Secondary PyrolysisGasication

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

DehydrationPolymerizationGasication

ReformingCrackingOxidationWater-gas shift

dry fuel

Primary Pyrolysis

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

Drying

As-receivedfuel particle Moisture

Dry fuel

Gasication medium(H2O H2 O2 CO2

)

Productgas

fiGure 24 Conversion process of a fuel particle during gasification (adopted and modi-fied from neves et al [9])

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 13

224 heat management of the Gasification Process

As temperature is the major influencing parameter on the kinetics of the different gasification reactions the thermal management of the gasification reactor is of particular importance The conversion steps from solid fuel to product gas as illus-trated in Figure 24 occur at different temperature levels A qualitative representation

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

Temperature (ordmC)

Tars (C10H8)

CxHy

CH4

CO

CO2

H2O

H2

Mol

ar f

ract

ion

of c

ompo

nent

i

(a)

Temperature (ordmC)

Yie

ld (

kgk

g da

f fu

el)

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1

Char yield

Total yield per kg daf fuelGases tars and pyrolytic water

(b)

fiGure 25 Pyrolysis gas molar composition (a) and overall mass yields (b) as a function of temperature (based on neves [9]) for a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066)

14 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of the temperature profile for a fuel particle over time is illustrated in Figure 26a After particle heat‐up the moisture is evaporated The dry fuel particle is further heated releasing pyrolysis gases and finally the char particle is gasified Heat for gasification needs to be supplied by the hot environment Particle combustion indicated by the dashed line occurs at a particle temperature above environ-ment due to the exothermic nature of the combustion reactions For complete conversion of a biomass fuel with initial moisture content of 20 wt the distribution of the heat demand for conversion on the different processes is illustrated in Figure 26b The gasification heat demand is dominant but even pyrolysis and drying

Dry

ing

Time

(a)

(b)

Tem

pera

ture

Dev

olat

iliza

tion

Pyro

lysi

s Char gasication

Char combustion

Surrounding temperature

a dcb

a ndash Preheating ndash 40b ndash Drying ndash 82

c ndash Pyrolysis ndash 76d ndash Gasication ndash 802

Fraction of total heat demand(6566 kJkg daf fuel)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat demand [kJkg daf fuel]

Gasication temperature (850 degC)

Pyrolysistemperature

(450 degC)

fiGure 26 (a) Qualitative representation of the temperature evolution of a fuel particle during gasification (b) Steam gasification heat demand profile for full conversion of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) at equilibrium (SB ratio = 05

steam supply at 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture)

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 15

represent a considerable share of the specific heat demand for conversion of course in reality pyrolysis and gasification rather occur over a certain temperature range instead of the fixed temperatures used for the calculation (nevesrsquo model for pyrolysis [9] and equilibrium calculations for the gasification) In addition the processes are not strictly sequential but partly occur in parallel within a gasification reactor nevertheless the gasification heat demand will be largest and above all requires the highest temperature level

All heat for the conversion process within the gasification unit needs to be supplied by combustion of part of the fuel or additional external fuel at high temperature Changing the initial moisture content of the biomass will reduce the drying heat demand [b in Figure 26b] and therefore improve the conversion efficiency External drying also allows for using a heat source at lower temperature improving the conversion process from an exergy perspective Even the pyrolysis process can be conducted in a separate reactor with a separate heat source For these considerations in relation to the thermal management of the gasification process temperaturendashheat load graphs can be a useful tool for identifying improvements for the energy efficiency of the gasification process Figure 27 presents such a graph as an example of an indirect gasification process modelled using nevesrsquo pyrolysis model and gasification at equilibrium It is assumed that the amount of char combusted is set to ensure that the combustion heat covers the heat demand for fuel heat‐up drying pyrolysis and gasification The supply of steam to gasification (400 degC) and hot air to combustion (400 degC) is an additional heat demand that needs to be covered The thick curve in Figure 27 represents the aggregation of all the above‐mentioned heat demands whereas the dashed curve is a representation of all heat sources namely the combustion

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat load [kJkg daf fuel]

Preheating biomass air and water (steam)

Moisture evaporationand steam generation

Pyrolysis andpreheating air and steam

Gasific

ation

Tpyrolysis = 450 ordmC

Tgasification = 850 ordmC

Tcombustion = 900 ordmCChar combustion

Gas

coo

ling

(pro

duct

gas

and

com

busti

on fl

ue g

as)Maximum amount

of excess heat3610 kJkg daf

fiGure 27 Temperature heat load curve for indirect steam gasification of a generic bio-mass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) SB ratio = 05 air and steam supply

at 25 degC and heated to 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture

16 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of char and the cooling of hot product gas and combustion flue gases to ambient tem-perature It is obvious that for ideal heat transfer the process has a considerable amount of excess heat allowing for a further increase in conversion to product gas by more efficient use of the heat and reducing the char combustion Converting more solid fuel to product gas will increase the heat demand while at the same time the heat supply will decrease as less char is burnt Even considering the overall SnG process these curves can be used for a holistic analysis of the heat integration of sinks and sources including the operations up‐ and downstream of the gasification step Heat from the methanation reaction might for example be used for biomass drying or for regeneration of an amine solution used for downstream Co

2 removal

The slope of the heat demand curves for pyrolysis and gasification also is dependent on the gas composition that actually is obtained during the different processes A deviation from equilibrium conditions for the gasification will result in considerable changes of the conversion heat demand Two parameters commonly used in thermal conversion processes are used to illustrate the influence of different parameters on the energy performance of the gasification process The first param-eter is the relative air to fuel ratio λ defining the amount of air (oxygen) actually supplied to the reaction in relation to the amount necessary for complete combustion according to stoichiometry

n

nair o actual

air o stoichiometric

2

2

(27)

The second parameter commonly used in gasification is the chemical efficiency ηch

relating the chemical energy content of the product gas to the fuel chemical energy η

ch can be defined on both a lower and a higher heating value basis but in order to

avoid confusion with respect to moisture content the higher heating value is used here

ch HHV

PG

fuel fuel

HHV

HHV

i

i i

n

n (28)

Figure 28 shows λ and ηchHHV

for the base case as illustrated in Figure 27 as well as the influence of changes in different operating parameters Increasing the feed tem-perature for both steam to gasification (Point 1 in Figure 28) and air to combustion (Point 3 in Figure 28) increases the chemical efficiency and reduces λ as less char needs to be burnt reducing the incoming moisture content of the biomass from 20 to 10 wt (Point 4 in Figure 28) results in a remarkable effect reducing the necessary air to fuel ratio and gives a relative increase of the chemical efficiency of 32 Assuming heat losses from the gasification unit (point 6 in Figure 28) corresponding to 2 of the thermal input on a higher heating value basis on the other hand considerably increases the air to fuel ratio and leads to a relative decrease of the chemical efficiency by 3 All changes except for points 5 7 and 8 represent thermal

Page 5: cover thumb - download.e-bookshelf.de · 10.4 PSI’s Catalytic SNG Process 266 10.4.1 Process Description and Layout 266 10.4.2 Mass Balance 268 10.4.3 Energy Balance 269 10.4.4

v

List of Contributors xi

1 Introductory Remarks 1Tilman J Schildhauer

11 Why Produce Synthetic Natural Gas 112 Overview 3

2 Coal and Biomass Gasification for SNG Production 5Stefan Heyne Martin Seemann and Tilman J Schildhauer

21 Introduction ndash Basic Requirements for Gasification in the Framework of SNG Production 5

22 Thermodynamics of Gasification 6221 Gasification Reactions 7222 Overall Gasification Process ndash Equilibrium Based Considerations 7223 Gasification ndash A Multi‐step Process Deviating from Equilibrium 11224 Heat Management of the Gasification Process 13225 Implication of Thermodynamic Considerations for Technology

Choice 1823 Gasification Technologies 18

231 Entrained Flow 19232 Fixed Bed 20233 Direct Fluidized Bed 22234 Indirect Fluidized Bed Gasification 27235 Hydrogasification and Catalytic Gasification 34

References 37

CoNteNtS

vi CONTENTS

3 Gas Cleaning 41Urs Rhyner

31 Introduction 4132 Impurities 42

321 Particulate Matter 42322 Tars 43323 Sulfur Compounds 43324 Halide Compounds 44325 Alkali Compounds 44326 Nitrogen Compounds 44327 Other Impurities 44

33 Cold Warm and Hot Gas Cleaning 45331 Example of B‐IGFC Gas Cleaning Process Chains 45

34 Gas Cleaning Technologies 47341 Particulate Matter 47342 Tars 52343 Sulfur Compounds 57344 Hydrodesulfurization 59345 Chlorine (Halides) 60346 Alkali 61347 Nitrogen‐containing Compounds 61348 Other Impurities 62

35 Reactive Hot Gas Filter 62References 65

4 Methanation for Synthetic Natural Gas Production ndash Chemical Reaction engineering Aspects 77Tilman J Schildhauer

41 Methanation ndash The Synthesis Step in the Production of Synthetic Natural Gas 77411 Feed Gas Mixtures for Methanation Reactors 79412 Thermodynamic Equilibrium 82413 Methanation Catalysts Kinetics and Reaction Mechanisms 88414 Catalyst Deactivation 97

42 Methanation Reactor Types 107421 Adiabatic Fixed Bed Reactors 109422 Cooled Reactors 117423 Comparison of Methanation Reactor Concepts 129

43 Modeling and Simulation of Methanation Reactors 132431 How to Measure (Intrinsic) Kinetics 133432 Modeling of Fixed Bed Reactors 136433 Modeling of Isothermal Fluidized Bed Reactors 139

44 Conclusions and Open Research Questions 14645 Symbol List 148References 149

CONTENTS vii

5 SNG Upgrading 161Renato Baciocchi Giulia Costa and Lidia Lombardi

51 Introduction 16152 Separation Processes for SNG Upgrading 163

521 Bulk CO2CH

4 Separation 163

522 Removal of other Compounds and Impurities 16953 Techno‐Economical Comparison of Selected Separation Options 174References 176

6 SNG from Wood ndash the GoBiGas Project 181Joumlrgen Held

61 Biomethane in Sweden 18162 Conditions and Background for the GoBiGas Project in Gothenburg 18463 Technical Description 18564 Technical Issues and Lessons Learned 18865 Status 18866 Efficiency 18867 Economics 18868 Outlook 189Acknowledgements 189References 189

7 the Power to Gas Process Storage of Renewable energy in the Natural Gas Grid via Fixed Bed Methanation of Co2H2 191Michael Specht Jochen Brellochs Volkmar Frick Bernd Stuumlrmer and Ulrich Zuberbuumlhler

71 Motivation 191711 History ldquoRenewable Fuel Paths at ZSWrdquo 191712 Goal ldquoEnergiewenderdquo 192713 Goal ldquoPower Based Carbon Based Fuelsrdquo 192714 Goal ldquoP2Gregrdquo 192715 Goal ldquoMethanationrdquo 193

72 The Power to Fuel Concept Co‐utilization of (Biogenic) Carbon and Hydrogen 193

73 P2Greg Technology 196731 Methanation Characteristics for CO

2 Based Syngas 197

732 P2Greg Plant Layout of 25 kWel 250 kW

el and 6000 kW

el Plants 202

74 Experimental Results 206741 Methanation Catalysts Screening Cycle Resistance

Contamination by Sulfur Components 206742 Results with the 25 kW

el P2Greg Plant 209

743 Results with the 250 kWel P2Greg Plant 210

744 Results with the 250 kWel P2Greg Plant in Combination

with Membrane Gas Upgrade 21375 P2Greg Process Efficiency 214

viii CONTENTS

76 Conclusion and Outlook 217Acknowledgements 219References 219

8 Fluidized Bed Methanation for SNG Production ndash Process Development at the Paul‐Scherrer Institut 221Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollaz

81 Introduction to Process Development 22182 Methane from Wood ndash Process Development at PSI 223References 229

9 MILeNA Indirect Gasification oLGA tar Removal and eCN Process for Methanation 231Luc PLM Rabou Bram Van der Drift Eric HAJ Van Dijk Christiaan M Van der Meijden and Berend J Vreugdenhil

91 Introduction 23192 Main Process Steps 233

921 MILENA Indirect Gasification 233922 OLGA Tar Removal 236923 HDS and Deep S Removal 237924 Reformer 238925 CO

2 Removal 239

926 Methanation and Upgrading 23993 Process Efficiency and Economy 24094 Results and Status 241

941 MILENA 241942 OLGA 242943 HDS Reformer and Methanation 243

95 Outlook 245951 Pressure 245952 Co‐production 245953 Bio Carbon Capture and Storage 246954 Power to Gas 246

Acknowledgements 246References 247

10 Hydrothermal Production of SNG from Wet Biomass 249Freacutedeacuteric Vogel

101 Introduction 249102 Historical Development 252103 Physical and Chemical Bases 253

1031 Catalysis 2541032 Phase Behavior and Salt Separation 2591033 Liquefaction of the Solid Biomass Tar and Coke Formation 263

CONTENTS ix

104 PSIrsquos Catalytic SNG Process 2661041 Process Description and Layout 2661042 Mass Balance 2681043 Energy Balance 2691044 Status of Process Development at PSI 2691045 Comparison to other SNG Processes 271

105 Open Questions and Outlook 273References 274

11 Agnionrsquos Small Scale SNG Concept 279Thomas Kienberger and Christian Zuber

References 291

12 Integrated Desulfurization and Methanation Concepts for SNG Production 293Christian FJ Koumlnig Maarten Nachtegaal and Tilman J Schildhauer

121 Introduction 293122 Concepts for Integrated Desulfurization and Methanation 295

1221 Sulfur‐Resistant Methanation 2951222 Regeneration of Methanation Catalysts 2971223 Discussion of the Concepts 300

123 Required Future Research 3011231 Sulfur Resistant Methanation 3011232 Periodic Regeneration 302

References 303

Index 307

List of Contributors

renato baciocchi University of Rome Tor Vergata Roma Italy

serge MA biollaz Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Jochen brellochs Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Giulia Costa University of Rome Tor Vergata Roma Italy

Volkmar frick Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Joumlrgen Held Renewable Energy Technology International AB Lund Sweden

stefan Heyne Chalmers University of Technology Goumlteborg Sweden

thomas Kienberger Montanuniversitaumlt Leoben Leoben Austria

Christian fJ Koumlnig Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Lidia Lombardi Niccolograve Cusano University Roma Italy

Maarten nachtegaal Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Luc PLM rabou Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

urs rhyner AGRO Energie Schwyz Schwyz Switzerland

tilman J schildhauer Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Martin seemann Chalmers University of Technology Goumlteborg Sweden

xi

xii LIST Of CONTRIBUTORS

Michael specht Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

bernd stuumlrmer Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Eric HAJ Van Dijk Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

bram Van der Drift Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

Christiaan M Van der Meijden Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

freacutedeacuteric Vogel Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

berend J Vreugdenhil Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

Christian Zuber Agnion Highterm Research GesmbH Graz Austria

ulrich Zuberbuumlhler Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Synthetic Natural Gas from Coal Dry Biomass and Power-to-Gas Applications First EditionEdited by Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollazcopy 2016 John Wiley amp Sons Inc Published 2016 by John Wiley amp Sons Inc

1

1Introductory remarks

Tilman J Schildhauer

11 Why produce synthetIc natural gas

The answer to this question [which may also explain why one should read a book on synthetic natural gas (SNG) production] changes with time

During the years from 1950 to the early 1980s SNG production was an important topic mainly in the United States in the United Kingdom and in Germany The interest was caused by a couple of reasons In these countries a relative abundance of coal and the expected shortage of natural gas triggered several industrial initia-tives partly funded by public authorities to develop processes from coal to SNG Due to the oil crisis during the 1970s the use of domestic coal rather than the import of oil became a second motivation A third motivation is the possibility to make domestic (low quality) energy reserves available de‐centrally as an energy carrier for which the distribution infrastructure already exists and that allows for both clean and efficient use by consumers

These boundary conditions lead in 1984 to the start‐up of the 15 GWSNG

plant in Great Plains which is run by the Dakota Gas Company and converts lignite into SNG and many other products This plant stayed the only commercial SNG production for nearly 30 years because with the drop of the oil price in the mid1980s the explora-tion of natural gas in the North Sea and the gas pipelines between Russia and Europe the interest in SNG from coal ceased

Especially in the United States the interest came back in the years after the turn of the millennium now triggered by the again rising oil price and the meanwhile established use of CO

2 (which is an inherent by‐product of coal to SNG plants) for

2 INTRODUCTORy REmARKS

enhanced oil recovery (EOR) Back then a dozen coal to SNG projects were started including EOR Now due to the rapidly increasing exploitation of the shale gas and the connected possibility for a significant reduction of CO

2 emission all the projects

in the United States have been stoppedHowever all the mentioned motivations for SNG production that is shortage of

domestic natural gas use of domestic coal reserves which are far away from the highly populated areas and the possibility for clean and efficient combustion still prevail in China Therefore China is now by far the most important market for the production of SNG from coal Three large plants have started operation and further plants are planned or under construction

In Europe several aspects triggered a reconsideration of SNG production about 15 years ago Due to its cleaner combustion and inherently lower CO

2 emission

using natural gas in transportation (eg for CNG cars) is supported in many coun-tries and has even been economically beneficial for the past few years due to the lower gas price With the aim of the European Commission to replace up to 20 of European fuel consumption by biofuel replacing natural gas partly with bio‐methane becomes necessary So far bio‐methane is mostly produced by up‐grading biogas from anaerobic digestion However due to the limited amount of substrate this pathway cannot be increased much more and other sources of bio‐methane are sought

Additionally many European countries wish to use their domestic biomass resources for energy production in order to decrease CO

2 emissions and the import

of energy A major part of the biomass is ligno‐cellulosic (mostly wood) and mainly used for heating for example in wood pellet heating As the heat demand is gen-erally decreasing due to better building insulation the conversion of wood to high value forms of energy that is electricity and fuels is of increasing interest Like in the case of coal conversion to fuels requires (so far) gasification as the first step As shown by process simulations and the first demonstration plants the conversion of wood to SNG can reach significantly higher efficiencies than conversion to liquid fuels

Very recently a third aspect began to gain greater importance especially in Central Europe Due to the increasing integration of stochastic renewable sources like photovoltaics and wind energy into electricity generation the demand for balancing the electricity supply and the demand over spatial and temporal distances is increasing For the future even the seasonal storage of electricity may be necessary Here the production of SNG can play an important role While the gasification of solid feedstocks is a more or less continuous process the further conversion to electricity or SNG can be flexibly adjusted to the balancing needs of the electricity grid within so‐called polygeneration schemes

moreover in times where the electricity production from renewables exceeds the actual demand in the electricity grid (a situation that today occasionally is observed in Central Europe and is expected to be more common in future) producing SNG could utilize the excess electricity instead of curtailing photovoltaics or wind tur-bines In so‐called power to gas applications hydrogen is produced from excess electricity by electrolysis of water and then converted to SNG by methanation of

OVERVIEW 3

carbon oxides As a source of carbon oxides biogas producer gas from (biomass) gasification flue gas from industry or even CO

2 from the atmosphere can be consid-

ered opening a pathway to produce SNG without solid feedstock that can be stored or transported over long distances within the existing natural gas infrastructure

12 overvIeW

This book aims at a suitable overview over the different pathways to produce SNG (Figure 11)

The first four chapters cover the main process steps during conversion of coal and dry biomass to SNG gasification gas cleaning methanation and gas upgrading The main technology options will be highlighted and the impact of a technology choice for downstream processes and the complete process chain In these chapters espe-cially in the chapter on methanation reactors the state of the art coal to SNG processes are discussed in detail

The following chapters describe a number of novel processes for the production of SNG with their specific combination of process steps as well as the boundary con-ditions for which the respective process was developed These processes comprise those which are already in operation (eg the 20 mW

SNG bio‐SNG production in

Gothenburg Sweden or the 6 mWSNG

power to gas plant in Werlte Germany) and processes which are still under development

The gasification chapter covers the thermodynamics of gasification and presents both coal and biomass gasification technologies

Coal Dry biomass

gasification

Gas cleaning

Methanation

Methanation

SNG (CH4)

CO2 from air or industry

H2O CO2(H2)

H2 from electrolysis(power-to-gas)

Algae manure

Hydrothermalgasification

Biogas fromdigestion

Raw SNG CH4 H2O (CO2 H2)

Gas upgrading

FIgure 11 The different pathways to produce SNG

4 INTRODUCTORy REmARKS

The gas cleaning chapter discusses the impurities to be expected in gasification‐derived producer gas explains the state of the art gas cleaning technologies and focuses on the innovative gas cleaning steps which are developed for hot gas cleaning

The chapter on methanation reactors presents the chemical reactions proceeding inside the reactors their thermodynamic limitation and their reaction mechanisms Further an overview of the different reactor types with their advantages and chal-lenges is given covering coal to SNG biomass to SNG and power to gas processes The last section of this chapter focuses on the modeling and simulation of methana-tion reactors including the necessary experiments to determine reaction kinetics and to generate data for model validation

The chapter on gas‐upgrading discusses technologies for gas drying CO2 and

hydrogen removal based on adsorption absorption and membranes and includes a techno‐economic comparison

The chapter on the GoBiGas project (ldquoGothenburg Bio Gasrdquo) presents the boundary conditions and technologies applied in the 20 mW

SNG wood to SNG plant

in Gothenburg Sweden which was commissioned in 2014The next chapter explains the development of the power to gas process at the

Zentrum fuumlr solare Wasserstofferzeugung (ZSW) including the 6 mWSNG

plant in Werlte Germany

The chapter on fluidised bed methanation describes the process development at the Paul Scherrer Institut aiming at a flexible technology for efficiently converting wood to SNG and for hydrogen conversion within power to gas applications

The following chapter presents the technologies developed at the Energy Center of the Netherlands (ECN) for efficient SNG production from wood especially their allothermal gasification technology (mILENA) and their broad experience with gas cleaning

The chapter on hydrothermal gasification discusses the unique technology allow-ing for the simultaneous catalytic gasification and methanation of wet biomass under super‐critical conditions

The chapter on agnionrsquos small scale SNG concept focuses on two novel technol-ogies that allow for significant process simplification especially in small scale bio‐SNG plants the pressurized heatpipe reformer and the polytropic fixed bed methanation

The last chapter offers a view on the research for even more simplified SNG processes that is for methanation steps that allow for integrated desulfurization and methanation

The author of these lines wishes to express his gratitude especially to the contrib-utors of this book and to the persons at the publisher for their excellent work but also to all colleagues scientific collaborators partners friends and scientists in the community for many fruitful and interesting discussions All of you bring the field forward and made this book possible

Synthetic Natural Gas from Coal Dry Biomass and Power-to-Gas Applications First EditionEdited by Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollazcopy 2016 John Wiley amp Sons Inc Published 2016 by John Wiley amp Sons Inc

5

2Coal and Biomass GasifiCation for snG ProduCtion

Stefan Heyne Martin Seemann and Tilman J Schildhauer

21 introduCtion ndash BasiC requirements for GasifiCation in the framework of snG ProduCtion

Within the production of synthetic natural gas ndash basically methane ndash from solid feed-stock such as coal or biomass the major conversion step is gasification generating a product gas containing a mixture of permanent and condensable gases as well as solid residues (eg char ash) The gasification step can be conducted in different atmospheres and using different reaction agents Figure 21 represents the basic pathway from solid fuel to methane considering the main elements carbon hydrogen and oxygen It is obvious that an increase in hydrogen content is necessary for all feedstock illustrated At the same time the oxygen content needs to be reduced in particular for biogenic feedstock that is oxygenated to a higher degree

There exist different strategies or pathways for performing the conversion from feedstock towards methane within gasification as illustrated in Figure 21 Adding steam as a gasification agent is common practice not only due to the stoichiometric effect but also for enhanced char gasification and temperature moderation within the reactor H

2 addition is used in hydrogasification leading to a higher initial methane

6 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

content in the product gas [3 4] Co2 removal is an intrinsic part of the SnG produc-

tion process some gasification concepts using adsorptive bed material for direct Co2

removal within the gasification reactor [5] The addition of oxygen (common practice for all direct gasification technologies) actually leads to an increased need for Co

2

removal downstream of the reactor For indirect gasification where ungasified char is combusted in a separate chamber for heat supply the composition is changed towards methane via path (c) in Figure 21 Pretreatment technologies such as torrefaction decrease the oxygen content of the feedstock at the cost of increased energy demand

22 thermodynamiCs of GasifiCation

For an increased understanding of the role of gasification for the overall SnG process the basic thermodynamic aspects within gasification are discussed in the following The gasification process is a series of different conversions involving both homoge-neous and heterogeneous reactions The basic steps from solid fuel to product gas are drying pyrolysis or devolatilization and gasification depending on the physical size of the fuel these different steps occur in a sequential order for small particles or

40

20

0

60

80

0 20 40 60 80

0

20

40

60

80

Oxygen

Carbon

Hyd

roge

n

Feedstock

CH4

H2O

CO2

O2

H2

Carbon1 Biomass (hardwood softwood straw)2 Lignite coal3 Bituminous coal4 Anthracite coal

3

4

1

2

a removing CO2b adding H2c removing char (C)d adding steame adding O2

a

b d

e

c

fiGure 21 CHo diagram for coal and biomass Feedstock composition based on [1 2] data from Higman 2008 [1] Phyllis2 database for biomass and waste httpswwwecnnlphyllis2 Energy research Centre of the netherlands

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 7

overlap in bigger particles The detailed description of the complete process is a com-plex task and the considerations made in the following therefore focus on specific parts of the process and their implications for the overall conversion starting with some stoichiometric aspects for gasification

221 Gasification reactions

The major reactions occurring during the gasification step that commonly are consid-ered relevant are

C s o g Co g kJ mol partial oxidation0 5 1112 (21)

Co g o g Co g kJ mol carbon monoxide combustion0 5 2832 2 (22)

C s o g Co g kJ mol carbon combustion2 2 394ndash (23)

C s Co g Co g kJ mol reverse Boudouard reaction2 2 172 (24)

C s H o g Co g H g kJ mol water gas reaction2 2 131 (25)

Co g H o g H g Co g kJ mol water gas shift reaction2 2 2 41ndash (26)

CH g H o g H g Co g kJ mol steam reforming4 2 23 206 (27)

The char gasification reactions converting carbon into gaseous fuels [Equations (24) and (25)] are endothermic reactions requiring heat supply that is realized either by combusting part of the fuel in the same reactor (direct or autothermal gasification) or by indirect heat supply from an external combustion or heat source (indirect or allo-thermal gasification)

222 overall Gasification Process ndash equilibrium Based Considerations

Considering the overall process from coal or biomass to methane at the example of steam gasification the reaction stoichiometry can be expressed as

C o H o CH Cox y zH a b c2 4 2 (28)

with a xy z

bx y z

cx y z

4 2 2 8 4 2 8 4

Table 21 gives the coefficients for steam gasification to methane [Equation (28)] for different coal and biomass feedstock materials allowing the calculation of the heat

ta

Bl

e 2

1

Com

posi

tion

and

ove

rall

rea

ctio

n d

ata

for

stea

m G

asif

icat

ion

for

dif

fere

nt f

eeds

tock

mat

eria

ls

Feed

stoc

kM

olar

C

ompo

sitio

nl

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]c

rea

ctio

n C

oeff

icie

nts

for

Equ

atio

n (2

8)

ΔH

rM

etha

ne Y

ield

ab

c[M

Jkg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

[kg

CH

4kg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

Coa

laB

row

n co

al ndash

rhe

in

Ger

man

yC

H0

88o

029

262

273

063

20

537

046

3ndash0

19

048

9

lig

nite

ndash n

dak

ota

uSA

CH

072

o0

2526

727

70

697

052

90

471

06

050

9B

itum

inou

s ndash

typi

cal

Sout

h A

fric

aC

H0

68o

008

3435

10

792

056

70

433

12

10

654

Ant

hrac

ite ndash

ruh

r G

erm

any

CH

047

o0

0236

237

00

873

055

30

447

14

60

693

Bio

mas

sbW

illow

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

46o

065

185

199

031

00

520

048

0ndash0

45

035

0B

eech

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

47o

069

179

192

028

60

511

048

9ndash0

71

033

3Fi

r ndash

soft

woo

dC

H1

45o

065

196

210

031

30

520

048

0ndash1

58

035

0Sp

ruce

ndash s

oftw

ood

CH

142

o0

6818

419

70

304

050

80

492

ndash11

70

335

Whe

at s

traw

CH

146

o0

6818

319

60

297

051

20

488

ndash08

40

338

ric

e st

raw

CH

143

o0

6817

518

80

303

050

80

492

ndash02

30

335

a Tak

en f

rom

Hig

man

and

van

der

Bur

gt [

1]

b Tak

en f

rom

Phy

llis

[2]

ndash av

erag

e da

ta f

or m

ater

ial g

roup

c H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

] =

lH

V [

MJ

kg d

af]

+ 2

44

middot 89

4 middot H

[w

t d

af]

100

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 9

of reaction (based on the HHV of feedstock and methane all reactants and products at 25 degC) as well as the stoichiometric methane yield per kilogram of feedstock The heat of reaction for the overall reaction corresponds to well below 10 for all feed-stock materials For coal based feedstock with low oxygen content the reaction is endothermic while for brown coal and biomass feedstock it is exothermic The methane yield per kilogram feedstock also is considerably lower for biomass based feedstock due to the high oxygen content one option to improve the methane yield would be the additional supply of hydrogen as for example considered in hydrogas-ification The only technical conversion process capable of converting carbonaceous feedstock directly to methane and carbon dioxide according to the reaction in Equation (28) is gasification under supercritical conditions so‐called hydrothermal gasification [6ndash8] This technology is capable of handling wet feedstock but not yet available at commercial scale and is not covered in this chapter Common gasifica-tion technology converts the feedstock to a product gas being a mixture of Co Co

2

H2 H

2o CH

4 light and higher hydrocarbons and trace components followed by a

downstream gas cleaning and methane synthesis stepThe major operating parameters for gasification are pressure and temperature

Equilibrium calculations for steam gasification (05 kg H2okg daf feedstock) for a

generic biomass are used to illustrate the basic trends for the product gas composition and heat demand with changing pressure and temperature All feedstock is assumed to be converted to product gas As can be observed from Figure 22 methane formation is favored by lower temperatures and higher pressures Hydrogen and carbon monoxide formation increases with temperature and so does the endothermi-city of the overall reaction The theoretically exothermic reaction to CH

4 and Co

2 at

25 degC [similar to Equation (28)] turns into an endothermic reaction requiring heat supply at higher temperature

light hydrocarbons (represented by C2H

4) and tars (represented by C

10H

8) are only

formed to a very small extent according to equilibrium calculations The amount of steam added for gasification will mainly influence the H

2Co ratio via the water gas

shift reaction Equation (26) In reality the equilibrium state is usually not reached in the shown temperature range but the actual product gas composition resulting from gasification is influenced by a number of other parameters as will be discussed in subsequent sections An increase in gasification pressure favors methane formation predicted by equilibrium calculations at 800 degC the methane molar fraction increases from 0 to about 155 from 1 to 30 bar With more methane being formed the endo-thermic heat of reaction is reduced by 666 from 1 to 30 bar Again no to very little formation of light hydrocarbons and tars is predicted by the equilibrium even at higher pressures At high pressures and moderate temperatures a mixture of basically CH

4 Co

2 and H

2o ndash representing Equation (28) ndash can be obtained A process

example is hydrothermal gasification which is operating at these conditions but still is at development state [6ndash8] The above‐mentioned trends are all under the assumption of complete conversion of feedstock to product gas Many gasification concepts how-ever have a considerable amount of char remaining unconverted being removed with the ashes or in indirect gasification being converted in a separate combustion chamber for supplying the gasification heat The carbon feedstock entering the gas phase

10 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

during gasification will therefore be drastically changed when carbon conversion is incomplete Even minor effects on the hydrogen and oxygen balance in the gas phase can be expected as for example biomass char still contains oxygen and hydrogen [9] Figure 23 depicts the influence of pressure and temperature on carbon conversion at temperatures below 800 degC considerable amounts of solid carbon formation are pre-dicted This will in turn influence the equilibrium conditions in the gas phase as the carbon stock in gas phase is reduced The major reactions affected are the Boudouard water gas and waterndashgas shift reactions Equations (24) to (26) Incomplete carbon conversion leads to a decrease of Co concentration in the product gas as well as a decrease in H

2 compared to equilibrium at complete conversion

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

30minus2000

0

2000

4000

6000

ΔH

r [kJ

kg

daf

feed

]

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

300

01020304

y CH

4y H

2y H

2O

y CO

2y C

O

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

T [degC] T [degC]

T [degC]T [degC]

T [degC] T [degC]

P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar] P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar]

fiGure 22 Pressure and temperature dependence of the molar concentration of major gas species and the heat of reaction for steam gasification (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic

biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH143

o066

) assuming complete carbon conversion calculated by ASPEn PluS

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 11

223 Gasification ndash a multi‐step Process deviating from equilibrium

Equilibrium calculations while useful for identifying trends with changing operating conditions cannot however predict the performance of technical equipment to a full extent They represent a boundary value that can be approached but never reached The gasification process on a physical level is a multi‐stage process starting with drying of the feedstock followed by pyrolysis and gasificationcombustion The kinetics of the numerous homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions occurring ndash as well as the residence time and reactor setup ndash ultimately determine the product gas composition resulting from gasification Figure 24 illustrates a simplified reaction network for the conversion from received fuel to product gas The drying and pri-mary pyrolysis (also referred to as devolatilization) steps are similar for all gasifica-tion technologies whereas the extent of gasification reactions occurring as well as the approach to equilibrium are a strong function of the gasification medium and the reactor setup during pyrolysis a considerable amount of tars a complex mixture of 1‐ to 5‐ring aromatic hydrocarbons is formed that will undergo various conversion pathways during gasification In the final product gas tar can still represent a consid-erable amount of energy for example biomass steam gasification at 800 degC can result in more than 33 g tarsnm3 corresponding to about 8 of the total product gas energy content on a lower heating value basis [10]

200400

600800

10001200

0

10

20

30

04

02

0

06

08

1

T [degC]

P [bar]

Am

ount

of

feed

stoc

k ca

rbon

conv

erte

d to

gas

pha

se

fiGure 23 Carbon conversion predicted by equilibrium calculations for steam gasifica-tion (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt

CH143

o066

)

12 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

The gas composition from primary pyrolysis represents the starting point for the gasification reactions neves et al [9] conducted an extensive literature review of data on pyrolysis experiments and derived an empirical model for estimating gas species yields as well as tar and char yields and elemental composition as a function of peak pyrolysis temperature Figure 25 illustrates the pyrolysis gas composition and the total gas and char yield based on nevesrsquo model In contrast to the equilibrium calculations for gasification represented in Figure 22 the model predicts consider-able amounts of tars as well as a considerable amount of char produced from pyrol-ysis Even light hydrocarbons are present in the pyrolysis gas Generally speaking the product distribution from pyrolysis as presented in Figure 25 undergoes conversion towards the equilibrium conditions during the final conversion step in Figure 24 ndash the gasification step

The extent of conversion towards the equilibrium state is a function of a large number of parameters such as pressure and temperature reactor design and associated residence time for gas and solids as well as gasndashsolid mixing and the presence of catalytically active materials promoting specific reactions among others

Secondary PyrolysisGasication

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

DehydrationPolymerizationGasication

ReformingCrackingOxidationWater-gas shift

dry fuel

Primary Pyrolysis

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

Drying

As-receivedfuel particle Moisture

Dry fuel

Gasication medium(H2O H2 O2 CO2

)

Productgas

fiGure 24 Conversion process of a fuel particle during gasification (adopted and modi-fied from neves et al [9])

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 13

224 heat management of the Gasification Process

As temperature is the major influencing parameter on the kinetics of the different gasification reactions the thermal management of the gasification reactor is of particular importance The conversion steps from solid fuel to product gas as illus-trated in Figure 24 occur at different temperature levels A qualitative representation

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

Temperature (ordmC)

Tars (C10H8)

CxHy

CH4

CO

CO2

H2O

H2

Mol

ar f

ract

ion

of c

ompo

nent

i

(a)

Temperature (ordmC)

Yie

ld (

kgk

g da

f fu

el)

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1

Char yield

Total yield per kg daf fuelGases tars and pyrolytic water

(b)

fiGure 25 Pyrolysis gas molar composition (a) and overall mass yields (b) as a function of temperature (based on neves [9]) for a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066)

14 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of the temperature profile for a fuel particle over time is illustrated in Figure 26a After particle heat‐up the moisture is evaporated The dry fuel particle is further heated releasing pyrolysis gases and finally the char particle is gasified Heat for gasification needs to be supplied by the hot environment Particle combustion indicated by the dashed line occurs at a particle temperature above environ-ment due to the exothermic nature of the combustion reactions For complete conversion of a biomass fuel with initial moisture content of 20 wt the distribution of the heat demand for conversion on the different processes is illustrated in Figure 26b The gasification heat demand is dominant but even pyrolysis and drying

Dry

ing

Time

(a)

(b)

Tem

pera

ture

Dev

olat

iliza

tion

Pyro

lysi

s Char gasication

Char combustion

Surrounding temperature

a dcb

a ndash Preheating ndash 40b ndash Drying ndash 82

c ndash Pyrolysis ndash 76d ndash Gasication ndash 802

Fraction of total heat demand(6566 kJkg daf fuel)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat demand [kJkg daf fuel]

Gasication temperature (850 degC)

Pyrolysistemperature

(450 degC)

fiGure 26 (a) Qualitative representation of the temperature evolution of a fuel particle during gasification (b) Steam gasification heat demand profile for full conversion of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) at equilibrium (SB ratio = 05

steam supply at 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture)

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 15

represent a considerable share of the specific heat demand for conversion of course in reality pyrolysis and gasification rather occur over a certain temperature range instead of the fixed temperatures used for the calculation (nevesrsquo model for pyrolysis [9] and equilibrium calculations for the gasification) In addition the processes are not strictly sequential but partly occur in parallel within a gasification reactor nevertheless the gasification heat demand will be largest and above all requires the highest temperature level

All heat for the conversion process within the gasification unit needs to be supplied by combustion of part of the fuel or additional external fuel at high temperature Changing the initial moisture content of the biomass will reduce the drying heat demand [b in Figure 26b] and therefore improve the conversion efficiency External drying also allows for using a heat source at lower temperature improving the conversion process from an exergy perspective Even the pyrolysis process can be conducted in a separate reactor with a separate heat source For these considerations in relation to the thermal management of the gasification process temperaturendashheat load graphs can be a useful tool for identifying improvements for the energy efficiency of the gasification process Figure 27 presents such a graph as an example of an indirect gasification process modelled using nevesrsquo pyrolysis model and gasification at equilibrium It is assumed that the amount of char combusted is set to ensure that the combustion heat covers the heat demand for fuel heat‐up drying pyrolysis and gasification The supply of steam to gasification (400 degC) and hot air to combustion (400 degC) is an additional heat demand that needs to be covered The thick curve in Figure 27 represents the aggregation of all the above‐mentioned heat demands whereas the dashed curve is a representation of all heat sources namely the combustion

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat load [kJkg daf fuel]

Preheating biomass air and water (steam)

Moisture evaporationand steam generation

Pyrolysis andpreheating air and steam

Gasific

ation

Tpyrolysis = 450 ordmC

Tgasification = 850 ordmC

Tcombustion = 900 ordmCChar combustion

Gas

coo

ling

(pro

duct

gas

and

com

busti

on fl

ue g

as)Maximum amount

of excess heat3610 kJkg daf

fiGure 27 Temperature heat load curve for indirect steam gasification of a generic bio-mass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) SB ratio = 05 air and steam supply

at 25 degC and heated to 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture

16 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of char and the cooling of hot product gas and combustion flue gases to ambient tem-perature It is obvious that for ideal heat transfer the process has a considerable amount of excess heat allowing for a further increase in conversion to product gas by more efficient use of the heat and reducing the char combustion Converting more solid fuel to product gas will increase the heat demand while at the same time the heat supply will decrease as less char is burnt Even considering the overall SnG process these curves can be used for a holistic analysis of the heat integration of sinks and sources including the operations up‐ and downstream of the gasification step Heat from the methanation reaction might for example be used for biomass drying or for regeneration of an amine solution used for downstream Co

2 removal

The slope of the heat demand curves for pyrolysis and gasification also is dependent on the gas composition that actually is obtained during the different processes A deviation from equilibrium conditions for the gasification will result in considerable changes of the conversion heat demand Two parameters commonly used in thermal conversion processes are used to illustrate the influence of different parameters on the energy performance of the gasification process The first param-eter is the relative air to fuel ratio λ defining the amount of air (oxygen) actually supplied to the reaction in relation to the amount necessary for complete combustion according to stoichiometry

n

nair o actual

air o stoichiometric

2

2

(27)

The second parameter commonly used in gasification is the chemical efficiency ηch

relating the chemical energy content of the product gas to the fuel chemical energy η

ch can be defined on both a lower and a higher heating value basis but in order to

avoid confusion with respect to moisture content the higher heating value is used here

ch HHV

PG

fuel fuel

HHV

HHV

i

i i

n

n (28)

Figure 28 shows λ and ηchHHV

for the base case as illustrated in Figure 27 as well as the influence of changes in different operating parameters Increasing the feed tem-perature for both steam to gasification (Point 1 in Figure 28) and air to combustion (Point 3 in Figure 28) increases the chemical efficiency and reduces λ as less char needs to be burnt reducing the incoming moisture content of the biomass from 20 to 10 wt (Point 4 in Figure 28) results in a remarkable effect reducing the necessary air to fuel ratio and gives a relative increase of the chemical efficiency of 32 Assuming heat losses from the gasification unit (point 6 in Figure 28) corresponding to 2 of the thermal input on a higher heating value basis on the other hand considerably increases the air to fuel ratio and leads to a relative decrease of the chemical efficiency by 3 All changes except for points 5 7 and 8 represent thermal

Page 6: cover thumb - download.e-bookshelf.de · 10.4 PSI’s Catalytic SNG Process 266 10.4.1 Process Description and Layout 266 10.4.2 Mass Balance 268 10.4.3 Energy Balance 269 10.4.4

vi CONTENTS

3 Gas Cleaning 41Urs Rhyner

31 Introduction 4132 Impurities 42

321 Particulate Matter 42322 Tars 43323 Sulfur Compounds 43324 Halide Compounds 44325 Alkali Compounds 44326 Nitrogen Compounds 44327 Other Impurities 44

33 Cold Warm and Hot Gas Cleaning 45331 Example of B‐IGFC Gas Cleaning Process Chains 45

34 Gas Cleaning Technologies 47341 Particulate Matter 47342 Tars 52343 Sulfur Compounds 57344 Hydrodesulfurization 59345 Chlorine (Halides) 60346 Alkali 61347 Nitrogen‐containing Compounds 61348 Other Impurities 62

35 Reactive Hot Gas Filter 62References 65

4 Methanation for Synthetic Natural Gas Production ndash Chemical Reaction engineering Aspects 77Tilman J Schildhauer

41 Methanation ndash The Synthesis Step in the Production of Synthetic Natural Gas 77411 Feed Gas Mixtures for Methanation Reactors 79412 Thermodynamic Equilibrium 82413 Methanation Catalysts Kinetics and Reaction Mechanisms 88414 Catalyst Deactivation 97

42 Methanation Reactor Types 107421 Adiabatic Fixed Bed Reactors 109422 Cooled Reactors 117423 Comparison of Methanation Reactor Concepts 129

43 Modeling and Simulation of Methanation Reactors 132431 How to Measure (Intrinsic) Kinetics 133432 Modeling of Fixed Bed Reactors 136433 Modeling of Isothermal Fluidized Bed Reactors 139

44 Conclusions and Open Research Questions 14645 Symbol List 148References 149

CONTENTS vii

5 SNG Upgrading 161Renato Baciocchi Giulia Costa and Lidia Lombardi

51 Introduction 16152 Separation Processes for SNG Upgrading 163

521 Bulk CO2CH

4 Separation 163

522 Removal of other Compounds and Impurities 16953 Techno‐Economical Comparison of Selected Separation Options 174References 176

6 SNG from Wood ndash the GoBiGas Project 181Joumlrgen Held

61 Biomethane in Sweden 18162 Conditions and Background for the GoBiGas Project in Gothenburg 18463 Technical Description 18564 Technical Issues and Lessons Learned 18865 Status 18866 Efficiency 18867 Economics 18868 Outlook 189Acknowledgements 189References 189

7 the Power to Gas Process Storage of Renewable energy in the Natural Gas Grid via Fixed Bed Methanation of Co2H2 191Michael Specht Jochen Brellochs Volkmar Frick Bernd Stuumlrmer and Ulrich Zuberbuumlhler

71 Motivation 191711 History ldquoRenewable Fuel Paths at ZSWrdquo 191712 Goal ldquoEnergiewenderdquo 192713 Goal ldquoPower Based Carbon Based Fuelsrdquo 192714 Goal ldquoP2Gregrdquo 192715 Goal ldquoMethanationrdquo 193

72 The Power to Fuel Concept Co‐utilization of (Biogenic) Carbon and Hydrogen 193

73 P2Greg Technology 196731 Methanation Characteristics for CO

2 Based Syngas 197

732 P2Greg Plant Layout of 25 kWel 250 kW

el and 6000 kW

el Plants 202

74 Experimental Results 206741 Methanation Catalysts Screening Cycle Resistance

Contamination by Sulfur Components 206742 Results with the 25 kW

el P2Greg Plant 209

743 Results with the 250 kWel P2Greg Plant 210

744 Results with the 250 kWel P2Greg Plant in Combination

with Membrane Gas Upgrade 21375 P2Greg Process Efficiency 214

viii CONTENTS

76 Conclusion and Outlook 217Acknowledgements 219References 219

8 Fluidized Bed Methanation for SNG Production ndash Process Development at the Paul‐Scherrer Institut 221Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollaz

81 Introduction to Process Development 22182 Methane from Wood ndash Process Development at PSI 223References 229

9 MILeNA Indirect Gasification oLGA tar Removal and eCN Process for Methanation 231Luc PLM Rabou Bram Van der Drift Eric HAJ Van Dijk Christiaan M Van der Meijden and Berend J Vreugdenhil

91 Introduction 23192 Main Process Steps 233

921 MILENA Indirect Gasification 233922 OLGA Tar Removal 236923 HDS and Deep S Removal 237924 Reformer 238925 CO

2 Removal 239

926 Methanation and Upgrading 23993 Process Efficiency and Economy 24094 Results and Status 241

941 MILENA 241942 OLGA 242943 HDS Reformer and Methanation 243

95 Outlook 245951 Pressure 245952 Co‐production 245953 Bio Carbon Capture and Storage 246954 Power to Gas 246

Acknowledgements 246References 247

10 Hydrothermal Production of SNG from Wet Biomass 249Freacutedeacuteric Vogel

101 Introduction 249102 Historical Development 252103 Physical and Chemical Bases 253

1031 Catalysis 2541032 Phase Behavior and Salt Separation 2591033 Liquefaction of the Solid Biomass Tar and Coke Formation 263

CONTENTS ix

104 PSIrsquos Catalytic SNG Process 2661041 Process Description and Layout 2661042 Mass Balance 2681043 Energy Balance 2691044 Status of Process Development at PSI 2691045 Comparison to other SNG Processes 271

105 Open Questions and Outlook 273References 274

11 Agnionrsquos Small Scale SNG Concept 279Thomas Kienberger and Christian Zuber

References 291

12 Integrated Desulfurization and Methanation Concepts for SNG Production 293Christian FJ Koumlnig Maarten Nachtegaal and Tilman J Schildhauer

121 Introduction 293122 Concepts for Integrated Desulfurization and Methanation 295

1221 Sulfur‐Resistant Methanation 2951222 Regeneration of Methanation Catalysts 2971223 Discussion of the Concepts 300

123 Required Future Research 3011231 Sulfur Resistant Methanation 3011232 Periodic Regeneration 302

References 303

Index 307

List of Contributors

renato baciocchi University of Rome Tor Vergata Roma Italy

serge MA biollaz Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Jochen brellochs Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Giulia Costa University of Rome Tor Vergata Roma Italy

Volkmar frick Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Joumlrgen Held Renewable Energy Technology International AB Lund Sweden

stefan Heyne Chalmers University of Technology Goumlteborg Sweden

thomas Kienberger Montanuniversitaumlt Leoben Leoben Austria

Christian fJ Koumlnig Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Lidia Lombardi Niccolograve Cusano University Roma Italy

Maarten nachtegaal Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Luc PLM rabou Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

urs rhyner AGRO Energie Schwyz Schwyz Switzerland

tilman J schildhauer Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Martin seemann Chalmers University of Technology Goumlteborg Sweden

xi

xii LIST Of CONTRIBUTORS

Michael specht Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

bernd stuumlrmer Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Eric HAJ Van Dijk Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

bram Van der Drift Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

Christiaan M Van der Meijden Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

freacutedeacuteric Vogel Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

berend J Vreugdenhil Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

Christian Zuber Agnion Highterm Research GesmbH Graz Austria

ulrich Zuberbuumlhler Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Synthetic Natural Gas from Coal Dry Biomass and Power-to-Gas Applications First EditionEdited by Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollazcopy 2016 John Wiley amp Sons Inc Published 2016 by John Wiley amp Sons Inc

1

1Introductory remarks

Tilman J Schildhauer

11 Why produce synthetIc natural gas

The answer to this question [which may also explain why one should read a book on synthetic natural gas (SNG) production] changes with time

During the years from 1950 to the early 1980s SNG production was an important topic mainly in the United States in the United Kingdom and in Germany The interest was caused by a couple of reasons In these countries a relative abundance of coal and the expected shortage of natural gas triggered several industrial initia-tives partly funded by public authorities to develop processes from coal to SNG Due to the oil crisis during the 1970s the use of domestic coal rather than the import of oil became a second motivation A third motivation is the possibility to make domestic (low quality) energy reserves available de‐centrally as an energy carrier for which the distribution infrastructure already exists and that allows for both clean and efficient use by consumers

These boundary conditions lead in 1984 to the start‐up of the 15 GWSNG

plant in Great Plains which is run by the Dakota Gas Company and converts lignite into SNG and many other products This plant stayed the only commercial SNG production for nearly 30 years because with the drop of the oil price in the mid1980s the explora-tion of natural gas in the North Sea and the gas pipelines between Russia and Europe the interest in SNG from coal ceased

Especially in the United States the interest came back in the years after the turn of the millennium now triggered by the again rising oil price and the meanwhile established use of CO

2 (which is an inherent by‐product of coal to SNG plants) for

2 INTRODUCTORy REmARKS

enhanced oil recovery (EOR) Back then a dozen coal to SNG projects were started including EOR Now due to the rapidly increasing exploitation of the shale gas and the connected possibility for a significant reduction of CO

2 emission all the projects

in the United States have been stoppedHowever all the mentioned motivations for SNG production that is shortage of

domestic natural gas use of domestic coal reserves which are far away from the highly populated areas and the possibility for clean and efficient combustion still prevail in China Therefore China is now by far the most important market for the production of SNG from coal Three large plants have started operation and further plants are planned or under construction

In Europe several aspects triggered a reconsideration of SNG production about 15 years ago Due to its cleaner combustion and inherently lower CO

2 emission

using natural gas in transportation (eg for CNG cars) is supported in many coun-tries and has even been economically beneficial for the past few years due to the lower gas price With the aim of the European Commission to replace up to 20 of European fuel consumption by biofuel replacing natural gas partly with bio‐methane becomes necessary So far bio‐methane is mostly produced by up‐grading biogas from anaerobic digestion However due to the limited amount of substrate this pathway cannot be increased much more and other sources of bio‐methane are sought

Additionally many European countries wish to use their domestic biomass resources for energy production in order to decrease CO

2 emissions and the import

of energy A major part of the biomass is ligno‐cellulosic (mostly wood) and mainly used for heating for example in wood pellet heating As the heat demand is gen-erally decreasing due to better building insulation the conversion of wood to high value forms of energy that is electricity and fuels is of increasing interest Like in the case of coal conversion to fuels requires (so far) gasification as the first step As shown by process simulations and the first demonstration plants the conversion of wood to SNG can reach significantly higher efficiencies than conversion to liquid fuels

Very recently a third aspect began to gain greater importance especially in Central Europe Due to the increasing integration of stochastic renewable sources like photovoltaics and wind energy into electricity generation the demand for balancing the electricity supply and the demand over spatial and temporal distances is increasing For the future even the seasonal storage of electricity may be necessary Here the production of SNG can play an important role While the gasification of solid feedstocks is a more or less continuous process the further conversion to electricity or SNG can be flexibly adjusted to the balancing needs of the electricity grid within so‐called polygeneration schemes

moreover in times where the electricity production from renewables exceeds the actual demand in the electricity grid (a situation that today occasionally is observed in Central Europe and is expected to be more common in future) producing SNG could utilize the excess electricity instead of curtailing photovoltaics or wind tur-bines In so‐called power to gas applications hydrogen is produced from excess electricity by electrolysis of water and then converted to SNG by methanation of

OVERVIEW 3

carbon oxides As a source of carbon oxides biogas producer gas from (biomass) gasification flue gas from industry or even CO

2 from the atmosphere can be consid-

ered opening a pathway to produce SNG without solid feedstock that can be stored or transported over long distances within the existing natural gas infrastructure

12 overvIeW

This book aims at a suitable overview over the different pathways to produce SNG (Figure 11)

The first four chapters cover the main process steps during conversion of coal and dry biomass to SNG gasification gas cleaning methanation and gas upgrading The main technology options will be highlighted and the impact of a technology choice for downstream processes and the complete process chain In these chapters espe-cially in the chapter on methanation reactors the state of the art coal to SNG processes are discussed in detail

The following chapters describe a number of novel processes for the production of SNG with their specific combination of process steps as well as the boundary con-ditions for which the respective process was developed These processes comprise those which are already in operation (eg the 20 mW

SNG bio‐SNG production in

Gothenburg Sweden or the 6 mWSNG

power to gas plant in Werlte Germany) and processes which are still under development

The gasification chapter covers the thermodynamics of gasification and presents both coal and biomass gasification technologies

Coal Dry biomass

gasification

Gas cleaning

Methanation

Methanation

SNG (CH4)

CO2 from air or industry

H2O CO2(H2)

H2 from electrolysis(power-to-gas)

Algae manure

Hydrothermalgasification

Biogas fromdigestion

Raw SNG CH4 H2O (CO2 H2)

Gas upgrading

FIgure 11 The different pathways to produce SNG

4 INTRODUCTORy REmARKS

The gas cleaning chapter discusses the impurities to be expected in gasification‐derived producer gas explains the state of the art gas cleaning technologies and focuses on the innovative gas cleaning steps which are developed for hot gas cleaning

The chapter on methanation reactors presents the chemical reactions proceeding inside the reactors their thermodynamic limitation and their reaction mechanisms Further an overview of the different reactor types with their advantages and chal-lenges is given covering coal to SNG biomass to SNG and power to gas processes The last section of this chapter focuses on the modeling and simulation of methana-tion reactors including the necessary experiments to determine reaction kinetics and to generate data for model validation

The chapter on gas‐upgrading discusses technologies for gas drying CO2 and

hydrogen removal based on adsorption absorption and membranes and includes a techno‐economic comparison

The chapter on the GoBiGas project (ldquoGothenburg Bio Gasrdquo) presents the boundary conditions and technologies applied in the 20 mW

SNG wood to SNG plant

in Gothenburg Sweden which was commissioned in 2014The next chapter explains the development of the power to gas process at the

Zentrum fuumlr solare Wasserstofferzeugung (ZSW) including the 6 mWSNG

plant in Werlte Germany

The chapter on fluidised bed methanation describes the process development at the Paul Scherrer Institut aiming at a flexible technology for efficiently converting wood to SNG and for hydrogen conversion within power to gas applications

The following chapter presents the technologies developed at the Energy Center of the Netherlands (ECN) for efficient SNG production from wood especially their allothermal gasification technology (mILENA) and their broad experience with gas cleaning

The chapter on hydrothermal gasification discusses the unique technology allow-ing for the simultaneous catalytic gasification and methanation of wet biomass under super‐critical conditions

The chapter on agnionrsquos small scale SNG concept focuses on two novel technol-ogies that allow for significant process simplification especially in small scale bio‐SNG plants the pressurized heatpipe reformer and the polytropic fixed bed methanation

The last chapter offers a view on the research for even more simplified SNG processes that is for methanation steps that allow for integrated desulfurization and methanation

The author of these lines wishes to express his gratitude especially to the contrib-utors of this book and to the persons at the publisher for their excellent work but also to all colleagues scientific collaborators partners friends and scientists in the community for many fruitful and interesting discussions All of you bring the field forward and made this book possible

Synthetic Natural Gas from Coal Dry Biomass and Power-to-Gas Applications First EditionEdited by Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollazcopy 2016 John Wiley amp Sons Inc Published 2016 by John Wiley amp Sons Inc

5

2Coal and Biomass GasifiCation for snG ProduCtion

Stefan Heyne Martin Seemann and Tilman J Schildhauer

21 introduCtion ndash BasiC requirements for GasifiCation in the framework of snG ProduCtion

Within the production of synthetic natural gas ndash basically methane ndash from solid feed-stock such as coal or biomass the major conversion step is gasification generating a product gas containing a mixture of permanent and condensable gases as well as solid residues (eg char ash) The gasification step can be conducted in different atmospheres and using different reaction agents Figure 21 represents the basic pathway from solid fuel to methane considering the main elements carbon hydrogen and oxygen It is obvious that an increase in hydrogen content is necessary for all feedstock illustrated At the same time the oxygen content needs to be reduced in particular for biogenic feedstock that is oxygenated to a higher degree

There exist different strategies or pathways for performing the conversion from feedstock towards methane within gasification as illustrated in Figure 21 Adding steam as a gasification agent is common practice not only due to the stoichiometric effect but also for enhanced char gasification and temperature moderation within the reactor H

2 addition is used in hydrogasification leading to a higher initial methane

6 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

content in the product gas [3 4] Co2 removal is an intrinsic part of the SnG produc-

tion process some gasification concepts using adsorptive bed material for direct Co2

removal within the gasification reactor [5] The addition of oxygen (common practice for all direct gasification technologies) actually leads to an increased need for Co

2

removal downstream of the reactor For indirect gasification where ungasified char is combusted in a separate chamber for heat supply the composition is changed towards methane via path (c) in Figure 21 Pretreatment technologies such as torrefaction decrease the oxygen content of the feedstock at the cost of increased energy demand

22 thermodynamiCs of GasifiCation

For an increased understanding of the role of gasification for the overall SnG process the basic thermodynamic aspects within gasification are discussed in the following The gasification process is a series of different conversions involving both homoge-neous and heterogeneous reactions The basic steps from solid fuel to product gas are drying pyrolysis or devolatilization and gasification depending on the physical size of the fuel these different steps occur in a sequential order for small particles or

40

20

0

60

80

0 20 40 60 80

0

20

40

60

80

Oxygen

Carbon

Hyd

roge

n

Feedstock

CH4

H2O

CO2

O2

H2

Carbon1 Biomass (hardwood softwood straw)2 Lignite coal3 Bituminous coal4 Anthracite coal

3

4

1

2

a removing CO2b adding H2c removing char (C)d adding steame adding O2

a

b d

e

c

fiGure 21 CHo diagram for coal and biomass Feedstock composition based on [1 2] data from Higman 2008 [1] Phyllis2 database for biomass and waste httpswwwecnnlphyllis2 Energy research Centre of the netherlands

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 7

overlap in bigger particles The detailed description of the complete process is a com-plex task and the considerations made in the following therefore focus on specific parts of the process and their implications for the overall conversion starting with some stoichiometric aspects for gasification

221 Gasification reactions

The major reactions occurring during the gasification step that commonly are consid-ered relevant are

C s o g Co g kJ mol partial oxidation0 5 1112 (21)

Co g o g Co g kJ mol carbon monoxide combustion0 5 2832 2 (22)

C s o g Co g kJ mol carbon combustion2 2 394ndash (23)

C s Co g Co g kJ mol reverse Boudouard reaction2 2 172 (24)

C s H o g Co g H g kJ mol water gas reaction2 2 131 (25)

Co g H o g H g Co g kJ mol water gas shift reaction2 2 2 41ndash (26)

CH g H o g H g Co g kJ mol steam reforming4 2 23 206 (27)

The char gasification reactions converting carbon into gaseous fuels [Equations (24) and (25)] are endothermic reactions requiring heat supply that is realized either by combusting part of the fuel in the same reactor (direct or autothermal gasification) or by indirect heat supply from an external combustion or heat source (indirect or allo-thermal gasification)

222 overall Gasification Process ndash equilibrium Based Considerations

Considering the overall process from coal or biomass to methane at the example of steam gasification the reaction stoichiometry can be expressed as

C o H o CH Cox y zH a b c2 4 2 (28)

with a xy z

bx y z

cx y z

4 2 2 8 4 2 8 4

Table 21 gives the coefficients for steam gasification to methane [Equation (28)] for different coal and biomass feedstock materials allowing the calculation of the heat

ta

Bl

e 2

1

Com

posi

tion

and

ove

rall

rea

ctio

n d

ata

for

stea

m G

asif

icat

ion

for

dif

fere

nt f

eeds

tock

mat

eria

ls

Feed

stoc

kM

olar

C

ompo

sitio

nl

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]c

rea

ctio

n C

oeff

icie

nts

for

Equ

atio

n (2

8)

ΔH

rM

etha

ne Y

ield

ab

c[M

Jkg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

[kg

CH

4kg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

Coa

laB

row

n co

al ndash

rhe

in

Ger

man

yC

H0

88o

029

262

273

063

20

537

046

3ndash0

19

048

9

lig

nite

ndash n

dak

ota

uSA

CH

072

o0

2526

727

70

697

052

90

471

06

050

9B

itum

inou

s ndash

typi

cal

Sout

h A

fric

aC

H0

68o

008

3435

10

792

056

70

433

12

10

654

Ant

hrac

ite ndash

ruh

r G

erm

any

CH

047

o0

0236

237

00

873

055

30

447

14

60

693

Bio

mas

sbW

illow

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

46o

065

185

199

031

00

520

048

0ndash0

45

035

0B

eech

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

47o

069

179

192

028

60

511

048

9ndash0

71

033

3Fi

r ndash

soft

woo

dC

H1

45o

065

196

210

031

30

520

048

0ndash1

58

035

0Sp

ruce

ndash s

oftw

ood

CH

142

o0

6818

419

70

304

050

80

492

ndash11

70

335

Whe

at s

traw

CH

146

o0

6818

319

60

297

051

20

488

ndash08

40

338

ric

e st

raw

CH

143

o0

6817

518

80

303

050

80

492

ndash02

30

335

a Tak

en f

rom

Hig

man

and

van

der

Bur

gt [

1]

b Tak

en f

rom

Phy

llis

[2]

ndash av

erag

e da

ta f

or m

ater

ial g

roup

c H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

] =

lH

V [

MJ

kg d

af]

+ 2

44

middot 89

4 middot H

[w

t d

af]

100

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 9

of reaction (based on the HHV of feedstock and methane all reactants and products at 25 degC) as well as the stoichiometric methane yield per kilogram of feedstock The heat of reaction for the overall reaction corresponds to well below 10 for all feed-stock materials For coal based feedstock with low oxygen content the reaction is endothermic while for brown coal and biomass feedstock it is exothermic The methane yield per kilogram feedstock also is considerably lower for biomass based feedstock due to the high oxygen content one option to improve the methane yield would be the additional supply of hydrogen as for example considered in hydrogas-ification The only technical conversion process capable of converting carbonaceous feedstock directly to methane and carbon dioxide according to the reaction in Equation (28) is gasification under supercritical conditions so‐called hydrothermal gasification [6ndash8] This technology is capable of handling wet feedstock but not yet available at commercial scale and is not covered in this chapter Common gasifica-tion technology converts the feedstock to a product gas being a mixture of Co Co

2

H2 H

2o CH

4 light and higher hydrocarbons and trace components followed by a

downstream gas cleaning and methane synthesis stepThe major operating parameters for gasification are pressure and temperature

Equilibrium calculations for steam gasification (05 kg H2okg daf feedstock) for a

generic biomass are used to illustrate the basic trends for the product gas composition and heat demand with changing pressure and temperature All feedstock is assumed to be converted to product gas As can be observed from Figure 22 methane formation is favored by lower temperatures and higher pressures Hydrogen and carbon monoxide formation increases with temperature and so does the endothermi-city of the overall reaction The theoretically exothermic reaction to CH

4 and Co

2 at

25 degC [similar to Equation (28)] turns into an endothermic reaction requiring heat supply at higher temperature

light hydrocarbons (represented by C2H

4) and tars (represented by C

10H

8) are only

formed to a very small extent according to equilibrium calculations The amount of steam added for gasification will mainly influence the H

2Co ratio via the water gas

shift reaction Equation (26) In reality the equilibrium state is usually not reached in the shown temperature range but the actual product gas composition resulting from gasification is influenced by a number of other parameters as will be discussed in subsequent sections An increase in gasification pressure favors methane formation predicted by equilibrium calculations at 800 degC the methane molar fraction increases from 0 to about 155 from 1 to 30 bar With more methane being formed the endo-thermic heat of reaction is reduced by 666 from 1 to 30 bar Again no to very little formation of light hydrocarbons and tars is predicted by the equilibrium even at higher pressures At high pressures and moderate temperatures a mixture of basically CH

4 Co

2 and H

2o ndash representing Equation (28) ndash can be obtained A process

example is hydrothermal gasification which is operating at these conditions but still is at development state [6ndash8] The above‐mentioned trends are all under the assumption of complete conversion of feedstock to product gas Many gasification concepts how-ever have a considerable amount of char remaining unconverted being removed with the ashes or in indirect gasification being converted in a separate combustion chamber for supplying the gasification heat The carbon feedstock entering the gas phase

10 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

during gasification will therefore be drastically changed when carbon conversion is incomplete Even minor effects on the hydrogen and oxygen balance in the gas phase can be expected as for example biomass char still contains oxygen and hydrogen [9] Figure 23 depicts the influence of pressure and temperature on carbon conversion at temperatures below 800 degC considerable amounts of solid carbon formation are pre-dicted This will in turn influence the equilibrium conditions in the gas phase as the carbon stock in gas phase is reduced The major reactions affected are the Boudouard water gas and waterndashgas shift reactions Equations (24) to (26) Incomplete carbon conversion leads to a decrease of Co concentration in the product gas as well as a decrease in H

2 compared to equilibrium at complete conversion

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

30minus2000

0

2000

4000

6000

ΔH

r [kJ

kg

daf

feed

]

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

300

01020304

y CH

4y H

2y H

2O

y CO

2y C

O

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

T [degC] T [degC]

T [degC]T [degC]

T [degC] T [degC]

P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar] P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar]

fiGure 22 Pressure and temperature dependence of the molar concentration of major gas species and the heat of reaction for steam gasification (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic

biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH143

o066

) assuming complete carbon conversion calculated by ASPEn PluS

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 11

223 Gasification ndash a multi‐step Process deviating from equilibrium

Equilibrium calculations while useful for identifying trends with changing operating conditions cannot however predict the performance of technical equipment to a full extent They represent a boundary value that can be approached but never reached The gasification process on a physical level is a multi‐stage process starting with drying of the feedstock followed by pyrolysis and gasificationcombustion The kinetics of the numerous homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions occurring ndash as well as the residence time and reactor setup ndash ultimately determine the product gas composition resulting from gasification Figure 24 illustrates a simplified reaction network for the conversion from received fuel to product gas The drying and pri-mary pyrolysis (also referred to as devolatilization) steps are similar for all gasifica-tion technologies whereas the extent of gasification reactions occurring as well as the approach to equilibrium are a strong function of the gasification medium and the reactor setup during pyrolysis a considerable amount of tars a complex mixture of 1‐ to 5‐ring aromatic hydrocarbons is formed that will undergo various conversion pathways during gasification In the final product gas tar can still represent a consid-erable amount of energy for example biomass steam gasification at 800 degC can result in more than 33 g tarsnm3 corresponding to about 8 of the total product gas energy content on a lower heating value basis [10]

200400

600800

10001200

0

10

20

30

04

02

0

06

08

1

T [degC]

P [bar]

Am

ount

of

feed

stoc

k ca

rbon

conv

erte

d to

gas

pha

se

fiGure 23 Carbon conversion predicted by equilibrium calculations for steam gasifica-tion (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt

CH143

o066

)

12 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

The gas composition from primary pyrolysis represents the starting point for the gasification reactions neves et al [9] conducted an extensive literature review of data on pyrolysis experiments and derived an empirical model for estimating gas species yields as well as tar and char yields and elemental composition as a function of peak pyrolysis temperature Figure 25 illustrates the pyrolysis gas composition and the total gas and char yield based on nevesrsquo model In contrast to the equilibrium calculations for gasification represented in Figure 22 the model predicts consider-able amounts of tars as well as a considerable amount of char produced from pyrol-ysis Even light hydrocarbons are present in the pyrolysis gas Generally speaking the product distribution from pyrolysis as presented in Figure 25 undergoes conversion towards the equilibrium conditions during the final conversion step in Figure 24 ndash the gasification step

The extent of conversion towards the equilibrium state is a function of a large number of parameters such as pressure and temperature reactor design and associated residence time for gas and solids as well as gasndashsolid mixing and the presence of catalytically active materials promoting specific reactions among others

Secondary PyrolysisGasication

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

DehydrationPolymerizationGasication

ReformingCrackingOxidationWater-gas shift

dry fuel

Primary Pyrolysis

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

Drying

As-receivedfuel particle Moisture

Dry fuel

Gasication medium(H2O H2 O2 CO2

)

Productgas

fiGure 24 Conversion process of a fuel particle during gasification (adopted and modi-fied from neves et al [9])

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 13

224 heat management of the Gasification Process

As temperature is the major influencing parameter on the kinetics of the different gasification reactions the thermal management of the gasification reactor is of particular importance The conversion steps from solid fuel to product gas as illus-trated in Figure 24 occur at different temperature levels A qualitative representation

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

Temperature (ordmC)

Tars (C10H8)

CxHy

CH4

CO

CO2

H2O

H2

Mol

ar f

ract

ion

of c

ompo

nent

i

(a)

Temperature (ordmC)

Yie

ld (

kgk

g da

f fu

el)

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1

Char yield

Total yield per kg daf fuelGases tars and pyrolytic water

(b)

fiGure 25 Pyrolysis gas molar composition (a) and overall mass yields (b) as a function of temperature (based on neves [9]) for a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066)

14 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of the temperature profile for a fuel particle over time is illustrated in Figure 26a After particle heat‐up the moisture is evaporated The dry fuel particle is further heated releasing pyrolysis gases and finally the char particle is gasified Heat for gasification needs to be supplied by the hot environment Particle combustion indicated by the dashed line occurs at a particle temperature above environ-ment due to the exothermic nature of the combustion reactions For complete conversion of a biomass fuel with initial moisture content of 20 wt the distribution of the heat demand for conversion on the different processes is illustrated in Figure 26b The gasification heat demand is dominant but even pyrolysis and drying

Dry

ing

Time

(a)

(b)

Tem

pera

ture

Dev

olat

iliza

tion

Pyro

lysi

s Char gasication

Char combustion

Surrounding temperature

a dcb

a ndash Preheating ndash 40b ndash Drying ndash 82

c ndash Pyrolysis ndash 76d ndash Gasication ndash 802

Fraction of total heat demand(6566 kJkg daf fuel)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat demand [kJkg daf fuel]

Gasication temperature (850 degC)

Pyrolysistemperature

(450 degC)

fiGure 26 (a) Qualitative representation of the temperature evolution of a fuel particle during gasification (b) Steam gasification heat demand profile for full conversion of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) at equilibrium (SB ratio = 05

steam supply at 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture)

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 15

represent a considerable share of the specific heat demand for conversion of course in reality pyrolysis and gasification rather occur over a certain temperature range instead of the fixed temperatures used for the calculation (nevesrsquo model for pyrolysis [9] and equilibrium calculations for the gasification) In addition the processes are not strictly sequential but partly occur in parallel within a gasification reactor nevertheless the gasification heat demand will be largest and above all requires the highest temperature level

All heat for the conversion process within the gasification unit needs to be supplied by combustion of part of the fuel or additional external fuel at high temperature Changing the initial moisture content of the biomass will reduce the drying heat demand [b in Figure 26b] and therefore improve the conversion efficiency External drying also allows for using a heat source at lower temperature improving the conversion process from an exergy perspective Even the pyrolysis process can be conducted in a separate reactor with a separate heat source For these considerations in relation to the thermal management of the gasification process temperaturendashheat load graphs can be a useful tool for identifying improvements for the energy efficiency of the gasification process Figure 27 presents such a graph as an example of an indirect gasification process modelled using nevesrsquo pyrolysis model and gasification at equilibrium It is assumed that the amount of char combusted is set to ensure that the combustion heat covers the heat demand for fuel heat‐up drying pyrolysis and gasification The supply of steam to gasification (400 degC) and hot air to combustion (400 degC) is an additional heat demand that needs to be covered The thick curve in Figure 27 represents the aggregation of all the above‐mentioned heat demands whereas the dashed curve is a representation of all heat sources namely the combustion

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat load [kJkg daf fuel]

Preheating biomass air and water (steam)

Moisture evaporationand steam generation

Pyrolysis andpreheating air and steam

Gasific

ation

Tpyrolysis = 450 ordmC

Tgasification = 850 ordmC

Tcombustion = 900 ordmCChar combustion

Gas

coo

ling

(pro

duct

gas

and

com

busti

on fl

ue g

as)Maximum amount

of excess heat3610 kJkg daf

fiGure 27 Temperature heat load curve for indirect steam gasification of a generic bio-mass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) SB ratio = 05 air and steam supply

at 25 degC and heated to 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture

16 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of char and the cooling of hot product gas and combustion flue gases to ambient tem-perature It is obvious that for ideal heat transfer the process has a considerable amount of excess heat allowing for a further increase in conversion to product gas by more efficient use of the heat and reducing the char combustion Converting more solid fuel to product gas will increase the heat demand while at the same time the heat supply will decrease as less char is burnt Even considering the overall SnG process these curves can be used for a holistic analysis of the heat integration of sinks and sources including the operations up‐ and downstream of the gasification step Heat from the methanation reaction might for example be used for biomass drying or for regeneration of an amine solution used for downstream Co

2 removal

The slope of the heat demand curves for pyrolysis and gasification also is dependent on the gas composition that actually is obtained during the different processes A deviation from equilibrium conditions for the gasification will result in considerable changes of the conversion heat demand Two parameters commonly used in thermal conversion processes are used to illustrate the influence of different parameters on the energy performance of the gasification process The first param-eter is the relative air to fuel ratio λ defining the amount of air (oxygen) actually supplied to the reaction in relation to the amount necessary for complete combustion according to stoichiometry

n

nair o actual

air o stoichiometric

2

2

(27)

The second parameter commonly used in gasification is the chemical efficiency ηch

relating the chemical energy content of the product gas to the fuel chemical energy η

ch can be defined on both a lower and a higher heating value basis but in order to

avoid confusion with respect to moisture content the higher heating value is used here

ch HHV

PG

fuel fuel

HHV

HHV

i

i i

n

n (28)

Figure 28 shows λ and ηchHHV

for the base case as illustrated in Figure 27 as well as the influence of changes in different operating parameters Increasing the feed tem-perature for both steam to gasification (Point 1 in Figure 28) and air to combustion (Point 3 in Figure 28) increases the chemical efficiency and reduces λ as less char needs to be burnt reducing the incoming moisture content of the biomass from 20 to 10 wt (Point 4 in Figure 28) results in a remarkable effect reducing the necessary air to fuel ratio and gives a relative increase of the chemical efficiency of 32 Assuming heat losses from the gasification unit (point 6 in Figure 28) corresponding to 2 of the thermal input on a higher heating value basis on the other hand considerably increases the air to fuel ratio and leads to a relative decrease of the chemical efficiency by 3 All changes except for points 5 7 and 8 represent thermal

Page 7: cover thumb - download.e-bookshelf.de · 10.4 PSI’s Catalytic SNG Process 266 10.4.1 Process Description and Layout 266 10.4.2 Mass Balance 268 10.4.3 Energy Balance 269 10.4.4

CONTENTS vii

5 SNG Upgrading 161Renato Baciocchi Giulia Costa and Lidia Lombardi

51 Introduction 16152 Separation Processes for SNG Upgrading 163

521 Bulk CO2CH

4 Separation 163

522 Removal of other Compounds and Impurities 16953 Techno‐Economical Comparison of Selected Separation Options 174References 176

6 SNG from Wood ndash the GoBiGas Project 181Joumlrgen Held

61 Biomethane in Sweden 18162 Conditions and Background for the GoBiGas Project in Gothenburg 18463 Technical Description 18564 Technical Issues and Lessons Learned 18865 Status 18866 Efficiency 18867 Economics 18868 Outlook 189Acknowledgements 189References 189

7 the Power to Gas Process Storage of Renewable energy in the Natural Gas Grid via Fixed Bed Methanation of Co2H2 191Michael Specht Jochen Brellochs Volkmar Frick Bernd Stuumlrmer and Ulrich Zuberbuumlhler

71 Motivation 191711 History ldquoRenewable Fuel Paths at ZSWrdquo 191712 Goal ldquoEnergiewenderdquo 192713 Goal ldquoPower Based Carbon Based Fuelsrdquo 192714 Goal ldquoP2Gregrdquo 192715 Goal ldquoMethanationrdquo 193

72 The Power to Fuel Concept Co‐utilization of (Biogenic) Carbon and Hydrogen 193

73 P2Greg Technology 196731 Methanation Characteristics for CO

2 Based Syngas 197

732 P2Greg Plant Layout of 25 kWel 250 kW

el and 6000 kW

el Plants 202

74 Experimental Results 206741 Methanation Catalysts Screening Cycle Resistance

Contamination by Sulfur Components 206742 Results with the 25 kW

el P2Greg Plant 209

743 Results with the 250 kWel P2Greg Plant 210

744 Results with the 250 kWel P2Greg Plant in Combination

with Membrane Gas Upgrade 21375 P2Greg Process Efficiency 214

viii CONTENTS

76 Conclusion and Outlook 217Acknowledgements 219References 219

8 Fluidized Bed Methanation for SNG Production ndash Process Development at the Paul‐Scherrer Institut 221Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollaz

81 Introduction to Process Development 22182 Methane from Wood ndash Process Development at PSI 223References 229

9 MILeNA Indirect Gasification oLGA tar Removal and eCN Process for Methanation 231Luc PLM Rabou Bram Van der Drift Eric HAJ Van Dijk Christiaan M Van der Meijden and Berend J Vreugdenhil

91 Introduction 23192 Main Process Steps 233

921 MILENA Indirect Gasification 233922 OLGA Tar Removal 236923 HDS and Deep S Removal 237924 Reformer 238925 CO

2 Removal 239

926 Methanation and Upgrading 23993 Process Efficiency and Economy 24094 Results and Status 241

941 MILENA 241942 OLGA 242943 HDS Reformer and Methanation 243

95 Outlook 245951 Pressure 245952 Co‐production 245953 Bio Carbon Capture and Storage 246954 Power to Gas 246

Acknowledgements 246References 247

10 Hydrothermal Production of SNG from Wet Biomass 249Freacutedeacuteric Vogel

101 Introduction 249102 Historical Development 252103 Physical and Chemical Bases 253

1031 Catalysis 2541032 Phase Behavior and Salt Separation 2591033 Liquefaction of the Solid Biomass Tar and Coke Formation 263

CONTENTS ix

104 PSIrsquos Catalytic SNG Process 2661041 Process Description and Layout 2661042 Mass Balance 2681043 Energy Balance 2691044 Status of Process Development at PSI 2691045 Comparison to other SNG Processes 271

105 Open Questions and Outlook 273References 274

11 Agnionrsquos Small Scale SNG Concept 279Thomas Kienberger and Christian Zuber

References 291

12 Integrated Desulfurization and Methanation Concepts for SNG Production 293Christian FJ Koumlnig Maarten Nachtegaal and Tilman J Schildhauer

121 Introduction 293122 Concepts for Integrated Desulfurization and Methanation 295

1221 Sulfur‐Resistant Methanation 2951222 Regeneration of Methanation Catalysts 2971223 Discussion of the Concepts 300

123 Required Future Research 3011231 Sulfur Resistant Methanation 3011232 Periodic Regeneration 302

References 303

Index 307

List of Contributors

renato baciocchi University of Rome Tor Vergata Roma Italy

serge MA biollaz Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Jochen brellochs Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Giulia Costa University of Rome Tor Vergata Roma Italy

Volkmar frick Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Joumlrgen Held Renewable Energy Technology International AB Lund Sweden

stefan Heyne Chalmers University of Technology Goumlteborg Sweden

thomas Kienberger Montanuniversitaumlt Leoben Leoben Austria

Christian fJ Koumlnig Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Lidia Lombardi Niccolograve Cusano University Roma Italy

Maarten nachtegaal Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Luc PLM rabou Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

urs rhyner AGRO Energie Schwyz Schwyz Switzerland

tilman J schildhauer Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Martin seemann Chalmers University of Technology Goumlteborg Sweden

xi

xii LIST Of CONTRIBUTORS

Michael specht Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

bernd stuumlrmer Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Eric HAJ Van Dijk Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

bram Van der Drift Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

Christiaan M Van der Meijden Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

freacutedeacuteric Vogel Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

berend J Vreugdenhil Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

Christian Zuber Agnion Highterm Research GesmbH Graz Austria

ulrich Zuberbuumlhler Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Synthetic Natural Gas from Coal Dry Biomass and Power-to-Gas Applications First EditionEdited by Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollazcopy 2016 John Wiley amp Sons Inc Published 2016 by John Wiley amp Sons Inc

1

1Introductory remarks

Tilman J Schildhauer

11 Why produce synthetIc natural gas

The answer to this question [which may also explain why one should read a book on synthetic natural gas (SNG) production] changes with time

During the years from 1950 to the early 1980s SNG production was an important topic mainly in the United States in the United Kingdom and in Germany The interest was caused by a couple of reasons In these countries a relative abundance of coal and the expected shortage of natural gas triggered several industrial initia-tives partly funded by public authorities to develop processes from coal to SNG Due to the oil crisis during the 1970s the use of domestic coal rather than the import of oil became a second motivation A third motivation is the possibility to make domestic (low quality) energy reserves available de‐centrally as an energy carrier for which the distribution infrastructure already exists and that allows for both clean and efficient use by consumers

These boundary conditions lead in 1984 to the start‐up of the 15 GWSNG

plant in Great Plains which is run by the Dakota Gas Company and converts lignite into SNG and many other products This plant stayed the only commercial SNG production for nearly 30 years because with the drop of the oil price in the mid1980s the explora-tion of natural gas in the North Sea and the gas pipelines between Russia and Europe the interest in SNG from coal ceased

Especially in the United States the interest came back in the years after the turn of the millennium now triggered by the again rising oil price and the meanwhile established use of CO

2 (which is an inherent by‐product of coal to SNG plants) for

2 INTRODUCTORy REmARKS

enhanced oil recovery (EOR) Back then a dozen coal to SNG projects were started including EOR Now due to the rapidly increasing exploitation of the shale gas and the connected possibility for a significant reduction of CO

2 emission all the projects

in the United States have been stoppedHowever all the mentioned motivations for SNG production that is shortage of

domestic natural gas use of domestic coal reserves which are far away from the highly populated areas and the possibility for clean and efficient combustion still prevail in China Therefore China is now by far the most important market for the production of SNG from coal Three large plants have started operation and further plants are planned or under construction

In Europe several aspects triggered a reconsideration of SNG production about 15 years ago Due to its cleaner combustion and inherently lower CO

2 emission

using natural gas in transportation (eg for CNG cars) is supported in many coun-tries and has even been economically beneficial for the past few years due to the lower gas price With the aim of the European Commission to replace up to 20 of European fuel consumption by biofuel replacing natural gas partly with bio‐methane becomes necessary So far bio‐methane is mostly produced by up‐grading biogas from anaerobic digestion However due to the limited amount of substrate this pathway cannot be increased much more and other sources of bio‐methane are sought

Additionally many European countries wish to use their domestic biomass resources for energy production in order to decrease CO

2 emissions and the import

of energy A major part of the biomass is ligno‐cellulosic (mostly wood) and mainly used for heating for example in wood pellet heating As the heat demand is gen-erally decreasing due to better building insulation the conversion of wood to high value forms of energy that is electricity and fuels is of increasing interest Like in the case of coal conversion to fuels requires (so far) gasification as the first step As shown by process simulations and the first demonstration plants the conversion of wood to SNG can reach significantly higher efficiencies than conversion to liquid fuels

Very recently a third aspect began to gain greater importance especially in Central Europe Due to the increasing integration of stochastic renewable sources like photovoltaics and wind energy into electricity generation the demand for balancing the electricity supply and the demand over spatial and temporal distances is increasing For the future even the seasonal storage of electricity may be necessary Here the production of SNG can play an important role While the gasification of solid feedstocks is a more or less continuous process the further conversion to electricity or SNG can be flexibly adjusted to the balancing needs of the electricity grid within so‐called polygeneration schemes

moreover in times where the electricity production from renewables exceeds the actual demand in the electricity grid (a situation that today occasionally is observed in Central Europe and is expected to be more common in future) producing SNG could utilize the excess electricity instead of curtailing photovoltaics or wind tur-bines In so‐called power to gas applications hydrogen is produced from excess electricity by electrolysis of water and then converted to SNG by methanation of

OVERVIEW 3

carbon oxides As a source of carbon oxides biogas producer gas from (biomass) gasification flue gas from industry or even CO

2 from the atmosphere can be consid-

ered opening a pathway to produce SNG without solid feedstock that can be stored or transported over long distances within the existing natural gas infrastructure

12 overvIeW

This book aims at a suitable overview over the different pathways to produce SNG (Figure 11)

The first four chapters cover the main process steps during conversion of coal and dry biomass to SNG gasification gas cleaning methanation and gas upgrading The main technology options will be highlighted and the impact of a technology choice for downstream processes and the complete process chain In these chapters espe-cially in the chapter on methanation reactors the state of the art coal to SNG processes are discussed in detail

The following chapters describe a number of novel processes for the production of SNG with their specific combination of process steps as well as the boundary con-ditions for which the respective process was developed These processes comprise those which are already in operation (eg the 20 mW

SNG bio‐SNG production in

Gothenburg Sweden or the 6 mWSNG

power to gas plant in Werlte Germany) and processes which are still under development

The gasification chapter covers the thermodynamics of gasification and presents both coal and biomass gasification technologies

Coal Dry biomass

gasification

Gas cleaning

Methanation

Methanation

SNG (CH4)

CO2 from air or industry

H2O CO2(H2)

H2 from electrolysis(power-to-gas)

Algae manure

Hydrothermalgasification

Biogas fromdigestion

Raw SNG CH4 H2O (CO2 H2)

Gas upgrading

FIgure 11 The different pathways to produce SNG

4 INTRODUCTORy REmARKS

The gas cleaning chapter discusses the impurities to be expected in gasification‐derived producer gas explains the state of the art gas cleaning technologies and focuses on the innovative gas cleaning steps which are developed for hot gas cleaning

The chapter on methanation reactors presents the chemical reactions proceeding inside the reactors their thermodynamic limitation and their reaction mechanisms Further an overview of the different reactor types with their advantages and chal-lenges is given covering coal to SNG biomass to SNG and power to gas processes The last section of this chapter focuses on the modeling and simulation of methana-tion reactors including the necessary experiments to determine reaction kinetics and to generate data for model validation

The chapter on gas‐upgrading discusses technologies for gas drying CO2 and

hydrogen removal based on adsorption absorption and membranes and includes a techno‐economic comparison

The chapter on the GoBiGas project (ldquoGothenburg Bio Gasrdquo) presents the boundary conditions and technologies applied in the 20 mW

SNG wood to SNG plant

in Gothenburg Sweden which was commissioned in 2014The next chapter explains the development of the power to gas process at the

Zentrum fuumlr solare Wasserstofferzeugung (ZSW) including the 6 mWSNG

plant in Werlte Germany

The chapter on fluidised bed methanation describes the process development at the Paul Scherrer Institut aiming at a flexible technology for efficiently converting wood to SNG and for hydrogen conversion within power to gas applications

The following chapter presents the technologies developed at the Energy Center of the Netherlands (ECN) for efficient SNG production from wood especially their allothermal gasification technology (mILENA) and their broad experience with gas cleaning

The chapter on hydrothermal gasification discusses the unique technology allow-ing for the simultaneous catalytic gasification and methanation of wet biomass under super‐critical conditions

The chapter on agnionrsquos small scale SNG concept focuses on two novel technol-ogies that allow for significant process simplification especially in small scale bio‐SNG plants the pressurized heatpipe reformer and the polytropic fixed bed methanation

The last chapter offers a view on the research for even more simplified SNG processes that is for methanation steps that allow for integrated desulfurization and methanation

The author of these lines wishes to express his gratitude especially to the contrib-utors of this book and to the persons at the publisher for their excellent work but also to all colleagues scientific collaborators partners friends and scientists in the community for many fruitful and interesting discussions All of you bring the field forward and made this book possible

Synthetic Natural Gas from Coal Dry Biomass and Power-to-Gas Applications First EditionEdited by Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollazcopy 2016 John Wiley amp Sons Inc Published 2016 by John Wiley amp Sons Inc

5

2Coal and Biomass GasifiCation for snG ProduCtion

Stefan Heyne Martin Seemann and Tilman J Schildhauer

21 introduCtion ndash BasiC requirements for GasifiCation in the framework of snG ProduCtion

Within the production of synthetic natural gas ndash basically methane ndash from solid feed-stock such as coal or biomass the major conversion step is gasification generating a product gas containing a mixture of permanent and condensable gases as well as solid residues (eg char ash) The gasification step can be conducted in different atmospheres and using different reaction agents Figure 21 represents the basic pathway from solid fuel to methane considering the main elements carbon hydrogen and oxygen It is obvious that an increase in hydrogen content is necessary for all feedstock illustrated At the same time the oxygen content needs to be reduced in particular for biogenic feedstock that is oxygenated to a higher degree

There exist different strategies or pathways for performing the conversion from feedstock towards methane within gasification as illustrated in Figure 21 Adding steam as a gasification agent is common practice not only due to the stoichiometric effect but also for enhanced char gasification and temperature moderation within the reactor H

2 addition is used in hydrogasification leading to a higher initial methane

6 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

content in the product gas [3 4] Co2 removal is an intrinsic part of the SnG produc-

tion process some gasification concepts using adsorptive bed material for direct Co2

removal within the gasification reactor [5] The addition of oxygen (common practice for all direct gasification technologies) actually leads to an increased need for Co

2

removal downstream of the reactor For indirect gasification where ungasified char is combusted in a separate chamber for heat supply the composition is changed towards methane via path (c) in Figure 21 Pretreatment technologies such as torrefaction decrease the oxygen content of the feedstock at the cost of increased energy demand

22 thermodynamiCs of GasifiCation

For an increased understanding of the role of gasification for the overall SnG process the basic thermodynamic aspects within gasification are discussed in the following The gasification process is a series of different conversions involving both homoge-neous and heterogeneous reactions The basic steps from solid fuel to product gas are drying pyrolysis or devolatilization and gasification depending on the physical size of the fuel these different steps occur in a sequential order for small particles or

40

20

0

60

80

0 20 40 60 80

0

20

40

60

80

Oxygen

Carbon

Hyd

roge

n

Feedstock

CH4

H2O

CO2

O2

H2

Carbon1 Biomass (hardwood softwood straw)2 Lignite coal3 Bituminous coal4 Anthracite coal

3

4

1

2

a removing CO2b adding H2c removing char (C)d adding steame adding O2

a

b d

e

c

fiGure 21 CHo diagram for coal and biomass Feedstock composition based on [1 2] data from Higman 2008 [1] Phyllis2 database for biomass and waste httpswwwecnnlphyllis2 Energy research Centre of the netherlands

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 7

overlap in bigger particles The detailed description of the complete process is a com-plex task and the considerations made in the following therefore focus on specific parts of the process and their implications for the overall conversion starting with some stoichiometric aspects for gasification

221 Gasification reactions

The major reactions occurring during the gasification step that commonly are consid-ered relevant are

C s o g Co g kJ mol partial oxidation0 5 1112 (21)

Co g o g Co g kJ mol carbon monoxide combustion0 5 2832 2 (22)

C s o g Co g kJ mol carbon combustion2 2 394ndash (23)

C s Co g Co g kJ mol reverse Boudouard reaction2 2 172 (24)

C s H o g Co g H g kJ mol water gas reaction2 2 131 (25)

Co g H o g H g Co g kJ mol water gas shift reaction2 2 2 41ndash (26)

CH g H o g H g Co g kJ mol steam reforming4 2 23 206 (27)

The char gasification reactions converting carbon into gaseous fuels [Equations (24) and (25)] are endothermic reactions requiring heat supply that is realized either by combusting part of the fuel in the same reactor (direct or autothermal gasification) or by indirect heat supply from an external combustion or heat source (indirect or allo-thermal gasification)

222 overall Gasification Process ndash equilibrium Based Considerations

Considering the overall process from coal or biomass to methane at the example of steam gasification the reaction stoichiometry can be expressed as

C o H o CH Cox y zH a b c2 4 2 (28)

with a xy z

bx y z

cx y z

4 2 2 8 4 2 8 4

Table 21 gives the coefficients for steam gasification to methane [Equation (28)] for different coal and biomass feedstock materials allowing the calculation of the heat

ta

Bl

e 2

1

Com

posi

tion

and

ove

rall

rea

ctio

n d

ata

for

stea

m G

asif

icat

ion

for

dif

fere

nt f

eeds

tock

mat

eria

ls

Feed

stoc

kM

olar

C

ompo

sitio

nl

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]c

rea

ctio

n C

oeff

icie

nts

for

Equ

atio

n (2

8)

ΔH

rM

etha

ne Y

ield

ab

c[M

Jkg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

[kg

CH

4kg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

Coa

laB

row

n co

al ndash

rhe

in

Ger

man

yC

H0

88o

029

262

273

063

20

537

046

3ndash0

19

048

9

lig

nite

ndash n

dak

ota

uSA

CH

072

o0

2526

727

70

697

052

90

471

06

050

9B

itum

inou

s ndash

typi

cal

Sout

h A

fric

aC

H0

68o

008

3435

10

792

056

70

433

12

10

654

Ant

hrac

ite ndash

ruh

r G

erm

any

CH

047

o0

0236

237

00

873

055

30

447

14

60

693

Bio

mas

sbW

illow

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

46o

065

185

199

031

00

520

048

0ndash0

45

035

0B

eech

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

47o

069

179

192

028

60

511

048

9ndash0

71

033

3Fi

r ndash

soft

woo

dC

H1

45o

065

196

210

031

30

520

048

0ndash1

58

035

0Sp

ruce

ndash s

oftw

ood

CH

142

o0

6818

419

70

304

050

80

492

ndash11

70

335

Whe

at s

traw

CH

146

o0

6818

319

60

297

051

20

488

ndash08

40

338

ric

e st

raw

CH

143

o0

6817

518

80

303

050

80

492

ndash02

30

335

a Tak

en f

rom

Hig

man

and

van

der

Bur

gt [

1]

b Tak

en f

rom

Phy

llis

[2]

ndash av

erag

e da

ta f

or m

ater

ial g

roup

c H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

] =

lH

V [

MJ

kg d

af]

+ 2

44

middot 89

4 middot H

[w

t d

af]

100

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 9

of reaction (based on the HHV of feedstock and methane all reactants and products at 25 degC) as well as the stoichiometric methane yield per kilogram of feedstock The heat of reaction for the overall reaction corresponds to well below 10 for all feed-stock materials For coal based feedstock with low oxygen content the reaction is endothermic while for brown coal and biomass feedstock it is exothermic The methane yield per kilogram feedstock also is considerably lower for biomass based feedstock due to the high oxygen content one option to improve the methane yield would be the additional supply of hydrogen as for example considered in hydrogas-ification The only technical conversion process capable of converting carbonaceous feedstock directly to methane and carbon dioxide according to the reaction in Equation (28) is gasification under supercritical conditions so‐called hydrothermal gasification [6ndash8] This technology is capable of handling wet feedstock but not yet available at commercial scale and is not covered in this chapter Common gasifica-tion technology converts the feedstock to a product gas being a mixture of Co Co

2

H2 H

2o CH

4 light and higher hydrocarbons and trace components followed by a

downstream gas cleaning and methane synthesis stepThe major operating parameters for gasification are pressure and temperature

Equilibrium calculations for steam gasification (05 kg H2okg daf feedstock) for a

generic biomass are used to illustrate the basic trends for the product gas composition and heat demand with changing pressure and temperature All feedstock is assumed to be converted to product gas As can be observed from Figure 22 methane formation is favored by lower temperatures and higher pressures Hydrogen and carbon monoxide formation increases with temperature and so does the endothermi-city of the overall reaction The theoretically exothermic reaction to CH

4 and Co

2 at

25 degC [similar to Equation (28)] turns into an endothermic reaction requiring heat supply at higher temperature

light hydrocarbons (represented by C2H

4) and tars (represented by C

10H

8) are only

formed to a very small extent according to equilibrium calculations The amount of steam added for gasification will mainly influence the H

2Co ratio via the water gas

shift reaction Equation (26) In reality the equilibrium state is usually not reached in the shown temperature range but the actual product gas composition resulting from gasification is influenced by a number of other parameters as will be discussed in subsequent sections An increase in gasification pressure favors methane formation predicted by equilibrium calculations at 800 degC the methane molar fraction increases from 0 to about 155 from 1 to 30 bar With more methane being formed the endo-thermic heat of reaction is reduced by 666 from 1 to 30 bar Again no to very little formation of light hydrocarbons and tars is predicted by the equilibrium even at higher pressures At high pressures and moderate temperatures a mixture of basically CH

4 Co

2 and H

2o ndash representing Equation (28) ndash can be obtained A process

example is hydrothermal gasification which is operating at these conditions but still is at development state [6ndash8] The above‐mentioned trends are all under the assumption of complete conversion of feedstock to product gas Many gasification concepts how-ever have a considerable amount of char remaining unconverted being removed with the ashes or in indirect gasification being converted in a separate combustion chamber for supplying the gasification heat The carbon feedstock entering the gas phase

10 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

during gasification will therefore be drastically changed when carbon conversion is incomplete Even minor effects on the hydrogen and oxygen balance in the gas phase can be expected as for example biomass char still contains oxygen and hydrogen [9] Figure 23 depicts the influence of pressure and temperature on carbon conversion at temperatures below 800 degC considerable amounts of solid carbon formation are pre-dicted This will in turn influence the equilibrium conditions in the gas phase as the carbon stock in gas phase is reduced The major reactions affected are the Boudouard water gas and waterndashgas shift reactions Equations (24) to (26) Incomplete carbon conversion leads to a decrease of Co concentration in the product gas as well as a decrease in H

2 compared to equilibrium at complete conversion

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

30minus2000

0

2000

4000

6000

ΔH

r [kJ

kg

daf

feed

]

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

300

01020304

y CH

4y H

2y H

2O

y CO

2y C

O

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

T [degC] T [degC]

T [degC]T [degC]

T [degC] T [degC]

P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar] P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar]

fiGure 22 Pressure and temperature dependence of the molar concentration of major gas species and the heat of reaction for steam gasification (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic

biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH143

o066

) assuming complete carbon conversion calculated by ASPEn PluS

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 11

223 Gasification ndash a multi‐step Process deviating from equilibrium

Equilibrium calculations while useful for identifying trends with changing operating conditions cannot however predict the performance of technical equipment to a full extent They represent a boundary value that can be approached but never reached The gasification process on a physical level is a multi‐stage process starting with drying of the feedstock followed by pyrolysis and gasificationcombustion The kinetics of the numerous homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions occurring ndash as well as the residence time and reactor setup ndash ultimately determine the product gas composition resulting from gasification Figure 24 illustrates a simplified reaction network for the conversion from received fuel to product gas The drying and pri-mary pyrolysis (also referred to as devolatilization) steps are similar for all gasifica-tion technologies whereas the extent of gasification reactions occurring as well as the approach to equilibrium are a strong function of the gasification medium and the reactor setup during pyrolysis a considerable amount of tars a complex mixture of 1‐ to 5‐ring aromatic hydrocarbons is formed that will undergo various conversion pathways during gasification In the final product gas tar can still represent a consid-erable amount of energy for example biomass steam gasification at 800 degC can result in more than 33 g tarsnm3 corresponding to about 8 of the total product gas energy content on a lower heating value basis [10]

200400

600800

10001200

0

10

20

30

04

02

0

06

08

1

T [degC]

P [bar]

Am

ount

of

feed

stoc

k ca

rbon

conv

erte

d to

gas

pha

se

fiGure 23 Carbon conversion predicted by equilibrium calculations for steam gasifica-tion (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt

CH143

o066

)

12 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

The gas composition from primary pyrolysis represents the starting point for the gasification reactions neves et al [9] conducted an extensive literature review of data on pyrolysis experiments and derived an empirical model for estimating gas species yields as well as tar and char yields and elemental composition as a function of peak pyrolysis temperature Figure 25 illustrates the pyrolysis gas composition and the total gas and char yield based on nevesrsquo model In contrast to the equilibrium calculations for gasification represented in Figure 22 the model predicts consider-able amounts of tars as well as a considerable amount of char produced from pyrol-ysis Even light hydrocarbons are present in the pyrolysis gas Generally speaking the product distribution from pyrolysis as presented in Figure 25 undergoes conversion towards the equilibrium conditions during the final conversion step in Figure 24 ndash the gasification step

The extent of conversion towards the equilibrium state is a function of a large number of parameters such as pressure and temperature reactor design and associated residence time for gas and solids as well as gasndashsolid mixing and the presence of catalytically active materials promoting specific reactions among others

Secondary PyrolysisGasication

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

DehydrationPolymerizationGasication

ReformingCrackingOxidationWater-gas shift

dry fuel

Primary Pyrolysis

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

Drying

As-receivedfuel particle Moisture

Dry fuel

Gasication medium(H2O H2 O2 CO2

)

Productgas

fiGure 24 Conversion process of a fuel particle during gasification (adopted and modi-fied from neves et al [9])

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 13

224 heat management of the Gasification Process

As temperature is the major influencing parameter on the kinetics of the different gasification reactions the thermal management of the gasification reactor is of particular importance The conversion steps from solid fuel to product gas as illus-trated in Figure 24 occur at different temperature levels A qualitative representation

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

Temperature (ordmC)

Tars (C10H8)

CxHy

CH4

CO

CO2

H2O

H2

Mol

ar f

ract

ion

of c

ompo

nent

i

(a)

Temperature (ordmC)

Yie

ld (

kgk

g da

f fu

el)

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1

Char yield

Total yield per kg daf fuelGases tars and pyrolytic water

(b)

fiGure 25 Pyrolysis gas molar composition (a) and overall mass yields (b) as a function of temperature (based on neves [9]) for a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066)

14 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of the temperature profile for a fuel particle over time is illustrated in Figure 26a After particle heat‐up the moisture is evaporated The dry fuel particle is further heated releasing pyrolysis gases and finally the char particle is gasified Heat for gasification needs to be supplied by the hot environment Particle combustion indicated by the dashed line occurs at a particle temperature above environ-ment due to the exothermic nature of the combustion reactions For complete conversion of a biomass fuel with initial moisture content of 20 wt the distribution of the heat demand for conversion on the different processes is illustrated in Figure 26b The gasification heat demand is dominant but even pyrolysis and drying

Dry

ing

Time

(a)

(b)

Tem

pera

ture

Dev

olat

iliza

tion

Pyro

lysi

s Char gasication

Char combustion

Surrounding temperature

a dcb

a ndash Preheating ndash 40b ndash Drying ndash 82

c ndash Pyrolysis ndash 76d ndash Gasication ndash 802

Fraction of total heat demand(6566 kJkg daf fuel)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat demand [kJkg daf fuel]

Gasication temperature (850 degC)

Pyrolysistemperature

(450 degC)

fiGure 26 (a) Qualitative representation of the temperature evolution of a fuel particle during gasification (b) Steam gasification heat demand profile for full conversion of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) at equilibrium (SB ratio = 05

steam supply at 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture)

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 15

represent a considerable share of the specific heat demand for conversion of course in reality pyrolysis and gasification rather occur over a certain temperature range instead of the fixed temperatures used for the calculation (nevesrsquo model for pyrolysis [9] and equilibrium calculations for the gasification) In addition the processes are not strictly sequential but partly occur in parallel within a gasification reactor nevertheless the gasification heat demand will be largest and above all requires the highest temperature level

All heat for the conversion process within the gasification unit needs to be supplied by combustion of part of the fuel or additional external fuel at high temperature Changing the initial moisture content of the biomass will reduce the drying heat demand [b in Figure 26b] and therefore improve the conversion efficiency External drying also allows for using a heat source at lower temperature improving the conversion process from an exergy perspective Even the pyrolysis process can be conducted in a separate reactor with a separate heat source For these considerations in relation to the thermal management of the gasification process temperaturendashheat load graphs can be a useful tool for identifying improvements for the energy efficiency of the gasification process Figure 27 presents such a graph as an example of an indirect gasification process modelled using nevesrsquo pyrolysis model and gasification at equilibrium It is assumed that the amount of char combusted is set to ensure that the combustion heat covers the heat demand for fuel heat‐up drying pyrolysis and gasification The supply of steam to gasification (400 degC) and hot air to combustion (400 degC) is an additional heat demand that needs to be covered The thick curve in Figure 27 represents the aggregation of all the above‐mentioned heat demands whereas the dashed curve is a representation of all heat sources namely the combustion

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat load [kJkg daf fuel]

Preheating biomass air and water (steam)

Moisture evaporationand steam generation

Pyrolysis andpreheating air and steam

Gasific

ation

Tpyrolysis = 450 ordmC

Tgasification = 850 ordmC

Tcombustion = 900 ordmCChar combustion

Gas

coo

ling

(pro

duct

gas

and

com

busti

on fl

ue g

as)Maximum amount

of excess heat3610 kJkg daf

fiGure 27 Temperature heat load curve for indirect steam gasification of a generic bio-mass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) SB ratio = 05 air and steam supply

at 25 degC and heated to 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture

16 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of char and the cooling of hot product gas and combustion flue gases to ambient tem-perature It is obvious that for ideal heat transfer the process has a considerable amount of excess heat allowing for a further increase in conversion to product gas by more efficient use of the heat and reducing the char combustion Converting more solid fuel to product gas will increase the heat demand while at the same time the heat supply will decrease as less char is burnt Even considering the overall SnG process these curves can be used for a holistic analysis of the heat integration of sinks and sources including the operations up‐ and downstream of the gasification step Heat from the methanation reaction might for example be used for biomass drying or for regeneration of an amine solution used for downstream Co

2 removal

The slope of the heat demand curves for pyrolysis and gasification also is dependent on the gas composition that actually is obtained during the different processes A deviation from equilibrium conditions for the gasification will result in considerable changes of the conversion heat demand Two parameters commonly used in thermal conversion processes are used to illustrate the influence of different parameters on the energy performance of the gasification process The first param-eter is the relative air to fuel ratio λ defining the amount of air (oxygen) actually supplied to the reaction in relation to the amount necessary for complete combustion according to stoichiometry

n

nair o actual

air o stoichiometric

2

2

(27)

The second parameter commonly used in gasification is the chemical efficiency ηch

relating the chemical energy content of the product gas to the fuel chemical energy η

ch can be defined on both a lower and a higher heating value basis but in order to

avoid confusion with respect to moisture content the higher heating value is used here

ch HHV

PG

fuel fuel

HHV

HHV

i

i i

n

n (28)

Figure 28 shows λ and ηchHHV

for the base case as illustrated in Figure 27 as well as the influence of changes in different operating parameters Increasing the feed tem-perature for both steam to gasification (Point 1 in Figure 28) and air to combustion (Point 3 in Figure 28) increases the chemical efficiency and reduces λ as less char needs to be burnt reducing the incoming moisture content of the biomass from 20 to 10 wt (Point 4 in Figure 28) results in a remarkable effect reducing the necessary air to fuel ratio and gives a relative increase of the chemical efficiency of 32 Assuming heat losses from the gasification unit (point 6 in Figure 28) corresponding to 2 of the thermal input on a higher heating value basis on the other hand considerably increases the air to fuel ratio and leads to a relative decrease of the chemical efficiency by 3 All changes except for points 5 7 and 8 represent thermal

Page 8: cover thumb - download.e-bookshelf.de · 10.4 PSI’s Catalytic SNG Process 266 10.4.1 Process Description and Layout 266 10.4.2 Mass Balance 268 10.4.3 Energy Balance 269 10.4.4

viii CONTENTS

76 Conclusion and Outlook 217Acknowledgements 219References 219

8 Fluidized Bed Methanation for SNG Production ndash Process Development at the Paul‐Scherrer Institut 221Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollaz

81 Introduction to Process Development 22182 Methane from Wood ndash Process Development at PSI 223References 229

9 MILeNA Indirect Gasification oLGA tar Removal and eCN Process for Methanation 231Luc PLM Rabou Bram Van der Drift Eric HAJ Van Dijk Christiaan M Van der Meijden and Berend J Vreugdenhil

91 Introduction 23192 Main Process Steps 233

921 MILENA Indirect Gasification 233922 OLGA Tar Removal 236923 HDS and Deep S Removal 237924 Reformer 238925 CO

2 Removal 239

926 Methanation and Upgrading 23993 Process Efficiency and Economy 24094 Results and Status 241

941 MILENA 241942 OLGA 242943 HDS Reformer and Methanation 243

95 Outlook 245951 Pressure 245952 Co‐production 245953 Bio Carbon Capture and Storage 246954 Power to Gas 246

Acknowledgements 246References 247

10 Hydrothermal Production of SNG from Wet Biomass 249Freacutedeacuteric Vogel

101 Introduction 249102 Historical Development 252103 Physical and Chemical Bases 253

1031 Catalysis 2541032 Phase Behavior and Salt Separation 2591033 Liquefaction of the Solid Biomass Tar and Coke Formation 263

CONTENTS ix

104 PSIrsquos Catalytic SNG Process 2661041 Process Description and Layout 2661042 Mass Balance 2681043 Energy Balance 2691044 Status of Process Development at PSI 2691045 Comparison to other SNG Processes 271

105 Open Questions and Outlook 273References 274

11 Agnionrsquos Small Scale SNG Concept 279Thomas Kienberger and Christian Zuber

References 291

12 Integrated Desulfurization and Methanation Concepts for SNG Production 293Christian FJ Koumlnig Maarten Nachtegaal and Tilman J Schildhauer

121 Introduction 293122 Concepts for Integrated Desulfurization and Methanation 295

1221 Sulfur‐Resistant Methanation 2951222 Regeneration of Methanation Catalysts 2971223 Discussion of the Concepts 300

123 Required Future Research 3011231 Sulfur Resistant Methanation 3011232 Periodic Regeneration 302

References 303

Index 307

List of Contributors

renato baciocchi University of Rome Tor Vergata Roma Italy

serge MA biollaz Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Jochen brellochs Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Giulia Costa University of Rome Tor Vergata Roma Italy

Volkmar frick Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Joumlrgen Held Renewable Energy Technology International AB Lund Sweden

stefan Heyne Chalmers University of Technology Goumlteborg Sweden

thomas Kienberger Montanuniversitaumlt Leoben Leoben Austria

Christian fJ Koumlnig Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Lidia Lombardi Niccolograve Cusano University Roma Italy

Maarten nachtegaal Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Luc PLM rabou Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

urs rhyner AGRO Energie Schwyz Schwyz Switzerland

tilman J schildhauer Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Martin seemann Chalmers University of Technology Goumlteborg Sweden

xi

xii LIST Of CONTRIBUTORS

Michael specht Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

bernd stuumlrmer Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Eric HAJ Van Dijk Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

bram Van der Drift Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

Christiaan M Van der Meijden Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

freacutedeacuteric Vogel Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

berend J Vreugdenhil Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

Christian Zuber Agnion Highterm Research GesmbH Graz Austria

ulrich Zuberbuumlhler Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Synthetic Natural Gas from Coal Dry Biomass and Power-to-Gas Applications First EditionEdited by Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollazcopy 2016 John Wiley amp Sons Inc Published 2016 by John Wiley amp Sons Inc

1

1Introductory remarks

Tilman J Schildhauer

11 Why produce synthetIc natural gas

The answer to this question [which may also explain why one should read a book on synthetic natural gas (SNG) production] changes with time

During the years from 1950 to the early 1980s SNG production was an important topic mainly in the United States in the United Kingdom and in Germany The interest was caused by a couple of reasons In these countries a relative abundance of coal and the expected shortage of natural gas triggered several industrial initia-tives partly funded by public authorities to develop processes from coal to SNG Due to the oil crisis during the 1970s the use of domestic coal rather than the import of oil became a second motivation A third motivation is the possibility to make domestic (low quality) energy reserves available de‐centrally as an energy carrier for which the distribution infrastructure already exists and that allows for both clean and efficient use by consumers

These boundary conditions lead in 1984 to the start‐up of the 15 GWSNG

plant in Great Plains which is run by the Dakota Gas Company and converts lignite into SNG and many other products This plant stayed the only commercial SNG production for nearly 30 years because with the drop of the oil price in the mid1980s the explora-tion of natural gas in the North Sea and the gas pipelines between Russia and Europe the interest in SNG from coal ceased

Especially in the United States the interest came back in the years after the turn of the millennium now triggered by the again rising oil price and the meanwhile established use of CO

2 (which is an inherent by‐product of coal to SNG plants) for

2 INTRODUCTORy REmARKS

enhanced oil recovery (EOR) Back then a dozen coal to SNG projects were started including EOR Now due to the rapidly increasing exploitation of the shale gas and the connected possibility for a significant reduction of CO

2 emission all the projects

in the United States have been stoppedHowever all the mentioned motivations for SNG production that is shortage of

domestic natural gas use of domestic coal reserves which are far away from the highly populated areas and the possibility for clean and efficient combustion still prevail in China Therefore China is now by far the most important market for the production of SNG from coal Three large plants have started operation and further plants are planned or under construction

In Europe several aspects triggered a reconsideration of SNG production about 15 years ago Due to its cleaner combustion and inherently lower CO

2 emission

using natural gas in transportation (eg for CNG cars) is supported in many coun-tries and has even been economically beneficial for the past few years due to the lower gas price With the aim of the European Commission to replace up to 20 of European fuel consumption by biofuel replacing natural gas partly with bio‐methane becomes necessary So far bio‐methane is mostly produced by up‐grading biogas from anaerobic digestion However due to the limited amount of substrate this pathway cannot be increased much more and other sources of bio‐methane are sought

Additionally many European countries wish to use their domestic biomass resources for energy production in order to decrease CO

2 emissions and the import

of energy A major part of the biomass is ligno‐cellulosic (mostly wood) and mainly used for heating for example in wood pellet heating As the heat demand is gen-erally decreasing due to better building insulation the conversion of wood to high value forms of energy that is electricity and fuels is of increasing interest Like in the case of coal conversion to fuels requires (so far) gasification as the first step As shown by process simulations and the first demonstration plants the conversion of wood to SNG can reach significantly higher efficiencies than conversion to liquid fuels

Very recently a third aspect began to gain greater importance especially in Central Europe Due to the increasing integration of stochastic renewable sources like photovoltaics and wind energy into electricity generation the demand for balancing the electricity supply and the demand over spatial and temporal distances is increasing For the future even the seasonal storage of electricity may be necessary Here the production of SNG can play an important role While the gasification of solid feedstocks is a more or less continuous process the further conversion to electricity or SNG can be flexibly adjusted to the balancing needs of the electricity grid within so‐called polygeneration schemes

moreover in times where the electricity production from renewables exceeds the actual demand in the electricity grid (a situation that today occasionally is observed in Central Europe and is expected to be more common in future) producing SNG could utilize the excess electricity instead of curtailing photovoltaics or wind tur-bines In so‐called power to gas applications hydrogen is produced from excess electricity by electrolysis of water and then converted to SNG by methanation of

OVERVIEW 3

carbon oxides As a source of carbon oxides biogas producer gas from (biomass) gasification flue gas from industry or even CO

2 from the atmosphere can be consid-

ered opening a pathway to produce SNG without solid feedstock that can be stored or transported over long distances within the existing natural gas infrastructure

12 overvIeW

This book aims at a suitable overview over the different pathways to produce SNG (Figure 11)

The first four chapters cover the main process steps during conversion of coal and dry biomass to SNG gasification gas cleaning methanation and gas upgrading The main technology options will be highlighted and the impact of a technology choice for downstream processes and the complete process chain In these chapters espe-cially in the chapter on methanation reactors the state of the art coal to SNG processes are discussed in detail

The following chapters describe a number of novel processes for the production of SNG with their specific combination of process steps as well as the boundary con-ditions for which the respective process was developed These processes comprise those which are already in operation (eg the 20 mW

SNG bio‐SNG production in

Gothenburg Sweden or the 6 mWSNG

power to gas plant in Werlte Germany) and processes which are still under development

The gasification chapter covers the thermodynamics of gasification and presents both coal and biomass gasification technologies

Coal Dry biomass

gasification

Gas cleaning

Methanation

Methanation

SNG (CH4)

CO2 from air or industry

H2O CO2(H2)

H2 from electrolysis(power-to-gas)

Algae manure

Hydrothermalgasification

Biogas fromdigestion

Raw SNG CH4 H2O (CO2 H2)

Gas upgrading

FIgure 11 The different pathways to produce SNG

4 INTRODUCTORy REmARKS

The gas cleaning chapter discusses the impurities to be expected in gasification‐derived producer gas explains the state of the art gas cleaning technologies and focuses on the innovative gas cleaning steps which are developed for hot gas cleaning

The chapter on methanation reactors presents the chemical reactions proceeding inside the reactors their thermodynamic limitation and their reaction mechanisms Further an overview of the different reactor types with their advantages and chal-lenges is given covering coal to SNG biomass to SNG and power to gas processes The last section of this chapter focuses on the modeling and simulation of methana-tion reactors including the necessary experiments to determine reaction kinetics and to generate data for model validation

The chapter on gas‐upgrading discusses technologies for gas drying CO2 and

hydrogen removal based on adsorption absorption and membranes and includes a techno‐economic comparison

The chapter on the GoBiGas project (ldquoGothenburg Bio Gasrdquo) presents the boundary conditions and technologies applied in the 20 mW

SNG wood to SNG plant

in Gothenburg Sweden which was commissioned in 2014The next chapter explains the development of the power to gas process at the

Zentrum fuumlr solare Wasserstofferzeugung (ZSW) including the 6 mWSNG

plant in Werlte Germany

The chapter on fluidised bed methanation describes the process development at the Paul Scherrer Institut aiming at a flexible technology for efficiently converting wood to SNG and for hydrogen conversion within power to gas applications

The following chapter presents the technologies developed at the Energy Center of the Netherlands (ECN) for efficient SNG production from wood especially their allothermal gasification technology (mILENA) and their broad experience with gas cleaning

The chapter on hydrothermal gasification discusses the unique technology allow-ing for the simultaneous catalytic gasification and methanation of wet biomass under super‐critical conditions

The chapter on agnionrsquos small scale SNG concept focuses on two novel technol-ogies that allow for significant process simplification especially in small scale bio‐SNG plants the pressurized heatpipe reformer and the polytropic fixed bed methanation

The last chapter offers a view on the research for even more simplified SNG processes that is for methanation steps that allow for integrated desulfurization and methanation

The author of these lines wishes to express his gratitude especially to the contrib-utors of this book and to the persons at the publisher for their excellent work but also to all colleagues scientific collaborators partners friends and scientists in the community for many fruitful and interesting discussions All of you bring the field forward and made this book possible

Synthetic Natural Gas from Coal Dry Biomass and Power-to-Gas Applications First EditionEdited by Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollazcopy 2016 John Wiley amp Sons Inc Published 2016 by John Wiley amp Sons Inc

5

2Coal and Biomass GasifiCation for snG ProduCtion

Stefan Heyne Martin Seemann and Tilman J Schildhauer

21 introduCtion ndash BasiC requirements for GasifiCation in the framework of snG ProduCtion

Within the production of synthetic natural gas ndash basically methane ndash from solid feed-stock such as coal or biomass the major conversion step is gasification generating a product gas containing a mixture of permanent and condensable gases as well as solid residues (eg char ash) The gasification step can be conducted in different atmospheres and using different reaction agents Figure 21 represents the basic pathway from solid fuel to methane considering the main elements carbon hydrogen and oxygen It is obvious that an increase in hydrogen content is necessary for all feedstock illustrated At the same time the oxygen content needs to be reduced in particular for biogenic feedstock that is oxygenated to a higher degree

There exist different strategies or pathways for performing the conversion from feedstock towards methane within gasification as illustrated in Figure 21 Adding steam as a gasification agent is common practice not only due to the stoichiometric effect but also for enhanced char gasification and temperature moderation within the reactor H

2 addition is used in hydrogasification leading to a higher initial methane

6 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

content in the product gas [3 4] Co2 removal is an intrinsic part of the SnG produc-

tion process some gasification concepts using adsorptive bed material for direct Co2

removal within the gasification reactor [5] The addition of oxygen (common practice for all direct gasification technologies) actually leads to an increased need for Co

2

removal downstream of the reactor For indirect gasification where ungasified char is combusted in a separate chamber for heat supply the composition is changed towards methane via path (c) in Figure 21 Pretreatment technologies such as torrefaction decrease the oxygen content of the feedstock at the cost of increased energy demand

22 thermodynamiCs of GasifiCation

For an increased understanding of the role of gasification for the overall SnG process the basic thermodynamic aspects within gasification are discussed in the following The gasification process is a series of different conversions involving both homoge-neous and heterogeneous reactions The basic steps from solid fuel to product gas are drying pyrolysis or devolatilization and gasification depending on the physical size of the fuel these different steps occur in a sequential order for small particles or

40

20

0

60

80

0 20 40 60 80

0

20

40

60

80

Oxygen

Carbon

Hyd

roge

n

Feedstock

CH4

H2O

CO2

O2

H2

Carbon1 Biomass (hardwood softwood straw)2 Lignite coal3 Bituminous coal4 Anthracite coal

3

4

1

2

a removing CO2b adding H2c removing char (C)d adding steame adding O2

a

b d

e

c

fiGure 21 CHo diagram for coal and biomass Feedstock composition based on [1 2] data from Higman 2008 [1] Phyllis2 database for biomass and waste httpswwwecnnlphyllis2 Energy research Centre of the netherlands

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 7

overlap in bigger particles The detailed description of the complete process is a com-plex task and the considerations made in the following therefore focus on specific parts of the process and their implications for the overall conversion starting with some stoichiometric aspects for gasification

221 Gasification reactions

The major reactions occurring during the gasification step that commonly are consid-ered relevant are

C s o g Co g kJ mol partial oxidation0 5 1112 (21)

Co g o g Co g kJ mol carbon monoxide combustion0 5 2832 2 (22)

C s o g Co g kJ mol carbon combustion2 2 394ndash (23)

C s Co g Co g kJ mol reverse Boudouard reaction2 2 172 (24)

C s H o g Co g H g kJ mol water gas reaction2 2 131 (25)

Co g H o g H g Co g kJ mol water gas shift reaction2 2 2 41ndash (26)

CH g H o g H g Co g kJ mol steam reforming4 2 23 206 (27)

The char gasification reactions converting carbon into gaseous fuels [Equations (24) and (25)] are endothermic reactions requiring heat supply that is realized either by combusting part of the fuel in the same reactor (direct or autothermal gasification) or by indirect heat supply from an external combustion or heat source (indirect or allo-thermal gasification)

222 overall Gasification Process ndash equilibrium Based Considerations

Considering the overall process from coal or biomass to methane at the example of steam gasification the reaction stoichiometry can be expressed as

C o H o CH Cox y zH a b c2 4 2 (28)

with a xy z

bx y z

cx y z

4 2 2 8 4 2 8 4

Table 21 gives the coefficients for steam gasification to methane [Equation (28)] for different coal and biomass feedstock materials allowing the calculation of the heat

ta

Bl

e 2

1

Com

posi

tion

and

ove

rall

rea

ctio

n d

ata

for

stea

m G

asif

icat

ion

for

dif

fere

nt f

eeds

tock

mat

eria

ls

Feed

stoc

kM

olar

C

ompo

sitio

nl

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]c

rea

ctio

n C

oeff

icie

nts

for

Equ

atio

n (2

8)

ΔH

rM

etha

ne Y

ield

ab

c[M

Jkg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

[kg

CH

4kg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

Coa

laB

row

n co

al ndash

rhe

in

Ger

man

yC

H0

88o

029

262

273

063

20

537

046

3ndash0

19

048

9

lig

nite

ndash n

dak

ota

uSA

CH

072

o0

2526

727

70

697

052

90

471

06

050

9B

itum

inou

s ndash

typi

cal

Sout

h A

fric

aC

H0

68o

008

3435

10

792

056

70

433

12

10

654

Ant

hrac

ite ndash

ruh

r G

erm

any

CH

047

o0

0236

237

00

873

055

30

447

14

60

693

Bio

mas

sbW

illow

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

46o

065

185

199

031

00

520

048

0ndash0

45

035

0B

eech

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

47o

069

179

192

028

60

511

048

9ndash0

71

033

3Fi

r ndash

soft

woo

dC

H1

45o

065

196

210

031

30

520

048

0ndash1

58

035

0Sp

ruce

ndash s

oftw

ood

CH

142

o0

6818

419

70

304

050

80

492

ndash11

70

335

Whe

at s

traw

CH

146

o0

6818

319

60

297

051

20

488

ndash08

40

338

ric

e st

raw

CH

143

o0

6817

518

80

303

050

80

492

ndash02

30

335

a Tak

en f

rom

Hig

man

and

van

der

Bur

gt [

1]

b Tak

en f

rom

Phy

llis

[2]

ndash av

erag

e da

ta f

or m

ater

ial g

roup

c H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

] =

lH

V [

MJ

kg d

af]

+ 2

44

middot 89

4 middot H

[w

t d

af]

100

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 9

of reaction (based on the HHV of feedstock and methane all reactants and products at 25 degC) as well as the stoichiometric methane yield per kilogram of feedstock The heat of reaction for the overall reaction corresponds to well below 10 for all feed-stock materials For coal based feedstock with low oxygen content the reaction is endothermic while for brown coal and biomass feedstock it is exothermic The methane yield per kilogram feedstock also is considerably lower for biomass based feedstock due to the high oxygen content one option to improve the methane yield would be the additional supply of hydrogen as for example considered in hydrogas-ification The only technical conversion process capable of converting carbonaceous feedstock directly to methane and carbon dioxide according to the reaction in Equation (28) is gasification under supercritical conditions so‐called hydrothermal gasification [6ndash8] This technology is capable of handling wet feedstock but not yet available at commercial scale and is not covered in this chapter Common gasifica-tion technology converts the feedstock to a product gas being a mixture of Co Co

2

H2 H

2o CH

4 light and higher hydrocarbons and trace components followed by a

downstream gas cleaning and methane synthesis stepThe major operating parameters for gasification are pressure and temperature

Equilibrium calculations for steam gasification (05 kg H2okg daf feedstock) for a

generic biomass are used to illustrate the basic trends for the product gas composition and heat demand with changing pressure and temperature All feedstock is assumed to be converted to product gas As can be observed from Figure 22 methane formation is favored by lower temperatures and higher pressures Hydrogen and carbon monoxide formation increases with temperature and so does the endothermi-city of the overall reaction The theoretically exothermic reaction to CH

4 and Co

2 at

25 degC [similar to Equation (28)] turns into an endothermic reaction requiring heat supply at higher temperature

light hydrocarbons (represented by C2H

4) and tars (represented by C

10H

8) are only

formed to a very small extent according to equilibrium calculations The amount of steam added for gasification will mainly influence the H

2Co ratio via the water gas

shift reaction Equation (26) In reality the equilibrium state is usually not reached in the shown temperature range but the actual product gas composition resulting from gasification is influenced by a number of other parameters as will be discussed in subsequent sections An increase in gasification pressure favors methane formation predicted by equilibrium calculations at 800 degC the methane molar fraction increases from 0 to about 155 from 1 to 30 bar With more methane being formed the endo-thermic heat of reaction is reduced by 666 from 1 to 30 bar Again no to very little formation of light hydrocarbons and tars is predicted by the equilibrium even at higher pressures At high pressures and moderate temperatures a mixture of basically CH

4 Co

2 and H

2o ndash representing Equation (28) ndash can be obtained A process

example is hydrothermal gasification which is operating at these conditions but still is at development state [6ndash8] The above‐mentioned trends are all under the assumption of complete conversion of feedstock to product gas Many gasification concepts how-ever have a considerable amount of char remaining unconverted being removed with the ashes or in indirect gasification being converted in a separate combustion chamber for supplying the gasification heat The carbon feedstock entering the gas phase

10 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

during gasification will therefore be drastically changed when carbon conversion is incomplete Even minor effects on the hydrogen and oxygen balance in the gas phase can be expected as for example biomass char still contains oxygen and hydrogen [9] Figure 23 depicts the influence of pressure and temperature on carbon conversion at temperatures below 800 degC considerable amounts of solid carbon formation are pre-dicted This will in turn influence the equilibrium conditions in the gas phase as the carbon stock in gas phase is reduced The major reactions affected are the Boudouard water gas and waterndashgas shift reactions Equations (24) to (26) Incomplete carbon conversion leads to a decrease of Co concentration in the product gas as well as a decrease in H

2 compared to equilibrium at complete conversion

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

30minus2000

0

2000

4000

6000

ΔH

r [kJ

kg

daf

feed

]

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

300

01020304

y CH

4y H

2y H

2O

y CO

2y C

O

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

T [degC] T [degC]

T [degC]T [degC]

T [degC] T [degC]

P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar] P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar]

fiGure 22 Pressure and temperature dependence of the molar concentration of major gas species and the heat of reaction for steam gasification (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic

biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH143

o066

) assuming complete carbon conversion calculated by ASPEn PluS

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 11

223 Gasification ndash a multi‐step Process deviating from equilibrium

Equilibrium calculations while useful for identifying trends with changing operating conditions cannot however predict the performance of technical equipment to a full extent They represent a boundary value that can be approached but never reached The gasification process on a physical level is a multi‐stage process starting with drying of the feedstock followed by pyrolysis and gasificationcombustion The kinetics of the numerous homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions occurring ndash as well as the residence time and reactor setup ndash ultimately determine the product gas composition resulting from gasification Figure 24 illustrates a simplified reaction network for the conversion from received fuel to product gas The drying and pri-mary pyrolysis (also referred to as devolatilization) steps are similar for all gasifica-tion technologies whereas the extent of gasification reactions occurring as well as the approach to equilibrium are a strong function of the gasification medium and the reactor setup during pyrolysis a considerable amount of tars a complex mixture of 1‐ to 5‐ring aromatic hydrocarbons is formed that will undergo various conversion pathways during gasification In the final product gas tar can still represent a consid-erable amount of energy for example biomass steam gasification at 800 degC can result in more than 33 g tarsnm3 corresponding to about 8 of the total product gas energy content on a lower heating value basis [10]

200400

600800

10001200

0

10

20

30

04

02

0

06

08

1

T [degC]

P [bar]

Am

ount

of

feed

stoc

k ca

rbon

conv

erte

d to

gas

pha

se

fiGure 23 Carbon conversion predicted by equilibrium calculations for steam gasifica-tion (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt

CH143

o066

)

12 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

The gas composition from primary pyrolysis represents the starting point for the gasification reactions neves et al [9] conducted an extensive literature review of data on pyrolysis experiments and derived an empirical model for estimating gas species yields as well as tar and char yields and elemental composition as a function of peak pyrolysis temperature Figure 25 illustrates the pyrolysis gas composition and the total gas and char yield based on nevesrsquo model In contrast to the equilibrium calculations for gasification represented in Figure 22 the model predicts consider-able amounts of tars as well as a considerable amount of char produced from pyrol-ysis Even light hydrocarbons are present in the pyrolysis gas Generally speaking the product distribution from pyrolysis as presented in Figure 25 undergoes conversion towards the equilibrium conditions during the final conversion step in Figure 24 ndash the gasification step

The extent of conversion towards the equilibrium state is a function of a large number of parameters such as pressure and temperature reactor design and associated residence time for gas and solids as well as gasndashsolid mixing and the presence of catalytically active materials promoting specific reactions among others

Secondary PyrolysisGasication

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

DehydrationPolymerizationGasication

ReformingCrackingOxidationWater-gas shift

dry fuel

Primary Pyrolysis

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

Drying

As-receivedfuel particle Moisture

Dry fuel

Gasication medium(H2O H2 O2 CO2

)

Productgas

fiGure 24 Conversion process of a fuel particle during gasification (adopted and modi-fied from neves et al [9])

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 13

224 heat management of the Gasification Process

As temperature is the major influencing parameter on the kinetics of the different gasification reactions the thermal management of the gasification reactor is of particular importance The conversion steps from solid fuel to product gas as illus-trated in Figure 24 occur at different temperature levels A qualitative representation

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

Temperature (ordmC)

Tars (C10H8)

CxHy

CH4

CO

CO2

H2O

H2

Mol

ar f

ract

ion

of c

ompo

nent

i

(a)

Temperature (ordmC)

Yie

ld (

kgk

g da

f fu

el)

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1

Char yield

Total yield per kg daf fuelGases tars and pyrolytic water

(b)

fiGure 25 Pyrolysis gas molar composition (a) and overall mass yields (b) as a function of temperature (based on neves [9]) for a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066)

14 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of the temperature profile for a fuel particle over time is illustrated in Figure 26a After particle heat‐up the moisture is evaporated The dry fuel particle is further heated releasing pyrolysis gases and finally the char particle is gasified Heat for gasification needs to be supplied by the hot environment Particle combustion indicated by the dashed line occurs at a particle temperature above environ-ment due to the exothermic nature of the combustion reactions For complete conversion of a biomass fuel with initial moisture content of 20 wt the distribution of the heat demand for conversion on the different processes is illustrated in Figure 26b The gasification heat demand is dominant but even pyrolysis and drying

Dry

ing

Time

(a)

(b)

Tem

pera

ture

Dev

olat

iliza

tion

Pyro

lysi

s Char gasication

Char combustion

Surrounding temperature

a dcb

a ndash Preheating ndash 40b ndash Drying ndash 82

c ndash Pyrolysis ndash 76d ndash Gasication ndash 802

Fraction of total heat demand(6566 kJkg daf fuel)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat demand [kJkg daf fuel]

Gasication temperature (850 degC)

Pyrolysistemperature

(450 degC)

fiGure 26 (a) Qualitative representation of the temperature evolution of a fuel particle during gasification (b) Steam gasification heat demand profile for full conversion of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) at equilibrium (SB ratio = 05

steam supply at 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture)

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 15

represent a considerable share of the specific heat demand for conversion of course in reality pyrolysis and gasification rather occur over a certain temperature range instead of the fixed temperatures used for the calculation (nevesrsquo model for pyrolysis [9] and equilibrium calculations for the gasification) In addition the processes are not strictly sequential but partly occur in parallel within a gasification reactor nevertheless the gasification heat demand will be largest and above all requires the highest temperature level

All heat for the conversion process within the gasification unit needs to be supplied by combustion of part of the fuel or additional external fuel at high temperature Changing the initial moisture content of the biomass will reduce the drying heat demand [b in Figure 26b] and therefore improve the conversion efficiency External drying also allows for using a heat source at lower temperature improving the conversion process from an exergy perspective Even the pyrolysis process can be conducted in a separate reactor with a separate heat source For these considerations in relation to the thermal management of the gasification process temperaturendashheat load graphs can be a useful tool for identifying improvements for the energy efficiency of the gasification process Figure 27 presents such a graph as an example of an indirect gasification process modelled using nevesrsquo pyrolysis model and gasification at equilibrium It is assumed that the amount of char combusted is set to ensure that the combustion heat covers the heat demand for fuel heat‐up drying pyrolysis and gasification The supply of steam to gasification (400 degC) and hot air to combustion (400 degC) is an additional heat demand that needs to be covered The thick curve in Figure 27 represents the aggregation of all the above‐mentioned heat demands whereas the dashed curve is a representation of all heat sources namely the combustion

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat load [kJkg daf fuel]

Preheating biomass air and water (steam)

Moisture evaporationand steam generation

Pyrolysis andpreheating air and steam

Gasific

ation

Tpyrolysis = 450 ordmC

Tgasification = 850 ordmC

Tcombustion = 900 ordmCChar combustion

Gas

coo

ling

(pro

duct

gas

and

com

busti

on fl

ue g

as)Maximum amount

of excess heat3610 kJkg daf

fiGure 27 Temperature heat load curve for indirect steam gasification of a generic bio-mass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) SB ratio = 05 air and steam supply

at 25 degC and heated to 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture

16 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of char and the cooling of hot product gas and combustion flue gases to ambient tem-perature It is obvious that for ideal heat transfer the process has a considerable amount of excess heat allowing for a further increase in conversion to product gas by more efficient use of the heat and reducing the char combustion Converting more solid fuel to product gas will increase the heat demand while at the same time the heat supply will decrease as less char is burnt Even considering the overall SnG process these curves can be used for a holistic analysis of the heat integration of sinks and sources including the operations up‐ and downstream of the gasification step Heat from the methanation reaction might for example be used for biomass drying or for regeneration of an amine solution used for downstream Co

2 removal

The slope of the heat demand curves for pyrolysis and gasification also is dependent on the gas composition that actually is obtained during the different processes A deviation from equilibrium conditions for the gasification will result in considerable changes of the conversion heat demand Two parameters commonly used in thermal conversion processes are used to illustrate the influence of different parameters on the energy performance of the gasification process The first param-eter is the relative air to fuel ratio λ defining the amount of air (oxygen) actually supplied to the reaction in relation to the amount necessary for complete combustion according to stoichiometry

n

nair o actual

air o stoichiometric

2

2

(27)

The second parameter commonly used in gasification is the chemical efficiency ηch

relating the chemical energy content of the product gas to the fuel chemical energy η

ch can be defined on both a lower and a higher heating value basis but in order to

avoid confusion with respect to moisture content the higher heating value is used here

ch HHV

PG

fuel fuel

HHV

HHV

i

i i

n

n (28)

Figure 28 shows λ and ηchHHV

for the base case as illustrated in Figure 27 as well as the influence of changes in different operating parameters Increasing the feed tem-perature for both steam to gasification (Point 1 in Figure 28) and air to combustion (Point 3 in Figure 28) increases the chemical efficiency and reduces λ as less char needs to be burnt reducing the incoming moisture content of the biomass from 20 to 10 wt (Point 4 in Figure 28) results in a remarkable effect reducing the necessary air to fuel ratio and gives a relative increase of the chemical efficiency of 32 Assuming heat losses from the gasification unit (point 6 in Figure 28) corresponding to 2 of the thermal input on a higher heating value basis on the other hand considerably increases the air to fuel ratio and leads to a relative decrease of the chemical efficiency by 3 All changes except for points 5 7 and 8 represent thermal

Page 9: cover thumb - download.e-bookshelf.de · 10.4 PSI’s Catalytic SNG Process 266 10.4.1 Process Description and Layout 266 10.4.2 Mass Balance 268 10.4.3 Energy Balance 269 10.4.4

CONTENTS ix

104 PSIrsquos Catalytic SNG Process 2661041 Process Description and Layout 2661042 Mass Balance 2681043 Energy Balance 2691044 Status of Process Development at PSI 2691045 Comparison to other SNG Processes 271

105 Open Questions and Outlook 273References 274

11 Agnionrsquos Small Scale SNG Concept 279Thomas Kienberger and Christian Zuber

References 291

12 Integrated Desulfurization and Methanation Concepts for SNG Production 293Christian FJ Koumlnig Maarten Nachtegaal and Tilman J Schildhauer

121 Introduction 293122 Concepts for Integrated Desulfurization and Methanation 295

1221 Sulfur‐Resistant Methanation 2951222 Regeneration of Methanation Catalysts 2971223 Discussion of the Concepts 300

123 Required Future Research 3011231 Sulfur Resistant Methanation 3011232 Periodic Regeneration 302

References 303

Index 307

List of Contributors

renato baciocchi University of Rome Tor Vergata Roma Italy

serge MA biollaz Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Jochen brellochs Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Giulia Costa University of Rome Tor Vergata Roma Italy

Volkmar frick Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Joumlrgen Held Renewable Energy Technology International AB Lund Sweden

stefan Heyne Chalmers University of Technology Goumlteborg Sweden

thomas Kienberger Montanuniversitaumlt Leoben Leoben Austria

Christian fJ Koumlnig Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Lidia Lombardi Niccolograve Cusano University Roma Italy

Maarten nachtegaal Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Luc PLM rabou Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

urs rhyner AGRO Energie Schwyz Schwyz Switzerland

tilman J schildhauer Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Martin seemann Chalmers University of Technology Goumlteborg Sweden

xi

xii LIST Of CONTRIBUTORS

Michael specht Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

bernd stuumlrmer Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Eric HAJ Van Dijk Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

bram Van der Drift Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

Christiaan M Van der Meijden Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

freacutedeacuteric Vogel Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

berend J Vreugdenhil Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

Christian Zuber Agnion Highterm Research GesmbH Graz Austria

ulrich Zuberbuumlhler Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Synthetic Natural Gas from Coal Dry Biomass and Power-to-Gas Applications First EditionEdited by Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollazcopy 2016 John Wiley amp Sons Inc Published 2016 by John Wiley amp Sons Inc

1

1Introductory remarks

Tilman J Schildhauer

11 Why produce synthetIc natural gas

The answer to this question [which may also explain why one should read a book on synthetic natural gas (SNG) production] changes with time

During the years from 1950 to the early 1980s SNG production was an important topic mainly in the United States in the United Kingdom and in Germany The interest was caused by a couple of reasons In these countries a relative abundance of coal and the expected shortage of natural gas triggered several industrial initia-tives partly funded by public authorities to develop processes from coal to SNG Due to the oil crisis during the 1970s the use of domestic coal rather than the import of oil became a second motivation A third motivation is the possibility to make domestic (low quality) energy reserves available de‐centrally as an energy carrier for which the distribution infrastructure already exists and that allows for both clean and efficient use by consumers

These boundary conditions lead in 1984 to the start‐up of the 15 GWSNG

plant in Great Plains which is run by the Dakota Gas Company and converts lignite into SNG and many other products This plant stayed the only commercial SNG production for nearly 30 years because with the drop of the oil price in the mid1980s the explora-tion of natural gas in the North Sea and the gas pipelines between Russia and Europe the interest in SNG from coal ceased

Especially in the United States the interest came back in the years after the turn of the millennium now triggered by the again rising oil price and the meanwhile established use of CO

2 (which is an inherent by‐product of coal to SNG plants) for

2 INTRODUCTORy REmARKS

enhanced oil recovery (EOR) Back then a dozen coal to SNG projects were started including EOR Now due to the rapidly increasing exploitation of the shale gas and the connected possibility for a significant reduction of CO

2 emission all the projects

in the United States have been stoppedHowever all the mentioned motivations for SNG production that is shortage of

domestic natural gas use of domestic coal reserves which are far away from the highly populated areas and the possibility for clean and efficient combustion still prevail in China Therefore China is now by far the most important market for the production of SNG from coal Three large plants have started operation and further plants are planned or under construction

In Europe several aspects triggered a reconsideration of SNG production about 15 years ago Due to its cleaner combustion and inherently lower CO

2 emission

using natural gas in transportation (eg for CNG cars) is supported in many coun-tries and has even been economically beneficial for the past few years due to the lower gas price With the aim of the European Commission to replace up to 20 of European fuel consumption by biofuel replacing natural gas partly with bio‐methane becomes necessary So far bio‐methane is mostly produced by up‐grading biogas from anaerobic digestion However due to the limited amount of substrate this pathway cannot be increased much more and other sources of bio‐methane are sought

Additionally many European countries wish to use their domestic biomass resources for energy production in order to decrease CO

2 emissions and the import

of energy A major part of the biomass is ligno‐cellulosic (mostly wood) and mainly used for heating for example in wood pellet heating As the heat demand is gen-erally decreasing due to better building insulation the conversion of wood to high value forms of energy that is electricity and fuels is of increasing interest Like in the case of coal conversion to fuels requires (so far) gasification as the first step As shown by process simulations and the first demonstration plants the conversion of wood to SNG can reach significantly higher efficiencies than conversion to liquid fuels

Very recently a third aspect began to gain greater importance especially in Central Europe Due to the increasing integration of stochastic renewable sources like photovoltaics and wind energy into electricity generation the demand for balancing the electricity supply and the demand over spatial and temporal distances is increasing For the future even the seasonal storage of electricity may be necessary Here the production of SNG can play an important role While the gasification of solid feedstocks is a more or less continuous process the further conversion to electricity or SNG can be flexibly adjusted to the balancing needs of the electricity grid within so‐called polygeneration schemes

moreover in times where the electricity production from renewables exceeds the actual demand in the electricity grid (a situation that today occasionally is observed in Central Europe and is expected to be more common in future) producing SNG could utilize the excess electricity instead of curtailing photovoltaics or wind tur-bines In so‐called power to gas applications hydrogen is produced from excess electricity by electrolysis of water and then converted to SNG by methanation of

OVERVIEW 3

carbon oxides As a source of carbon oxides biogas producer gas from (biomass) gasification flue gas from industry or even CO

2 from the atmosphere can be consid-

ered opening a pathway to produce SNG without solid feedstock that can be stored or transported over long distances within the existing natural gas infrastructure

12 overvIeW

This book aims at a suitable overview over the different pathways to produce SNG (Figure 11)

The first four chapters cover the main process steps during conversion of coal and dry biomass to SNG gasification gas cleaning methanation and gas upgrading The main technology options will be highlighted and the impact of a technology choice for downstream processes and the complete process chain In these chapters espe-cially in the chapter on methanation reactors the state of the art coal to SNG processes are discussed in detail

The following chapters describe a number of novel processes for the production of SNG with their specific combination of process steps as well as the boundary con-ditions for which the respective process was developed These processes comprise those which are already in operation (eg the 20 mW

SNG bio‐SNG production in

Gothenburg Sweden or the 6 mWSNG

power to gas plant in Werlte Germany) and processes which are still under development

The gasification chapter covers the thermodynamics of gasification and presents both coal and biomass gasification technologies

Coal Dry biomass

gasification

Gas cleaning

Methanation

Methanation

SNG (CH4)

CO2 from air or industry

H2O CO2(H2)

H2 from electrolysis(power-to-gas)

Algae manure

Hydrothermalgasification

Biogas fromdigestion

Raw SNG CH4 H2O (CO2 H2)

Gas upgrading

FIgure 11 The different pathways to produce SNG

4 INTRODUCTORy REmARKS

The gas cleaning chapter discusses the impurities to be expected in gasification‐derived producer gas explains the state of the art gas cleaning technologies and focuses on the innovative gas cleaning steps which are developed for hot gas cleaning

The chapter on methanation reactors presents the chemical reactions proceeding inside the reactors their thermodynamic limitation and their reaction mechanisms Further an overview of the different reactor types with their advantages and chal-lenges is given covering coal to SNG biomass to SNG and power to gas processes The last section of this chapter focuses on the modeling and simulation of methana-tion reactors including the necessary experiments to determine reaction kinetics and to generate data for model validation

The chapter on gas‐upgrading discusses technologies for gas drying CO2 and

hydrogen removal based on adsorption absorption and membranes and includes a techno‐economic comparison

The chapter on the GoBiGas project (ldquoGothenburg Bio Gasrdquo) presents the boundary conditions and technologies applied in the 20 mW

SNG wood to SNG plant

in Gothenburg Sweden which was commissioned in 2014The next chapter explains the development of the power to gas process at the

Zentrum fuumlr solare Wasserstofferzeugung (ZSW) including the 6 mWSNG

plant in Werlte Germany

The chapter on fluidised bed methanation describes the process development at the Paul Scherrer Institut aiming at a flexible technology for efficiently converting wood to SNG and for hydrogen conversion within power to gas applications

The following chapter presents the technologies developed at the Energy Center of the Netherlands (ECN) for efficient SNG production from wood especially their allothermal gasification technology (mILENA) and their broad experience with gas cleaning

The chapter on hydrothermal gasification discusses the unique technology allow-ing for the simultaneous catalytic gasification and methanation of wet biomass under super‐critical conditions

The chapter on agnionrsquos small scale SNG concept focuses on two novel technol-ogies that allow for significant process simplification especially in small scale bio‐SNG plants the pressurized heatpipe reformer and the polytropic fixed bed methanation

The last chapter offers a view on the research for even more simplified SNG processes that is for methanation steps that allow for integrated desulfurization and methanation

The author of these lines wishes to express his gratitude especially to the contrib-utors of this book and to the persons at the publisher for their excellent work but also to all colleagues scientific collaborators partners friends and scientists in the community for many fruitful and interesting discussions All of you bring the field forward and made this book possible

Synthetic Natural Gas from Coal Dry Biomass and Power-to-Gas Applications First EditionEdited by Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollazcopy 2016 John Wiley amp Sons Inc Published 2016 by John Wiley amp Sons Inc

5

2Coal and Biomass GasifiCation for snG ProduCtion

Stefan Heyne Martin Seemann and Tilman J Schildhauer

21 introduCtion ndash BasiC requirements for GasifiCation in the framework of snG ProduCtion

Within the production of synthetic natural gas ndash basically methane ndash from solid feed-stock such as coal or biomass the major conversion step is gasification generating a product gas containing a mixture of permanent and condensable gases as well as solid residues (eg char ash) The gasification step can be conducted in different atmospheres and using different reaction agents Figure 21 represents the basic pathway from solid fuel to methane considering the main elements carbon hydrogen and oxygen It is obvious that an increase in hydrogen content is necessary for all feedstock illustrated At the same time the oxygen content needs to be reduced in particular for biogenic feedstock that is oxygenated to a higher degree

There exist different strategies or pathways for performing the conversion from feedstock towards methane within gasification as illustrated in Figure 21 Adding steam as a gasification agent is common practice not only due to the stoichiometric effect but also for enhanced char gasification and temperature moderation within the reactor H

2 addition is used in hydrogasification leading to a higher initial methane

6 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

content in the product gas [3 4] Co2 removal is an intrinsic part of the SnG produc-

tion process some gasification concepts using adsorptive bed material for direct Co2

removal within the gasification reactor [5] The addition of oxygen (common practice for all direct gasification technologies) actually leads to an increased need for Co

2

removal downstream of the reactor For indirect gasification where ungasified char is combusted in a separate chamber for heat supply the composition is changed towards methane via path (c) in Figure 21 Pretreatment technologies such as torrefaction decrease the oxygen content of the feedstock at the cost of increased energy demand

22 thermodynamiCs of GasifiCation

For an increased understanding of the role of gasification for the overall SnG process the basic thermodynamic aspects within gasification are discussed in the following The gasification process is a series of different conversions involving both homoge-neous and heterogeneous reactions The basic steps from solid fuel to product gas are drying pyrolysis or devolatilization and gasification depending on the physical size of the fuel these different steps occur in a sequential order for small particles or

40

20

0

60

80

0 20 40 60 80

0

20

40

60

80

Oxygen

Carbon

Hyd

roge

n

Feedstock

CH4

H2O

CO2

O2

H2

Carbon1 Biomass (hardwood softwood straw)2 Lignite coal3 Bituminous coal4 Anthracite coal

3

4

1

2

a removing CO2b adding H2c removing char (C)d adding steame adding O2

a

b d

e

c

fiGure 21 CHo diagram for coal and biomass Feedstock composition based on [1 2] data from Higman 2008 [1] Phyllis2 database for biomass and waste httpswwwecnnlphyllis2 Energy research Centre of the netherlands

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 7

overlap in bigger particles The detailed description of the complete process is a com-plex task and the considerations made in the following therefore focus on specific parts of the process and their implications for the overall conversion starting with some stoichiometric aspects for gasification

221 Gasification reactions

The major reactions occurring during the gasification step that commonly are consid-ered relevant are

C s o g Co g kJ mol partial oxidation0 5 1112 (21)

Co g o g Co g kJ mol carbon monoxide combustion0 5 2832 2 (22)

C s o g Co g kJ mol carbon combustion2 2 394ndash (23)

C s Co g Co g kJ mol reverse Boudouard reaction2 2 172 (24)

C s H o g Co g H g kJ mol water gas reaction2 2 131 (25)

Co g H o g H g Co g kJ mol water gas shift reaction2 2 2 41ndash (26)

CH g H o g H g Co g kJ mol steam reforming4 2 23 206 (27)

The char gasification reactions converting carbon into gaseous fuels [Equations (24) and (25)] are endothermic reactions requiring heat supply that is realized either by combusting part of the fuel in the same reactor (direct or autothermal gasification) or by indirect heat supply from an external combustion or heat source (indirect or allo-thermal gasification)

222 overall Gasification Process ndash equilibrium Based Considerations

Considering the overall process from coal or biomass to methane at the example of steam gasification the reaction stoichiometry can be expressed as

C o H o CH Cox y zH a b c2 4 2 (28)

with a xy z

bx y z

cx y z

4 2 2 8 4 2 8 4

Table 21 gives the coefficients for steam gasification to methane [Equation (28)] for different coal and biomass feedstock materials allowing the calculation of the heat

ta

Bl

e 2

1

Com

posi

tion

and

ove

rall

rea

ctio

n d

ata

for

stea

m G

asif

icat

ion

for

dif

fere

nt f

eeds

tock

mat

eria

ls

Feed

stoc

kM

olar

C

ompo

sitio

nl

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]c

rea

ctio

n C

oeff

icie

nts

for

Equ

atio

n (2

8)

ΔH

rM

etha

ne Y

ield

ab

c[M

Jkg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

[kg

CH

4kg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

Coa

laB

row

n co

al ndash

rhe

in

Ger

man

yC

H0

88o

029

262

273

063

20

537

046

3ndash0

19

048

9

lig

nite

ndash n

dak

ota

uSA

CH

072

o0

2526

727

70

697

052

90

471

06

050

9B

itum

inou

s ndash

typi

cal

Sout

h A

fric

aC

H0

68o

008

3435

10

792

056

70

433

12

10

654

Ant

hrac

ite ndash

ruh

r G

erm

any

CH

047

o0

0236

237

00

873

055

30

447

14

60

693

Bio

mas

sbW

illow

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

46o

065

185

199

031

00

520

048

0ndash0

45

035

0B

eech

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

47o

069

179

192

028

60

511

048

9ndash0

71

033

3Fi

r ndash

soft

woo

dC

H1

45o

065

196

210

031

30

520

048

0ndash1

58

035

0Sp

ruce

ndash s

oftw

ood

CH

142

o0

6818

419

70

304

050

80

492

ndash11

70

335

Whe

at s

traw

CH

146

o0

6818

319

60

297

051

20

488

ndash08

40

338

ric

e st

raw

CH

143

o0

6817

518

80

303

050

80

492

ndash02

30

335

a Tak

en f

rom

Hig

man

and

van

der

Bur

gt [

1]

b Tak

en f

rom

Phy

llis

[2]

ndash av

erag

e da

ta f

or m

ater

ial g

roup

c H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

] =

lH

V [

MJ

kg d

af]

+ 2

44

middot 89

4 middot H

[w

t d

af]

100

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 9

of reaction (based on the HHV of feedstock and methane all reactants and products at 25 degC) as well as the stoichiometric methane yield per kilogram of feedstock The heat of reaction for the overall reaction corresponds to well below 10 for all feed-stock materials For coal based feedstock with low oxygen content the reaction is endothermic while for brown coal and biomass feedstock it is exothermic The methane yield per kilogram feedstock also is considerably lower for biomass based feedstock due to the high oxygen content one option to improve the methane yield would be the additional supply of hydrogen as for example considered in hydrogas-ification The only technical conversion process capable of converting carbonaceous feedstock directly to methane and carbon dioxide according to the reaction in Equation (28) is gasification under supercritical conditions so‐called hydrothermal gasification [6ndash8] This technology is capable of handling wet feedstock but not yet available at commercial scale and is not covered in this chapter Common gasifica-tion technology converts the feedstock to a product gas being a mixture of Co Co

2

H2 H

2o CH

4 light and higher hydrocarbons and trace components followed by a

downstream gas cleaning and methane synthesis stepThe major operating parameters for gasification are pressure and temperature

Equilibrium calculations for steam gasification (05 kg H2okg daf feedstock) for a

generic biomass are used to illustrate the basic trends for the product gas composition and heat demand with changing pressure and temperature All feedstock is assumed to be converted to product gas As can be observed from Figure 22 methane formation is favored by lower temperatures and higher pressures Hydrogen and carbon monoxide formation increases with temperature and so does the endothermi-city of the overall reaction The theoretically exothermic reaction to CH

4 and Co

2 at

25 degC [similar to Equation (28)] turns into an endothermic reaction requiring heat supply at higher temperature

light hydrocarbons (represented by C2H

4) and tars (represented by C

10H

8) are only

formed to a very small extent according to equilibrium calculations The amount of steam added for gasification will mainly influence the H

2Co ratio via the water gas

shift reaction Equation (26) In reality the equilibrium state is usually not reached in the shown temperature range but the actual product gas composition resulting from gasification is influenced by a number of other parameters as will be discussed in subsequent sections An increase in gasification pressure favors methane formation predicted by equilibrium calculations at 800 degC the methane molar fraction increases from 0 to about 155 from 1 to 30 bar With more methane being formed the endo-thermic heat of reaction is reduced by 666 from 1 to 30 bar Again no to very little formation of light hydrocarbons and tars is predicted by the equilibrium even at higher pressures At high pressures and moderate temperatures a mixture of basically CH

4 Co

2 and H

2o ndash representing Equation (28) ndash can be obtained A process

example is hydrothermal gasification which is operating at these conditions but still is at development state [6ndash8] The above‐mentioned trends are all under the assumption of complete conversion of feedstock to product gas Many gasification concepts how-ever have a considerable amount of char remaining unconverted being removed with the ashes or in indirect gasification being converted in a separate combustion chamber for supplying the gasification heat The carbon feedstock entering the gas phase

10 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

during gasification will therefore be drastically changed when carbon conversion is incomplete Even minor effects on the hydrogen and oxygen balance in the gas phase can be expected as for example biomass char still contains oxygen and hydrogen [9] Figure 23 depicts the influence of pressure and temperature on carbon conversion at temperatures below 800 degC considerable amounts of solid carbon formation are pre-dicted This will in turn influence the equilibrium conditions in the gas phase as the carbon stock in gas phase is reduced The major reactions affected are the Boudouard water gas and waterndashgas shift reactions Equations (24) to (26) Incomplete carbon conversion leads to a decrease of Co concentration in the product gas as well as a decrease in H

2 compared to equilibrium at complete conversion

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

30minus2000

0

2000

4000

6000

ΔH

r [kJ

kg

daf

feed

]

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

300

01020304

y CH

4y H

2y H

2O

y CO

2y C

O

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

T [degC] T [degC]

T [degC]T [degC]

T [degC] T [degC]

P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar] P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar]

fiGure 22 Pressure and temperature dependence of the molar concentration of major gas species and the heat of reaction for steam gasification (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic

biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH143

o066

) assuming complete carbon conversion calculated by ASPEn PluS

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 11

223 Gasification ndash a multi‐step Process deviating from equilibrium

Equilibrium calculations while useful for identifying trends with changing operating conditions cannot however predict the performance of technical equipment to a full extent They represent a boundary value that can be approached but never reached The gasification process on a physical level is a multi‐stage process starting with drying of the feedstock followed by pyrolysis and gasificationcombustion The kinetics of the numerous homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions occurring ndash as well as the residence time and reactor setup ndash ultimately determine the product gas composition resulting from gasification Figure 24 illustrates a simplified reaction network for the conversion from received fuel to product gas The drying and pri-mary pyrolysis (also referred to as devolatilization) steps are similar for all gasifica-tion technologies whereas the extent of gasification reactions occurring as well as the approach to equilibrium are a strong function of the gasification medium and the reactor setup during pyrolysis a considerable amount of tars a complex mixture of 1‐ to 5‐ring aromatic hydrocarbons is formed that will undergo various conversion pathways during gasification In the final product gas tar can still represent a consid-erable amount of energy for example biomass steam gasification at 800 degC can result in more than 33 g tarsnm3 corresponding to about 8 of the total product gas energy content on a lower heating value basis [10]

200400

600800

10001200

0

10

20

30

04

02

0

06

08

1

T [degC]

P [bar]

Am

ount

of

feed

stoc

k ca

rbon

conv

erte

d to

gas

pha

se

fiGure 23 Carbon conversion predicted by equilibrium calculations for steam gasifica-tion (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt

CH143

o066

)

12 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

The gas composition from primary pyrolysis represents the starting point for the gasification reactions neves et al [9] conducted an extensive literature review of data on pyrolysis experiments and derived an empirical model for estimating gas species yields as well as tar and char yields and elemental composition as a function of peak pyrolysis temperature Figure 25 illustrates the pyrolysis gas composition and the total gas and char yield based on nevesrsquo model In contrast to the equilibrium calculations for gasification represented in Figure 22 the model predicts consider-able amounts of tars as well as a considerable amount of char produced from pyrol-ysis Even light hydrocarbons are present in the pyrolysis gas Generally speaking the product distribution from pyrolysis as presented in Figure 25 undergoes conversion towards the equilibrium conditions during the final conversion step in Figure 24 ndash the gasification step

The extent of conversion towards the equilibrium state is a function of a large number of parameters such as pressure and temperature reactor design and associated residence time for gas and solids as well as gasndashsolid mixing and the presence of catalytically active materials promoting specific reactions among others

Secondary PyrolysisGasication

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

DehydrationPolymerizationGasication

ReformingCrackingOxidationWater-gas shift

dry fuel

Primary Pyrolysis

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

Drying

As-receivedfuel particle Moisture

Dry fuel

Gasication medium(H2O H2 O2 CO2

)

Productgas

fiGure 24 Conversion process of a fuel particle during gasification (adopted and modi-fied from neves et al [9])

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 13

224 heat management of the Gasification Process

As temperature is the major influencing parameter on the kinetics of the different gasification reactions the thermal management of the gasification reactor is of particular importance The conversion steps from solid fuel to product gas as illus-trated in Figure 24 occur at different temperature levels A qualitative representation

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

Temperature (ordmC)

Tars (C10H8)

CxHy

CH4

CO

CO2

H2O

H2

Mol

ar f

ract

ion

of c

ompo

nent

i

(a)

Temperature (ordmC)

Yie

ld (

kgk

g da

f fu

el)

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1

Char yield

Total yield per kg daf fuelGases tars and pyrolytic water

(b)

fiGure 25 Pyrolysis gas molar composition (a) and overall mass yields (b) as a function of temperature (based on neves [9]) for a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066)

14 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of the temperature profile for a fuel particle over time is illustrated in Figure 26a After particle heat‐up the moisture is evaporated The dry fuel particle is further heated releasing pyrolysis gases and finally the char particle is gasified Heat for gasification needs to be supplied by the hot environment Particle combustion indicated by the dashed line occurs at a particle temperature above environ-ment due to the exothermic nature of the combustion reactions For complete conversion of a biomass fuel with initial moisture content of 20 wt the distribution of the heat demand for conversion on the different processes is illustrated in Figure 26b The gasification heat demand is dominant but even pyrolysis and drying

Dry

ing

Time

(a)

(b)

Tem

pera

ture

Dev

olat

iliza

tion

Pyro

lysi

s Char gasication

Char combustion

Surrounding temperature

a dcb

a ndash Preheating ndash 40b ndash Drying ndash 82

c ndash Pyrolysis ndash 76d ndash Gasication ndash 802

Fraction of total heat demand(6566 kJkg daf fuel)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat demand [kJkg daf fuel]

Gasication temperature (850 degC)

Pyrolysistemperature

(450 degC)

fiGure 26 (a) Qualitative representation of the temperature evolution of a fuel particle during gasification (b) Steam gasification heat demand profile for full conversion of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) at equilibrium (SB ratio = 05

steam supply at 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture)

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 15

represent a considerable share of the specific heat demand for conversion of course in reality pyrolysis and gasification rather occur over a certain temperature range instead of the fixed temperatures used for the calculation (nevesrsquo model for pyrolysis [9] and equilibrium calculations for the gasification) In addition the processes are not strictly sequential but partly occur in parallel within a gasification reactor nevertheless the gasification heat demand will be largest and above all requires the highest temperature level

All heat for the conversion process within the gasification unit needs to be supplied by combustion of part of the fuel or additional external fuel at high temperature Changing the initial moisture content of the biomass will reduce the drying heat demand [b in Figure 26b] and therefore improve the conversion efficiency External drying also allows for using a heat source at lower temperature improving the conversion process from an exergy perspective Even the pyrolysis process can be conducted in a separate reactor with a separate heat source For these considerations in relation to the thermal management of the gasification process temperaturendashheat load graphs can be a useful tool for identifying improvements for the energy efficiency of the gasification process Figure 27 presents such a graph as an example of an indirect gasification process modelled using nevesrsquo pyrolysis model and gasification at equilibrium It is assumed that the amount of char combusted is set to ensure that the combustion heat covers the heat demand for fuel heat‐up drying pyrolysis and gasification The supply of steam to gasification (400 degC) and hot air to combustion (400 degC) is an additional heat demand that needs to be covered The thick curve in Figure 27 represents the aggregation of all the above‐mentioned heat demands whereas the dashed curve is a representation of all heat sources namely the combustion

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat load [kJkg daf fuel]

Preheating biomass air and water (steam)

Moisture evaporationand steam generation

Pyrolysis andpreheating air and steam

Gasific

ation

Tpyrolysis = 450 ordmC

Tgasification = 850 ordmC

Tcombustion = 900 ordmCChar combustion

Gas

coo

ling

(pro

duct

gas

and

com

busti

on fl

ue g

as)Maximum amount

of excess heat3610 kJkg daf

fiGure 27 Temperature heat load curve for indirect steam gasification of a generic bio-mass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) SB ratio = 05 air and steam supply

at 25 degC and heated to 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture

16 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of char and the cooling of hot product gas and combustion flue gases to ambient tem-perature It is obvious that for ideal heat transfer the process has a considerable amount of excess heat allowing for a further increase in conversion to product gas by more efficient use of the heat and reducing the char combustion Converting more solid fuel to product gas will increase the heat demand while at the same time the heat supply will decrease as less char is burnt Even considering the overall SnG process these curves can be used for a holistic analysis of the heat integration of sinks and sources including the operations up‐ and downstream of the gasification step Heat from the methanation reaction might for example be used for biomass drying or for regeneration of an amine solution used for downstream Co

2 removal

The slope of the heat demand curves for pyrolysis and gasification also is dependent on the gas composition that actually is obtained during the different processes A deviation from equilibrium conditions for the gasification will result in considerable changes of the conversion heat demand Two parameters commonly used in thermal conversion processes are used to illustrate the influence of different parameters on the energy performance of the gasification process The first param-eter is the relative air to fuel ratio λ defining the amount of air (oxygen) actually supplied to the reaction in relation to the amount necessary for complete combustion according to stoichiometry

n

nair o actual

air o stoichiometric

2

2

(27)

The second parameter commonly used in gasification is the chemical efficiency ηch

relating the chemical energy content of the product gas to the fuel chemical energy η

ch can be defined on both a lower and a higher heating value basis but in order to

avoid confusion with respect to moisture content the higher heating value is used here

ch HHV

PG

fuel fuel

HHV

HHV

i

i i

n

n (28)

Figure 28 shows λ and ηchHHV

for the base case as illustrated in Figure 27 as well as the influence of changes in different operating parameters Increasing the feed tem-perature for both steam to gasification (Point 1 in Figure 28) and air to combustion (Point 3 in Figure 28) increases the chemical efficiency and reduces λ as less char needs to be burnt reducing the incoming moisture content of the biomass from 20 to 10 wt (Point 4 in Figure 28) results in a remarkable effect reducing the necessary air to fuel ratio and gives a relative increase of the chemical efficiency of 32 Assuming heat losses from the gasification unit (point 6 in Figure 28) corresponding to 2 of the thermal input on a higher heating value basis on the other hand considerably increases the air to fuel ratio and leads to a relative decrease of the chemical efficiency by 3 All changes except for points 5 7 and 8 represent thermal

Page 10: cover thumb - download.e-bookshelf.de · 10.4 PSI’s Catalytic SNG Process 266 10.4.1 Process Description and Layout 266 10.4.2 Mass Balance 268 10.4.3 Energy Balance 269 10.4.4

List of Contributors

renato baciocchi University of Rome Tor Vergata Roma Italy

serge MA biollaz Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Jochen brellochs Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Giulia Costa University of Rome Tor Vergata Roma Italy

Volkmar frick Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Joumlrgen Held Renewable Energy Technology International AB Lund Sweden

stefan Heyne Chalmers University of Technology Goumlteborg Sweden

thomas Kienberger Montanuniversitaumlt Leoben Leoben Austria

Christian fJ Koumlnig Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Lidia Lombardi Niccolograve Cusano University Roma Italy

Maarten nachtegaal Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Luc PLM rabou Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

urs rhyner AGRO Energie Schwyz Schwyz Switzerland

tilman J schildhauer Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

Martin seemann Chalmers University of Technology Goumlteborg Sweden

xi

xii LIST Of CONTRIBUTORS

Michael specht Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

bernd stuumlrmer Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Eric HAJ Van Dijk Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

bram Van der Drift Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

Christiaan M Van der Meijden Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

freacutedeacuteric Vogel Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

berend J Vreugdenhil Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

Christian Zuber Agnion Highterm Research GesmbH Graz Austria

ulrich Zuberbuumlhler Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Synthetic Natural Gas from Coal Dry Biomass and Power-to-Gas Applications First EditionEdited by Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollazcopy 2016 John Wiley amp Sons Inc Published 2016 by John Wiley amp Sons Inc

1

1Introductory remarks

Tilman J Schildhauer

11 Why produce synthetIc natural gas

The answer to this question [which may also explain why one should read a book on synthetic natural gas (SNG) production] changes with time

During the years from 1950 to the early 1980s SNG production was an important topic mainly in the United States in the United Kingdom and in Germany The interest was caused by a couple of reasons In these countries a relative abundance of coal and the expected shortage of natural gas triggered several industrial initia-tives partly funded by public authorities to develop processes from coal to SNG Due to the oil crisis during the 1970s the use of domestic coal rather than the import of oil became a second motivation A third motivation is the possibility to make domestic (low quality) energy reserves available de‐centrally as an energy carrier for which the distribution infrastructure already exists and that allows for both clean and efficient use by consumers

These boundary conditions lead in 1984 to the start‐up of the 15 GWSNG

plant in Great Plains which is run by the Dakota Gas Company and converts lignite into SNG and many other products This plant stayed the only commercial SNG production for nearly 30 years because with the drop of the oil price in the mid1980s the explora-tion of natural gas in the North Sea and the gas pipelines between Russia and Europe the interest in SNG from coal ceased

Especially in the United States the interest came back in the years after the turn of the millennium now triggered by the again rising oil price and the meanwhile established use of CO

2 (which is an inherent by‐product of coal to SNG plants) for

2 INTRODUCTORy REmARKS

enhanced oil recovery (EOR) Back then a dozen coal to SNG projects were started including EOR Now due to the rapidly increasing exploitation of the shale gas and the connected possibility for a significant reduction of CO

2 emission all the projects

in the United States have been stoppedHowever all the mentioned motivations for SNG production that is shortage of

domestic natural gas use of domestic coal reserves which are far away from the highly populated areas and the possibility for clean and efficient combustion still prevail in China Therefore China is now by far the most important market for the production of SNG from coal Three large plants have started operation and further plants are planned or under construction

In Europe several aspects triggered a reconsideration of SNG production about 15 years ago Due to its cleaner combustion and inherently lower CO

2 emission

using natural gas in transportation (eg for CNG cars) is supported in many coun-tries and has even been economically beneficial for the past few years due to the lower gas price With the aim of the European Commission to replace up to 20 of European fuel consumption by biofuel replacing natural gas partly with bio‐methane becomes necessary So far bio‐methane is mostly produced by up‐grading biogas from anaerobic digestion However due to the limited amount of substrate this pathway cannot be increased much more and other sources of bio‐methane are sought

Additionally many European countries wish to use their domestic biomass resources for energy production in order to decrease CO

2 emissions and the import

of energy A major part of the biomass is ligno‐cellulosic (mostly wood) and mainly used for heating for example in wood pellet heating As the heat demand is gen-erally decreasing due to better building insulation the conversion of wood to high value forms of energy that is electricity and fuels is of increasing interest Like in the case of coal conversion to fuels requires (so far) gasification as the first step As shown by process simulations and the first demonstration plants the conversion of wood to SNG can reach significantly higher efficiencies than conversion to liquid fuels

Very recently a third aspect began to gain greater importance especially in Central Europe Due to the increasing integration of stochastic renewable sources like photovoltaics and wind energy into electricity generation the demand for balancing the electricity supply and the demand over spatial and temporal distances is increasing For the future even the seasonal storage of electricity may be necessary Here the production of SNG can play an important role While the gasification of solid feedstocks is a more or less continuous process the further conversion to electricity or SNG can be flexibly adjusted to the balancing needs of the electricity grid within so‐called polygeneration schemes

moreover in times where the electricity production from renewables exceeds the actual demand in the electricity grid (a situation that today occasionally is observed in Central Europe and is expected to be more common in future) producing SNG could utilize the excess electricity instead of curtailing photovoltaics or wind tur-bines In so‐called power to gas applications hydrogen is produced from excess electricity by electrolysis of water and then converted to SNG by methanation of

OVERVIEW 3

carbon oxides As a source of carbon oxides biogas producer gas from (biomass) gasification flue gas from industry or even CO

2 from the atmosphere can be consid-

ered opening a pathway to produce SNG without solid feedstock that can be stored or transported over long distances within the existing natural gas infrastructure

12 overvIeW

This book aims at a suitable overview over the different pathways to produce SNG (Figure 11)

The first four chapters cover the main process steps during conversion of coal and dry biomass to SNG gasification gas cleaning methanation and gas upgrading The main technology options will be highlighted and the impact of a technology choice for downstream processes and the complete process chain In these chapters espe-cially in the chapter on methanation reactors the state of the art coal to SNG processes are discussed in detail

The following chapters describe a number of novel processes for the production of SNG with their specific combination of process steps as well as the boundary con-ditions for which the respective process was developed These processes comprise those which are already in operation (eg the 20 mW

SNG bio‐SNG production in

Gothenburg Sweden or the 6 mWSNG

power to gas plant in Werlte Germany) and processes which are still under development

The gasification chapter covers the thermodynamics of gasification and presents both coal and biomass gasification technologies

Coal Dry biomass

gasification

Gas cleaning

Methanation

Methanation

SNG (CH4)

CO2 from air or industry

H2O CO2(H2)

H2 from electrolysis(power-to-gas)

Algae manure

Hydrothermalgasification

Biogas fromdigestion

Raw SNG CH4 H2O (CO2 H2)

Gas upgrading

FIgure 11 The different pathways to produce SNG

4 INTRODUCTORy REmARKS

The gas cleaning chapter discusses the impurities to be expected in gasification‐derived producer gas explains the state of the art gas cleaning technologies and focuses on the innovative gas cleaning steps which are developed for hot gas cleaning

The chapter on methanation reactors presents the chemical reactions proceeding inside the reactors their thermodynamic limitation and their reaction mechanisms Further an overview of the different reactor types with their advantages and chal-lenges is given covering coal to SNG biomass to SNG and power to gas processes The last section of this chapter focuses on the modeling and simulation of methana-tion reactors including the necessary experiments to determine reaction kinetics and to generate data for model validation

The chapter on gas‐upgrading discusses technologies for gas drying CO2 and

hydrogen removal based on adsorption absorption and membranes and includes a techno‐economic comparison

The chapter on the GoBiGas project (ldquoGothenburg Bio Gasrdquo) presents the boundary conditions and technologies applied in the 20 mW

SNG wood to SNG plant

in Gothenburg Sweden which was commissioned in 2014The next chapter explains the development of the power to gas process at the

Zentrum fuumlr solare Wasserstofferzeugung (ZSW) including the 6 mWSNG

plant in Werlte Germany

The chapter on fluidised bed methanation describes the process development at the Paul Scherrer Institut aiming at a flexible technology for efficiently converting wood to SNG and for hydrogen conversion within power to gas applications

The following chapter presents the technologies developed at the Energy Center of the Netherlands (ECN) for efficient SNG production from wood especially their allothermal gasification technology (mILENA) and their broad experience with gas cleaning

The chapter on hydrothermal gasification discusses the unique technology allow-ing for the simultaneous catalytic gasification and methanation of wet biomass under super‐critical conditions

The chapter on agnionrsquos small scale SNG concept focuses on two novel technol-ogies that allow for significant process simplification especially in small scale bio‐SNG plants the pressurized heatpipe reformer and the polytropic fixed bed methanation

The last chapter offers a view on the research for even more simplified SNG processes that is for methanation steps that allow for integrated desulfurization and methanation

The author of these lines wishes to express his gratitude especially to the contrib-utors of this book and to the persons at the publisher for their excellent work but also to all colleagues scientific collaborators partners friends and scientists in the community for many fruitful and interesting discussions All of you bring the field forward and made this book possible

Synthetic Natural Gas from Coal Dry Biomass and Power-to-Gas Applications First EditionEdited by Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollazcopy 2016 John Wiley amp Sons Inc Published 2016 by John Wiley amp Sons Inc

5

2Coal and Biomass GasifiCation for snG ProduCtion

Stefan Heyne Martin Seemann and Tilman J Schildhauer

21 introduCtion ndash BasiC requirements for GasifiCation in the framework of snG ProduCtion

Within the production of synthetic natural gas ndash basically methane ndash from solid feed-stock such as coal or biomass the major conversion step is gasification generating a product gas containing a mixture of permanent and condensable gases as well as solid residues (eg char ash) The gasification step can be conducted in different atmospheres and using different reaction agents Figure 21 represents the basic pathway from solid fuel to methane considering the main elements carbon hydrogen and oxygen It is obvious that an increase in hydrogen content is necessary for all feedstock illustrated At the same time the oxygen content needs to be reduced in particular for biogenic feedstock that is oxygenated to a higher degree

There exist different strategies or pathways for performing the conversion from feedstock towards methane within gasification as illustrated in Figure 21 Adding steam as a gasification agent is common practice not only due to the stoichiometric effect but also for enhanced char gasification and temperature moderation within the reactor H

2 addition is used in hydrogasification leading to a higher initial methane

6 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

content in the product gas [3 4] Co2 removal is an intrinsic part of the SnG produc-

tion process some gasification concepts using adsorptive bed material for direct Co2

removal within the gasification reactor [5] The addition of oxygen (common practice for all direct gasification technologies) actually leads to an increased need for Co

2

removal downstream of the reactor For indirect gasification where ungasified char is combusted in a separate chamber for heat supply the composition is changed towards methane via path (c) in Figure 21 Pretreatment technologies such as torrefaction decrease the oxygen content of the feedstock at the cost of increased energy demand

22 thermodynamiCs of GasifiCation

For an increased understanding of the role of gasification for the overall SnG process the basic thermodynamic aspects within gasification are discussed in the following The gasification process is a series of different conversions involving both homoge-neous and heterogeneous reactions The basic steps from solid fuel to product gas are drying pyrolysis or devolatilization and gasification depending on the physical size of the fuel these different steps occur in a sequential order for small particles or

40

20

0

60

80

0 20 40 60 80

0

20

40

60

80

Oxygen

Carbon

Hyd

roge

n

Feedstock

CH4

H2O

CO2

O2

H2

Carbon1 Biomass (hardwood softwood straw)2 Lignite coal3 Bituminous coal4 Anthracite coal

3

4

1

2

a removing CO2b adding H2c removing char (C)d adding steame adding O2

a

b d

e

c

fiGure 21 CHo diagram for coal and biomass Feedstock composition based on [1 2] data from Higman 2008 [1] Phyllis2 database for biomass and waste httpswwwecnnlphyllis2 Energy research Centre of the netherlands

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 7

overlap in bigger particles The detailed description of the complete process is a com-plex task and the considerations made in the following therefore focus on specific parts of the process and their implications for the overall conversion starting with some stoichiometric aspects for gasification

221 Gasification reactions

The major reactions occurring during the gasification step that commonly are consid-ered relevant are

C s o g Co g kJ mol partial oxidation0 5 1112 (21)

Co g o g Co g kJ mol carbon monoxide combustion0 5 2832 2 (22)

C s o g Co g kJ mol carbon combustion2 2 394ndash (23)

C s Co g Co g kJ mol reverse Boudouard reaction2 2 172 (24)

C s H o g Co g H g kJ mol water gas reaction2 2 131 (25)

Co g H o g H g Co g kJ mol water gas shift reaction2 2 2 41ndash (26)

CH g H o g H g Co g kJ mol steam reforming4 2 23 206 (27)

The char gasification reactions converting carbon into gaseous fuels [Equations (24) and (25)] are endothermic reactions requiring heat supply that is realized either by combusting part of the fuel in the same reactor (direct or autothermal gasification) or by indirect heat supply from an external combustion or heat source (indirect or allo-thermal gasification)

222 overall Gasification Process ndash equilibrium Based Considerations

Considering the overall process from coal or biomass to methane at the example of steam gasification the reaction stoichiometry can be expressed as

C o H o CH Cox y zH a b c2 4 2 (28)

with a xy z

bx y z

cx y z

4 2 2 8 4 2 8 4

Table 21 gives the coefficients for steam gasification to methane [Equation (28)] for different coal and biomass feedstock materials allowing the calculation of the heat

ta

Bl

e 2

1

Com

posi

tion

and

ove

rall

rea

ctio

n d

ata

for

stea

m G

asif

icat

ion

for

dif

fere

nt f

eeds

tock

mat

eria

ls

Feed

stoc

kM

olar

C

ompo

sitio

nl

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]c

rea

ctio

n C

oeff

icie

nts

for

Equ

atio

n (2

8)

ΔH

rM

etha

ne Y

ield

ab

c[M

Jkg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

[kg

CH

4kg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

Coa

laB

row

n co

al ndash

rhe

in

Ger

man

yC

H0

88o

029

262

273

063

20

537

046

3ndash0

19

048

9

lig

nite

ndash n

dak

ota

uSA

CH

072

o0

2526

727

70

697

052

90

471

06

050

9B

itum

inou

s ndash

typi

cal

Sout

h A

fric

aC

H0

68o

008

3435

10

792

056

70

433

12

10

654

Ant

hrac

ite ndash

ruh

r G

erm

any

CH

047

o0

0236

237

00

873

055

30

447

14

60

693

Bio

mas

sbW

illow

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

46o

065

185

199

031

00

520

048

0ndash0

45

035

0B

eech

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

47o

069

179

192

028

60

511

048

9ndash0

71

033

3Fi

r ndash

soft

woo

dC

H1

45o

065

196

210

031

30

520

048

0ndash1

58

035

0Sp

ruce

ndash s

oftw

ood

CH

142

o0

6818

419

70

304

050

80

492

ndash11

70

335

Whe

at s

traw

CH

146

o0

6818

319

60

297

051

20

488

ndash08

40

338

ric

e st

raw

CH

143

o0

6817

518

80

303

050

80

492

ndash02

30

335

a Tak

en f

rom

Hig

man

and

van

der

Bur

gt [

1]

b Tak

en f

rom

Phy

llis

[2]

ndash av

erag

e da

ta f

or m

ater

ial g

roup

c H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

] =

lH

V [

MJ

kg d

af]

+ 2

44

middot 89

4 middot H

[w

t d

af]

100

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 9

of reaction (based on the HHV of feedstock and methane all reactants and products at 25 degC) as well as the stoichiometric methane yield per kilogram of feedstock The heat of reaction for the overall reaction corresponds to well below 10 for all feed-stock materials For coal based feedstock with low oxygen content the reaction is endothermic while for brown coal and biomass feedstock it is exothermic The methane yield per kilogram feedstock also is considerably lower for biomass based feedstock due to the high oxygen content one option to improve the methane yield would be the additional supply of hydrogen as for example considered in hydrogas-ification The only technical conversion process capable of converting carbonaceous feedstock directly to methane and carbon dioxide according to the reaction in Equation (28) is gasification under supercritical conditions so‐called hydrothermal gasification [6ndash8] This technology is capable of handling wet feedstock but not yet available at commercial scale and is not covered in this chapter Common gasifica-tion technology converts the feedstock to a product gas being a mixture of Co Co

2

H2 H

2o CH

4 light and higher hydrocarbons and trace components followed by a

downstream gas cleaning and methane synthesis stepThe major operating parameters for gasification are pressure and temperature

Equilibrium calculations for steam gasification (05 kg H2okg daf feedstock) for a

generic biomass are used to illustrate the basic trends for the product gas composition and heat demand with changing pressure and temperature All feedstock is assumed to be converted to product gas As can be observed from Figure 22 methane formation is favored by lower temperatures and higher pressures Hydrogen and carbon monoxide formation increases with temperature and so does the endothermi-city of the overall reaction The theoretically exothermic reaction to CH

4 and Co

2 at

25 degC [similar to Equation (28)] turns into an endothermic reaction requiring heat supply at higher temperature

light hydrocarbons (represented by C2H

4) and tars (represented by C

10H

8) are only

formed to a very small extent according to equilibrium calculations The amount of steam added for gasification will mainly influence the H

2Co ratio via the water gas

shift reaction Equation (26) In reality the equilibrium state is usually not reached in the shown temperature range but the actual product gas composition resulting from gasification is influenced by a number of other parameters as will be discussed in subsequent sections An increase in gasification pressure favors methane formation predicted by equilibrium calculations at 800 degC the methane molar fraction increases from 0 to about 155 from 1 to 30 bar With more methane being formed the endo-thermic heat of reaction is reduced by 666 from 1 to 30 bar Again no to very little formation of light hydrocarbons and tars is predicted by the equilibrium even at higher pressures At high pressures and moderate temperatures a mixture of basically CH

4 Co

2 and H

2o ndash representing Equation (28) ndash can be obtained A process

example is hydrothermal gasification which is operating at these conditions but still is at development state [6ndash8] The above‐mentioned trends are all under the assumption of complete conversion of feedstock to product gas Many gasification concepts how-ever have a considerable amount of char remaining unconverted being removed with the ashes or in indirect gasification being converted in a separate combustion chamber for supplying the gasification heat The carbon feedstock entering the gas phase

10 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

during gasification will therefore be drastically changed when carbon conversion is incomplete Even minor effects on the hydrogen and oxygen balance in the gas phase can be expected as for example biomass char still contains oxygen and hydrogen [9] Figure 23 depicts the influence of pressure and temperature on carbon conversion at temperatures below 800 degC considerable amounts of solid carbon formation are pre-dicted This will in turn influence the equilibrium conditions in the gas phase as the carbon stock in gas phase is reduced The major reactions affected are the Boudouard water gas and waterndashgas shift reactions Equations (24) to (26) Incomplete carbon conversion leads to a decrease of Co concentration in the product gas as well as a decrease in H

2 compared to equilibrium at complete conversion

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

30minus2000

0

2000

4000

6000

ΔH

r [kJ

kg

daf

feed

]

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

300

01020304

y CH

4y H

2y H

2O

y CO

2y C

O

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

T [degC] T [degC]

T [degC]T [degC]

T [degC] T [degC]

P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar] P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar]

fiGure 22 Pressure and temperature dependence of the molar concentration of major gas species and the heat of reaction for steam gasification (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic

biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH143

o066

) assuming complete carbon conversion calculated by ASPEn PluS

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 11

223 Gasification ndash a multi‐step Process deviating from equilibrium

Equilibrium calculations while useful for identifying trends with changing operating conditions cannot however predict the performance of technical equipment to a full extent They represent a boundary value that can be approached but never reached The gasification process on a physical level is a multi‐stage process starting with drying of the feedstock followed by pyrolysis and gasificationcombustion The kinetics of the numerous homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions occurring ndash as well as the residence time and reactor setup ndash ultimately determine the product gas composition resulting from gasification Figure 24 illustrates a simplified reaction network for the conversion from received fuel to product gas The drying and pri-mary pyrolysis (also referred to as devolatilization) steps are similar for all gasifica-tion technologies whereas the extent of gasification reactions occurring as well as the approach to equilibrium are a strong function of the gasification medium and the reactor setup during pyrolysis a considerable amount of tars a complex mixture of 1‐ to 5‐ring aromatic hydrocarbons is formed that will undergo various conversion pathways during gasification In the final product gas tar can still represent a consid-erable amount of energy for example biomass steam gasification at 800 degC can result in more than 33 g tarsnm3 corresponding to about 8 of the total product gas energy content on a lower heating value basis [10]

200400

600800

10001200

0

10

20

30

04

02

0

06

08

1

T [degC]

P [bar]

Am

ount

of

feed

stoc

k ca

rbon

conv

erte

d to

gas

pha

se

fiGure 23 Carbon conversion predicted by equilibrium calculations for steam gasifica-tion (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt

CH143

o066

)

12 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

The gas composition from primary pyrolysis represents the starting point for the gasification reactions neves et al [9] conducted an extensive literature review of data on pyrolysis experiments and derived an empirical model for estimating gas species yields as well as tar and char yields and elemental composition as a function of peak pyrolysis temperature Figure 25 illustrates the pyrolysis gas composition and the total gas and char yield based on nevesrsquo model In contrast to the equilibrium calculations for gasification represented in Figure 22 the model predicts consider-able amounts of tars as well as a considerable amount of char produced from pyrol-ysis Even light hydrocarbons are present in the pyrolysis gas Generally speaking the product distribution from pyrolysis as presented in Figure 25 undergoes conversion towards the equilibrium conditions during the final conversion step in Figure 24 ndash the gasification step

The extent of conversion towards the equilibrium state is a function of a large number of parameters such as pressure and temperature reactor design and associated residence time for gas and solids as well as gasndashsolid mixing and the presence of catalytically active materials promoting specific reactions among others

Secondary PyrolysisGasication

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

DehydrationPolymerizationGasication

ReformingCrackingOxidationWater-gas shift

dry fuel

Primary Pyrolysis

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

Drying

As-receivedfuel particle Moisture

Dry fuel

Gasication medium(H2O H2 O2 CO2

)

Productgas

fiGure 24 Conversion process of a fuel particle during gasification (adopted and modi-fied from neves et al [9])

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 13

224 heat management of the Gasification Process

As temperature is the major influencing parameter on the kinetics of the different gasification reactions the thermal management of the gasification reactor is of particular importance The conversion steps from solid fuel to product gas as illus-trated in Figure 24 occur at different temperature levels A qualitative representation

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

Temperature (ordmC)

Tars (C10H8)

CxHy

CH4

CO

CO2

H2O

H2

Mol

ar f

ract

ion

of c

ompo

nent

i

(a)

Temperature (ordmC)

Yie

ld (

kgk

g da

f fu

el)

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1

Char yield

Total yield per kg daf fuelGases tars and pyrolytic water

(b)

fiGure 25 Pyrolysis gas molar composition (a) and overall mass yields (b) as a function of temperature (based on neves [9]) for a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066)

14 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of the temperature profile for a fuel particle over time is illustrated in Figure 26a After particle heat‐up the moisture is evaporated The dry fuel particle is further heated releasing pyrolysis gases and finally the char particle is gasified Heat for gasification needs to be supplied by the hot environment Particle combustion indicated by the dashed line occurs at a particle temperature above environ-ment due to the exothermic nature of the combustion reactions For complete conversion of a biomass fuel with initial moisture content of 20 wt the distribution of the heat demand for conversion on the different processes is illustrated in Figure 26b The gasification heat demand is dominant but even pyrolysis and drying

Dry

ing

Time

(a)

(b)

Tem

pera

ture

Dev

olat

iliza

tion

Pyro

lysi

s Char gasication

Char combustion

Surrounding temperature

a dcb

a ndash Preheating ndash 40b ndash Drying ndash 82

c ndash Pyrolysis ndash 76d ndash Gasication ndash 802

Fraction of total heat demand(6566 kJkg daf fuel)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat demand [kJkg daf fuel]

Gasication temperature (850 degC)

Pyrolysistemperature

(450 degC)

fiGure 26 (a) Qualitative representation of the temperature evolution of a fuel particle during gasification (b) Steam gasification heat demand profile for full conversion of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) at equilibrium (SB ratio = 05

steam supply at 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture)

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 15

represent a considerable share of the specific heat demand for conversion of course in reality pyrolysis and gasification rather occur over a certain temperature range instead of the fixed temperatures used for the calculation (nevesrsquo model for pyrolysis [9] and equilibrium calculations for the gasification) In addition the processes are not strictly sequential but partly occur in parallel within a gasification reactor nevertheless the gasification heat demand will be largest and above all requires the highest temperature level

All heat for the conversion process within the gasification unit needs to be supplied by combustion of part of the fuel or additional external fuel at high temperature Changing the initial moisture content of the biomass will reduce the drying heat demand [b in Figure 26b] and therefore improve the conversion efficiency External drying also allows for using a heat source at lower temperature improving the conversion process from an exergy perspective Even the pyrolysis process can be conducted in a separate reactor with a separate heat source For these considerations in relation to the thermal management of the gasification process temperaturendashheat load graphs can be a useful tool for identifying improvements for the energy efficiency of the gasification process Figure 27 presents such a graph as an example of an indirect gasification process modelled using nevesrsquo pyrolysis model and gasification at equilibrium It is assumed that the amount of char combusted is set to ensure that the combustion heat covers the heat demand for fuel heat‐up drying pyrolysis and gasification The supply of steam to gasification (400 degC) and hot air to combustion (400 degC) is an additional heat demand that needs to be covered The thick curve in Figure 27 represents the aggregation of all the above‐mentioned heat demands whereas the dashed curve is a representation of all heat sources namely the combustion

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat load [kJkg daf fuel]

Preheating biomass air and water (steam)

Moisture evaporationand steam generation

Pyrolysis andpreheating air and steam

Gasific

ation

Tpyrolysis = 450 ordmC

Tgasification = 850 ordmC

Tcombustion = 900 ordmCChar combustion

Gas

coo

ling

(pro

duct

gas

and

com

busti

on fl

ue g

as)Maximum amount

of excess heat3610 kJkg daf

fiGure 27 Temperature heat load curve for indirect steam gasification of a generic bio-mass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) SB ratio = 05 air and steam supply

at 25 degC and heated to 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture

16 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of char and the cooling of hot product gas and combustion flue gases to ambient tem-perature It is obvious that for ideal heat transfer the process has a considerable amount of excess heat allowing for a further increase in conversion to product gas by more efficient use of the heat and reducing the char combustion Converting more solid fuel to product gas will increase the heat demand while at the same time the heat supply will decrease as less char is burnt Even considering the overall SnG process these curves can be used for a holistic analysis of the heat integration of sinks and sources including the operations up‐ and downstream of the gasification step Heat from the methanation reaction might for example be used for biomass drying or for regeneration of an amine solution used for downstream Co

2 removal

The slope of the heat demand curves for pyrolysis and gasification also is dependent on the gas composition that actually is obtained during the different processes A deviation from equilibrium conditions for the gasification will result in considerable changes of the conversion heat demand Two parameters commonly used in thermal conversion processes are used to illustrate the influence of different parameters on the energy performance of the gasification process The first param-eter is the relative air to fuel ratio λ defining the amount of air (oxygen) actually supplied to the reaction in relation to the amount necessary for complete combustion according to stoichiometry

n

nair o actual

air o stoichiometric

2

2

(27)

The second parameter commonly used in gasification is the chemical efficiency ηch

relating the chemical energy content of the product gas to the fuel chemical energy η

ch can be defined on both a lower and a higher heating value basis but in order to

avoid confusion with respect to moisture content the higher heating value is used here

ch HHV

PG

fuel fuel

HHV

HHV

i

i i

n

n (28)

Figure 28 shows λ and ηchHHV

for the base case as illustrated in Figure 27 as well as the influence of changes in different operating parameters Increasing the feed tem-perature for both steam to gasification (Point 1 in Figure 28) and air to combustion (Point 3 in Figure 28) increases the chemical efficiency and reduces λ as less char needs to be burnt reducing the incoming moisture content of the biomass from 20 to 10 wt (Point 4 in Figure 28) results in a remarkable effect reducing the necessary air to fuel ratio and gives a relative increase of the chemical efficiency of 32 Assuming heat losses from the gasification unit (point 6 in Figure 28) corresponding to 2 of the thermal input on a higher heating value basis on the other hand considerably increases the air to fuel ratio and leads to a relative decrease of the chemical efficiency by 3 All changes except for points 5 7 and 8 represent thermal

Page 11: cover thumb - download.e-bookshelf.de · 10.4 PSI’s Catalytic SNG Process 266 10.4.1 Process Description and Layout 266 10.4.2 Mass Balance 268 10.4.3 Energy Balance 269 10.4.4

xii LIST Of CONTRIBUTORS

Michael specht Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

bernd stuumlrmer Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Eric HAJ Van Dijk Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

bram Van der Drift Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

Christiaan M Van der Meijden Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

freacutedeacuteric Vogel Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen Switzerland

berend J Vreugdenhil Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland Petten The Netherlands

Christian Zuber Agnion Highterm Research GesmbH Graz Austria

ulrich Zuberbuumlhler Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) Stuttgart Germany

Synthetic Natural Gas from Coal Dry Biomass and Power-to-Gas Applications First EditionEdited by Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollazcopy 2016 John Wiley amp Sons Inc Published 2016 by John Wiley amp Sons Inc

1

1Introductory remarks

Tilman J Schildhauer

11 Why produce synthetIc natural gas

The answer to this question [which may also explain why one should read a book on synthetic natural gas (SNG) production] changes with time

During the years from 1950 to the early 1980s SNG production was an important topic mainly in the United States in the United Kingdom and in Germany The interest was caused by a couple of reasons In these countries a relative abundance of coal and the expected shortage of natural gas triggered several industrial initia-tives partly funded by public authorities to develop processes from coal to SNG Due to the oil crisis during the 1970s the use of domestic coal rather than the import of oil became a second motivation A third motivation is the possibility to make domestic (low quality) energy reserves available de‐centrally as an energy carrier for which the distribution infrastructure already exists and that allows for both clean and efficient use by consumers

These boundary conditions lead in 1984 to the start‐up of the 15 GWSNG

plant in Great Plains which is run by the Dakota Gas Company and converts lignite into SNG and many other products This plant stayed the only commercial SNG production for nearly 30 years because with the drop of the oil price in the mid1980s the explora-tion of natural gas in the North Sea and the gas pipelines between Russia and Europe the interest in SNG from coal ceased

Especially in the United States the interest came back in the years after the turn of the millennium now triggered by the again rising oil price and the meanwhile established use of CO

2 (which is an inherent by‐product of coal to SNG plants) for

2 INTRODUCTORy REmARKS

enhanced oil recovery (EOR) Back then a dozen coal to SNG projects were started including EOR Now due to the rapidly increasing exploitation of the shale gas and the connected possibility for a significant reduction of CO

2 emission all the projects

in the United States have been stoppedHowever all the mentioned motivations for SNG production that is shortage of

domestic natural gas use of domestic coal reserves which are far away from the highly populated areas and the possibility for clean and efficient combustion still prevail in China Therefore China is now by far the most important market for the production of SNG from coal Three large plants have started operation and further plants are planned or under construction

In Europe several aspects triggered a reconsideration of SNG production about 15 years ago Due to its cleaner combustion and inherently lower CO

2 emission

using natural gas in transportation (eg for CNG cars) is supported in many coun-tries and has even been economically beneficial for the past few years due to the lower gas price With the aim of the European Commission to replace up to 20 of European fuel consumption by biofuel replacing natural gas partly with bio‐methane becomes necessary So far bio‐methane is mostly produced by up‐grading biogas from anaerobic digestion However due to the limited amount of substrate this pathway cannot be increased much more and other sources of bio‐methane are sought

Additionally many European countries wish to use their domestic biomass resources for energy production in order to decrease CO

2 emissions and the import

of energy A major part of the biomass is ligno‐cellulosic (mostly wood) and mainly used for heating for example in wood pellet heating As the heat demand is gen-erally decreasing due to better building insulation the conversion of wood to high value forms of energy that is electricity and fuels is of increasing interest Like in the case of coal conversion to fuels requires (so far) gasification as the first step As shown by process simulations and the first demonstration plants the conversion of wood to SNG can reach significantly higher efficiencies than conversion to liquid fuels

Very recently a third aspect began to gain greater importance especially in Central Europe Due to the increasing integration of stochastic renewable sources like photovoltaics and wind energy into electricity generation the demand for balancing the electricity supply and the demand over spatial and temporal distances is increasing For the future even the seasonal storage of electricity may be necessary Here the production of SNG can play an important role While the gasification of solid feedstocks is a more or less continuous process the further conversion to electricity or SNG can be flexibly adjusted to the balancing needs of the electricity grid within so‐called polygeneration schemes

moreover in times where the electricity production from renewables exceeds the actual demand in the electricity grid (a situation that today occasionally is observed in Central Europe and is expected to be more common in future) producing SNG could utilize the excess electricity instead of curtailing photovoltaics or wind tur-bines In so‐called power to gas applications hydrogen is produced from excess electricity by electrolysis of water and then converted to SNG by methanation of

OVERVIEW 3

carbon oxides As a source of carbon oxides biogas producer gas from (biomass) gasification flue gas from industry or even CO

2 from the atmosphere can be consid-

ered opening a pathway to produce SNG without solid feedstock that can be stored or transported over long distances within the existing natural gas infrastructure

12 overvIeW

This book aims at a suitable overview over the different pathways to produce SNG (Figure 11)

The first four chapters cover the main process steps during conversion of coal and dry biomass to SNG gasification gas cleaning methanation and gas upgrading The main technology options will be highlighted and the impact of a technology choice for downstream processes and the complete process chain In these chapters espe-cially in the chapter on methanation reactors the state of the art coal to SNG processes are discussed in detail

The following chapters describe a number of novel processes for the production of SNG with their specific combination of process steps as well as the boundary con-ditions for which the respective process was developed These processes comprise those which are already in operation (eg the 20 mW

SNG bio‐SNG production in

Gothenburg Sweden or the 6 mWSNG

power to gas plant in Werlte Germany) and processes which are still under development

The gasification chapter covers the thermodynamics of gasification and presents both coal and biomass gasification technologies

Coal Dry biomass

gasification

Gas cleaning

Methanation

Methanation

SNG (CH4)

CO2 from air or industry

H2O CO2(H2)

H2 from electrolysis(power-to-gas)

Algae manure

Hydrothermalgasification

Biogas fromdigestion

Raw SNG CH4 H2O (CO2 H2)

Gas upgrading

FIgure 11 The different pathways to produce SNG

4 INTRODUCTORy REmARKS

The gas cleaning chapter discusses the impurities to be expected in gasification‐derived producer gas explains the state of the art gas cleaning technologies and focuses on the innovative gas cleaning steps which are developed for hot gas cleaning

The chapter on methanation reactors presents the chemical reactions proceeding inside the reactors their thermodynamic limitation and their reaction mechanisms Further an overview of the different reactor types with their advantages and chal-lenges is given covering coal to SNG biomass to SNG and power to gas processes The last section of this chapter focuses on the modeling and simulation of methana-tion reactors including the necessary experiments to determine reaction kinetics and to generate data for model validation

The chapter on gas‐upgrading discusses technologies for gas drying CO2 and

hydrogen removal based on adsorption absorption and membranes and includes a techno‐economic comparison

The chapter on the GoBiGas project (ldquoGothenburg Bio Gasrdquo) presents the boundary conditions and technologies applied in the 20 mW

SNG wood to SNG plant

in Gothenburg Sweden which was commissioned in 2014The next chapter explains the development of the power to gas process at the

Zentrum fuumlr solare Wasserstofferzeugung (ZSW) including the 6 mWSNG

plant in Werlte Germany

The chapter on fluidised bed methanation describes the process development at the Paul Scherrer Institut aiming at a flexible technology for efficiently converting wood to SNG and for hydrogen conversion within power to gas applications

The following chapter presents the technologies developed at the Energy Center of the Netherlands (ECN) for efficient SNG production from wood especially their allothermal gasification technology (mILENA) and their broad experience with gas cleaning

The chapter on hydrothermal gasification discusses the unique technology allow-ing for the simultaneous catalytic gasification and methanation of wet biomass under super‐critical conditions

The chapter on agnionrsquos small scale SNG concept focuses on two novel technol-ogies that allow for significant process simplification especially in small scale bio‐SNG plants the pressurized heatpipe reformer and the polytropic fixed bed methanation

The last chapter offers a view on the research for even more simplified SNG processes that is for methanation steps that allow for integrated desulfurization and methanation

The author of these lines wishes to express his gratitude especially to the contrib-utors of this book and to the persons at the publisher for their excellent work but also to all colleagues scientific collaborators partners friends and scientists in the community for many fruitful and interesting discussions All of you bring the field forward and made this book possible

Synthetic Natural Gas from Coal Dry Biomass and Power-to-Gas Applications First EditionEdited by Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollazcopy 2016 John Wiley amp Sons Inc Published 2016 by John Wiley amp Sons Inc

5

2Coal and Biomass GasifiCation for snG ProduCtion

Stefan Heyne Martin Seemann and Tilman J Schildhauer

21 introduCtion ndash BasiC requirements for GasifiCation in the framework of snG ProduCtion

Within the production of synthetic natural gas ndash basically methane ndash from solid feed-stock such as coal or biomass the major conversion step is gasification generating a product gas containing a mixture of permanent and condensable gases as well as solid residues (eg char ash) The gasification step can be conducted in different atmospheres and using different reaction agents Figure 21 represents the basic pathway from solid fuel to methane considering the main elements carbon hydrogen and oxygen It is obvious that an increase in hydrogen content is necessary for all feedstock illustrated At the same time the oxygen content needs to be reduced in particular for biogenic feedstock that is oxygenated to a higher degree

There exist different strategies or pathways for performing the conversion from feedstock towards methane within gasification as illustrated in Figure 21 Adding steam as a gasification agent is common practice not only due to the stoichiometric effect but also for enhanced char gasification and temperature moderation within the reactor H

2 addition is used in hydrogasification leading to a higher initial methane

6 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

content in the product gas [3 4] Co2 removal is an intrinsic part of the SnG produc-

tion process some gasification concepts using adsorptive bed material for direct Co2

removal within the gasification reactor [5] The addition of oxygen (common practice for all direct gasification technologies) actually leads to an increased need for Co

2

removal downstream of the reactor For indirect gasification where ungasified char is combusted in a separate chamber for heat supply the composition is changed towards methane via path (c) in Figure 21 Pretreatment technologies such as torrefaction decrease the oxygen content of the feedstock at the cost of increased energy demand

22 thermodynamiCs of GasifiCation

For an increased understanding of the role of gasification for the overall SnG process the basic thermodynamic aspects within gasification are discussed in the following The gasification process is a series of different conversions involving both homoge-neous and heterogeneous reactions The basic steps from solid fuel to product gas are drying pyrolysis or devolatilization and gasification depending on the physical size of the fuel these different steps occur in a sequential order for small particles or

40

20

0

60

80

0 20 40 60 80

0

20

40

60

80

Oxygen

Carbon

Hyd

roge

n

Feedstock

CH4

H2O

CO2

O2

H2

Carbon1 Biomass (hardwood softwood straw)2 Lignite coal3 Bituminous coal4 Anthracite coal

3

4

1

2

a removing CO2b adding H2c removing char (C)d adding steame adding O2

a

b d

e

c

fiGure 21 CHo diagram for coal and biomass Feedstock composition based on [1 2] data from Higman 2008 [1] Phyllis2 database for biomass and waste httpswwwecnnlphyllis2 Energy research Centre of the netherlands

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 7

overlap in bigger particles The detailed description of the complete process is a com-plex task and the considerations made in the following therefore focus on specific parts of the process and their implications for the overall conversion starting with some stoichiometric aspects for gasification

221 Gasification reactions

The major reactions occurring during the gasification step that commonly are consid-ered relevant are

C s o g Co g kJ mol partial oxidation0 5 1112 (21)

Co g o g Co g kJ mol carbon monoxide combustion0 5 2832 2 (22)

C s o g Co g kJ mol carbon combustion2 2 394ndash (23)

C s Co g Co g kJ mol reverse Boudouard reaction2 2 172 (24)

C s H o g Co g H g kJ mol water gas reaction2 2 131 (25)

Co g H o g H g Co g kJ mol water gas shift reaction2 2 2 41ndash (26)

CH g H o g H g Co g kJ mol steam reforming4 2 23 206 (27)

The char gasification reactions converting carbon into gaseous fuels [Equations (24) and (25)] are endothermic reactions requiring heat supply that is realized either by combusting part of the fuel in the same reactor (direct or autothermal gasification) or by indirect heat supply from an external combustion or heat source (indirect or allo-thermal gasification)

222 overall Gasification Process ndash equilibrium Based Considerations

Considering the overall process from coal or biomass to methane at the example of steam gasification the reaction stoichiometry can be expressed as

C o H o CH Cox y zH a b c2 4 2 (28)

with a xy z

bx y z

cx y z

4 2 2 8 4 2 8 4

Table 21 gives the coefficients for steam gasification to methane [Equation (28)] for different coal and biomass feedstock materials allowing the calculation of the heat

ta

Bl

e 2

1

Com

posi

tion

and

ove

rall

rea

ctio

n d

ata

for

stea

m G

asif

icat

ion

for

dif

fere

nt f

eeds

tock

mat

eria

ls

Feed

stoc

kM

olar

C

ompo

sitio

nl

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]c

rea

ctio

n C

oeff

icie

nts

for

Equ

atio

n (2

8)

ΔH

rM

etha

ne Y

ield

ab

c[M

Jkg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

[kg

CH

4kg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

Coa

laB

row

n co

al ndash

rhe

in

Ger

man

yC

H0

88o

029

262

273

063

20

537

046

3ndash0

19

048

9

lig

nite

ndash n

dak

ota

uSA

CH

072

o0

2526

727

70

697

052

90

471

06

050

9B

itum

inou

s ndash

typi

cal

Sout

h A

fric

aC

H0

68o

008

3435

10

792

056

70

433

12

10

654

Ant

hrac

ite ndash

ruh

r G

erm

any

CH

047

o0

0236

237

00

873

055

30

447

14

60

693

Bio

mas

sbW

illow

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

46o

065

185

199

031

00

520

048

0ndash0

45

035

0B

eech

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

47o

069

179

192

028

60

511

048

9ndash0

71

033

3Fi

r ndash

soft

woo

dC

H1

45o

065

196

210

031

30

520

048

0ndash1

58

035

0Sp

ruce

ndash s

oftw

ood

CH

142

o0

6818

419

70

304

050

80

492

ndash11

70

335

Whe

at s

traw

CH

146

o0

6818

319

60

297

051

20

488

ndash08

40

338

ric

e st

raw

CH

143

o0

6817

518

80

303

050

80

492

ndash02

30

335

a Tak

en f

rom

Hig

man

and

van

der

Bur

gt [

1]

b Tak

en f

rom

Phy

llis

[2]

ndash av

erag

e da

ta f

or m

ater

ial g

roup

c H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

] =

lH

V [

MJ

kg d

af]

+ 2

44

middot 89

4 middot H

[w

t d

af]

100

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 9

of reaction (based on the HHV of feedstock and methane all reactants and products at 25 degC) as well as the stoichiometric methane yield per kilogram of feedstock The heat of reaction for the overall reaction corresponds to well below 10 for all feed-stock materials For coal based feedstock with low oxygen content the reaction is endothermic while for brown coal and biomass feedstock it is exothermic The methane yield per kilogram feedstock also is considerably lower for biomass based feedstock due to the high oxygen content one option to improve the methane yield would be the additional supply of hydrogen as for example considered in hydrogas-ification The only technical conversion process capable of converting carbonaceous feedstock directly to methane and carbon dioxide according to the reaction in Equation (28) is gasification under supercritical conditions so‐called hydrothermal gasification [6ndash8] This technology is capable of handling wet feedstock but not yet available at commercial scale and is not covered in this chapter Common gasifica-tion technology converts the feedstock to a product gas being a mixture of Co Co

2

H2 H

2o CH

4 light and higher hydrocarbons and trace components followed by a

downstream gas cleaning and methane synthesis stepThe major operating parameters for gasification are pressure and temperature

Equilibrium calculations for steam gasification (05 kg H2okg daf feedstock) for a

generic biomass are used to illustrate the basic trends for the product gas composition and heat demand with changing pressure and temperature All feedstock is assumed to be converted to product gas As can be observed from Figure 22 methane formation is favored by lower temperatures and higher pressures Hydrogen and carbon monoxide formation increases with temperature and so does the endothermi-city of the overall reaction The theoretically exothermic reaction to CH

4 and Co

2 at

25 degC [similar to Equation (28)] turns into an endothermic reaction requiring heat supply at higher temperature

light hydrocarbons (represented by C2H

4) and tars (represented by C

10H

8) are only

formed to a very small extent according to equilibrium calculations The amount of steam added for gasification will mainly influence the H

2Co ratio via the water gas

shift reaction Equation (26) In reality the equilibrium state is usually not reached in the shown temperature range but the actual product gas composition resulting from gasification is influenced by a number of other parameters as will be discussed in subsequent sections An increase in gasification pressure favors methane formation predicted by equilibrium calculations at 800 degC the methane molar fraction increases from 0 to about 155 from 1 to 30 bar With more methane being formed the endo-thermic heat of reaction is reduced by 666 from 1 to 30 bar Again no to very little formation of light hydrocarbons and tars is predicted by the equilibrium even at higher pressures At high pressures and moderate temperatures a mixture of basically CH

4 Co

2 and H

2o ndash representing Equation (28) ndash can be obtained A process

example is hydrothermal gasification which is operating at these conditions but still is at development state [6ndash8] The above‐mentioned trends are all under the assumption of complete conversion of feedstock to product gas Many gasification concepts how-ever have a considerable amount of char remaining unconverted being removed with the ashes or in indirect gasification being converted in a separate combustion chamber for supplying the gasification heat The carbon feedstock entering the gas phase

10 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

during gasification will therefore be drastically changed when carbon conversion is incomplete Even minor effects on the hydrogen and oxygen balance in the gas phase can be expected as for example biomass char still contains oxygen and hydrogen [9] Figure 23 depicts the influence of pressure and temperature on carbon conversion at temperatures below 800 degC considerable amounts of solid carbon formation are pre-dicted This will in turn influence the equilibrium conditions in the gas phase as the carbon stock in gas phase is reduced The major reactions affected are the Boudouard water gas and waterndashgas shift reactions Equations (24) to (26) Incomplete carbon conversion leads to a decrease of Co concentration in the product gas as well as a decrease in H

2 compared to equilibrium at complete conversion

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

30minus2000

0

2000

4000

6000

ΔH

r [kJ

kg

daf

feed

]

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

300

01020304

y CH

4y H

2y H

2O

y CO

2y C

O

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

T [degC] T [degC]

T [degC]T [degC]

T [degC] T [degC]

P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar] P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar]

fiGure 22 Pressure and temperature dependence of the molar concentration of major gas species and the heat of reaction for steam gasification (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic

biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH143

o066

) assuming complete carbon conversion calculated by ASPEn PluS

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 11

223 Gasification ndash a multi‐step Process deviating from equilibrium

Equilibrium calculations while useful for identifying trends with changing operating conditions cannot however predict the performance of technical equipment to a full extent They represent a boundary value that can be approached but never reached The gasification process on a physical level is a multi‐stage process starting with drying of the feedstock followed by pyrolysis and gasificationcombustion The kinetics of the numerous homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions occurring ndash as well as the residence time and reactor setup ndash ultimately determine the product gas composition resulting from gasification Figure 24 illustrates a simplified reaction network for the conversion from received fuel to product gas The drying and pri-mary pyrolysis (also referred to as devolatilization) steps are similar for all gasifica-tion technologies whereas the extent of gasification reactions occurring as well as the approach to equilibrium are a strong function of the gasification medium and the reactor setup during pyrolysis a considerable amount of tars a complex mixture of 1‐ to 5‐ring aromatic hydrocarbons is formed that will undergo various conversion pathways during gasification In the final product gas tar can still represent a consid-erable amount of energy for example biomass steam gasification at 800 degC can result in more than 33 g tarsnm3 corresponding to about 8 of the total product gas energy content on a lower heating value basis [10]

200400

600800

10001200

0

10

20

30

04

02

0

06

08

1

T [degC]

P [bar]

Am

ount

of

feed

stoc

k ca

rbon

conv

erte

d to

gas

pha

se

fiGure 23 Carbon conversion predicted by equilibrium calculations for steam gasifica-tion (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt

CH143

o066

)

12 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

The gas composition from primary pyrolysis represents the starting point for the gasification reactions neves et al [9] conducted an extensive literature review of data on pyrolysis experiments and derived an empirical model for estimating gas species yields as well as tar and char yields and elemental composition as a function of peak pyrolysis temperature Figure 25 illustrates the pyrolysis gas composition and the total gas and char yield based on nevesrsquo model In contrast to the equilibrium calculations for gasification represented in Figure 22 the model predicts consider-able amounts of tars as well as a considerable amount of char produced from pyrol-ysis Even light hydrocarbons are present in the pyrolysis gas Generally speaking the product distribution from pyrolysis as presented in Figure 25 undergoes conversion towards the equilibrium conditions during the final conversion step in Figure 24 ndash the gasification step

The extent of conversion towards the equilibrium state is a function of a large number of parameters such as pressure and temperature reactor design and associated residence time for gas and solids as well as gasndashsolid mixing and the presence of catalytically active materials promoting specific reactions among others

Secondary PyrolysisGasication

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

DehydrationPolymerizationGasication

ReformingCrackingOxidationWater-gas shift

dry fuel

Primary Pyrolysis

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

Drying

As-receivedfuel particle Moisture

Dry fuel

Gasication medium(H2O H2 O2 CO2

)

Productgas

fiGure 24 Conversion process of a fuel particle during gasification (adopted and modi-fied from neves et al [9])

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 13

224 heat management of the Gasification Process

As temperature is the major influencing parameter on the kinetics of the different gasification reactions the thermal management of the gasification reactor is of particular importance The conversion steps from solid fuel to product gas as illus-trated in Figure 24 occur at different temperature levels A qualitative representation

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

Temperature (ordmC)

Tars (C10H8)

CxHy

CH4

CO

CO2

H2O

H2

Mol

ar f

ract

ion

of c

ompo

nent

i

(a)

Temperature (ordmC)

Yie

ld (

kgk

g da

f fu

el)

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1

Char yield

Total yield per kg daf fuelGases tars and pyrolytic water

(b)

fiGure 25 Pyrolysis gas molar composition (a) and overall mass yields (b) as a function of temperature (based on neves [9]) for a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066)

14 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of the temperature profile for a fuel particle over time is illustrated in Figure 26a After particle heat‐up the moisture is evaporated The dry fuel particle is further heated releasing pyrolysis gases and finally the char particle is gasified Heat for gasification needs to be supplied by the hot environment Particle combustion indicated by the dashed line occurs at a particle temperature above environ-ment due to the exothermic nature of the combustion reactions For complete conversion of a biomass fuel with initial moisture content of 20 wt the distribution of the heat demand for conversion on the different processes is illustrated in Figure 26b The gasification heat demand is dominant but even pyrolysis and drying

Dry

ing

Time

(a)

(b)

Tem

pera

ture

Dev

olat

iliza

tion

Pyro

lysi

s Char gasication

Char combustion

Surrounding temperature

a dcb

a ndash Preheating ndash 40b ndash Drying ndash 82

c ndash Pyrolysis ndash 76d ndash Gasication ndash 802

Fraction of total heat demand(6566 kJkg daf fuel)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat demand [kJkg daf fuel]

Gasication temperature (850 degC)

Pyrolysistemperature

(450 degC)

fiGure 26 (a) Qualitative representation of the temperature evolution of a fuel particle during gasification (b) Steam gasification heat demand profile for full conversion of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) at equilibrium (SB ratio = 05

steam supply at 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture)

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 15

represent a considerable share of the specific heat demand for conversion of course in reality pyrolysis and gasification rather occur over a certain temperature range instead of the fixed temperatures used for the calculation (nevesrsquo model for pyrolysis [9] and equilibrium calculations for the gasification) In addition the processes are not strictly sequential but partly occur in parallel within a gasification reactor nevertheless the gasification heat demand will be largest and above all requires the highest temperature level

All heat for the conversion process within the gasification unit needs to be supplied by combustion of part of the fuel or additional external fuel at high temperature Changing the initial moisture content of the biomass will reduce the drying heat demand [b in Figure 26b] and therefore improve the conversion efficiency External drying also allows for using a heat source at lower temperature improving the conversion process from an exergy perspective Even the pyrolysis process can be conducted in a separate reactor with a separate heat source For these considerations in relation to the thermal management of the gasification process temperaturendashheat load graphs can be a useful tool for identifying improvements for the energy efficiency of the gasification process Figure 27 presents such a graph as an example of an indirect gasification process modelled using nevesrsquo pyrolysis model and gasification at equilibrium It is assumed that the amount of char combusted is set to ensure that the combustion heat covers the heat demand for fuel heat‐up drying pyrolysis and gasification The supply of steam to gasification (400 degC) and hot air to combustion (400 degC) is an additional heat demand that needs to be covered The thick curve in Figure 27 represents the aggregation of all the above‐mentioned heat demands whereas the dashed curve is a representation of all heat sources namely the combustion

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat load [kJkg daf fuel]

Preheating biomass air and water (steam)

Moisture evaporationand steam generation

Pyrolysis andpreheating air and steam

Gasific

ation

Tpyrolysis = 450 ordmC

Tgasification = 850 ordmC

Tcombustion = 900 ordmCChar combustion

Gas

coo

ling

(pro

duct

gas

and

com

busti

on fl

ue g

as)Maximum amount

of excess heat3610 kJkg daf

fiGure 27 Temperature heat load curve for indirect steam gasification of a generic bio-mass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) SB ratio = 05 air and steam supply

at 25 degC and heated to 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture

16 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of char and the cooling of hot product gas and combustion flue gases to ambient tem-perature It is obvious that for ideal heat transfer the process has a considerable amount of excess heat allowing for a further increase in conversion to product gas by more efficient use of the heat and reducing the char combustion Converting more solid fuel to product gas will increase the heat demand while at the same time the heat supply will decrease as less char is burnt Even considering the overall SnG process these curves can be used for a holistic analysis of the heat integration of sinks and sources including the operations up‐ and downstream of the gasification step Heat from the methanation reaction might for example be used for biomass drying or for regeneration of an amine solution used for downstream Co

2 removal

The slope of the heat demand curves for pyrolysis and gasification also is dependent on the gas composition that actually is obtained during the different processes A deviation from equilibrium conditions for the gasification will result in considerable changes of the conversion heat demand Two parameters commonly used in thermal conversion processes are used to illustrate the influence of different parameters on the energy performance of the gasification process The first param-eter is the relative air to fuel ratio λ defining the amount of air (oxygen) actually supplied to the reaction in relation to the amount necessary for complete combustion according to stoichiometry

n

nair o actual

air o stoichiometric

2

2

(27)

The second parameter commonly used in gasification is the chemical efficiency ηch

relating the chemical energy content of the product gas to the fuel chemical energy η

ch can be defined on both a lower and a higher heating value basis but in order to

avoid confusion with respect to moisture content the higher heating value is used here

ch HHV

PG

fuel fuel

HHV

HHV

i

i i

n

n (28)

Figure 28 shows λ and ηchHHV

for the base case as illustrated in Figure 27 as well as the influence of changes in different operating parameters Increasing the feed tem-perature for both steam to gasification (Point 1 in Figure 28) and air to combustion (Point 3 in Figure 28) increases the chemical efficiency and reduces λ as less char needs to be burnt reducing the incoming moisture content of the biomass from 20 to 10 wt (Point 4 in Figure 28) results in a remarkable effect reducing the necessary air to fuel ratio and gives a relative increase of the chemical efficiency of 32 Assuming heat losses from the gasification unit (point 6 in Figure 28) corresponding to 2 of the thermal input on a higher heating value basis on the other hand considerably increases the air to fuel ratio and leads to a relative decrease of the chemical efficiency by 3 All changes except for points 5 7 and 8 represent thermal

Page 12: cover thumb - download.e-bookshelf.de · 10.4 PSI’s Catalytic SNG Process 266 10.4.1 Process Description and Layout 266 10.4.2 Mass Balance 268 10.4.3 Energy Balance 269 10.4.4

Synthetic Natural Gas from Coal Dry Biomass and Power-to-Gas Applications First EditionEdited by Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollazcopy 2016 John Wiley amp Sons Inc Published 2016 by John Wiley amp Sons Inc

1

1Introductory remarks

Tilman J Schildhauer

11 Why produce synthetIc natural gas

The answer to this question [which may also explain why one should read a book on synthetic natural gas (SNG) production] changes with time

During the years from 1950 to the early 1980s SNG production was an important topic mainly in the United States in the United Kingdom and in Germany The interest was caused by a couple of reasons In these countries a relative abundance of coal and the expected shortage of natural gas triggered several industrial initia-tives partly funded by public authorities to develop processes from coal to SNG Due to the oil crisis during the 1970s the use of domestic coal rather than the import of oil became a second motivation A third motivation is the possibility to make domestic (low quality) energy reserves available de‐centrally as an energy carrier for which the distribution infrastructure already exists and that allows for both clean and efficient use by consumers

These boundary conditions lead in 1984 to the start‐up of the 15 GWSNG

plant in Great Plains which is run by the Dakota Gas Company and converts lignite into SNG and many other products This plant stayed the only commercial SNG production for nearly 30 years because with the drop of the oil price in the mid1980s the explora-tion of natural gas in the North Sea and the gas pipelines between Russia and Europe the interest in SNG from coal ceased

Especially in the United States the interest came back in the years after the turn of the millennium now triggered by the again rising oil price and the meanwhile established use of CO

2 (which is an inherent by‐product of coal to SNG plants) for

2 INTRODUCTORy REmARKS

enhanced oil recovery (EOR) Back then a dozen coal to SNG projects were started including EOR Now due to the rapidly increasing exploitation of the shale gas and the connected possibility for a significant reduction of CO

2 emission all the projects

in the United States have been stoppedHowever all the mentioned motivations for SNG production that is shortage of

domestic natural gas use of domestic coal reserves which are far away from the highly populated areas and the possibility for clean and efficient combustion still prevail in China Therefore China is now by far the most important market for the production of SNG from coal Three large plants have started operation and further plants are planned or under construction

In Europe several aspects triggered a reconsideration of SNG production about 15 years ago Due to its cleaner combustion and inherently lower CO

2 emission

using natural gas in transportation (eg for CNG cars) is supported in many coun-tries and has even been economically beneficial for the past few years due to the lower gas price With the aim of the European Commission to replace up to 20 of European fuel consumption by biofuel replacing natural gas partly with bio‐methane becomes necessary So far bio‐methane is mostly produced by up‐grading biogas from anaerobic digestion However due to the limited amount of substrate this pathway cannot be increased much more and other sources of bio‐methane are sought

Additionally many European countries wish to use their domestic biomass resources for energy production in order to decrease CO

2 emissions and the import

of energy A major part of the biomass is ligno‐cellulosic (mostly wood) and mainly used for heating for example in wood pellet heating As the heat demand is gen-erally decreasing due to better building insulation the conversion of wood to high value forms of energy that is electricity and fuels is of increasing interest Like in the case of coal conversion to fuels requires (so far) gasification as the first step As shown by process simulations and the first demonstration plants the conversion of wood to SNG can reach significantly higher efficiencies than conversion to liquid fuels

Very recently a third aspect began to gain greater importance especially in Central Europe Due to the increasing integration of stochastic renewable sources like photovoltaics and wind energy into electricity generation the demand for balancing the electricity supply and the demand over spatial and temporal distances is increasing For the future even the seasonal storage of electricity may be necessary Here the production of SNG can play an important role While the gasification of solid feedstocks is a more or less continuous process the further conversion to electricity or SNG can be flexibly adjusted to the balancing needs of the electricity grid within so‐called polygeneration schemes

moreover in times where the electricity production from renewables exceeds the actual demand in the electricity grid (a situation that today occasionally is observed in Central Europe and is expected to be more common in future) producing SNG could utilize the excess electricity instead of curtailing photovoltaics or wind tur-bines In so‐called power to gas applications hydrogen is produced from excess electricity by electrolysis of water and then converted to SNG by methanation of

OVERVIEW 3

carbon oxides As a source of carbon oxides biogas producer gas from (biomass) gasification flue gas from industry or even CO

2 from the atmosphere can be consid-

ered opening a pathway to produce SNG without solid feedstock that can be stored or transported over long distances within the existing natural gas infrastructure

12 overvIeW

This book aims at a suitable overview over the different pathways to produce SNG (Figure 11)

The first four chapters cover the main process steps during conversion of coal and dry biomass to SNG gasification gas cleaning methanation and gas upgrading The main technology options will be highlighted and the impact of a technology choice for downstream processes and the complete process chain In these chapters espe-cially in the chapter on methanation reactors the state of the art coal to SNG processes are discussed in detail

The following chapters describe a number of novel processes for the production of SNG with their specific combination of process steps as well as the boundary con-ditions for which the respective process was developed These processes comprise those which are already in operation (eg the 20 mW

SNG bio‐SNG production in

Gothenburg Sweden or the 6 mWSNG

power to gas plant in Werlte Germany) and processes which are still under development

The gasification chapter covers the thermodynamics of gasification and presents both coal and biomass gasification technologies

Coal Dry biomass

gasification

Gas cleaning

Methanation

Methanation

SNG (CH4)

CO2 from air or industry

H2O CO2(H2)

H2 from electrolysis(power-to-gas)

Algae manure

Hydrothermalgasification

Biogas fromdigestion

Raw SNG CH4 H2O (CO2 H2)

Gas upgrading

FIgure 11 The different pathways to produce SNG

4 INTRODUCTORy REmARKS

The gas cleaning chapter discusses the impurities to be expected in gasification‐derived producer gas explains the state of the art gas cleaning technologies and focuses on the innovative gas cleaning steps which are developed for hot gas cleaning

The chapter on methanation reactors presents the chemical reactions proceeding inside the reactors their thermodynamic limitation and their reaction mechanisms Further an overview of the different reactor types with their advantages and chal-lenges is given covering coal to SNG biomass to SNG and power to gas processes The last section of this chapter focuses on the modeling and simulation of methana-tion reactors including the necessary experiments to determine reaction kinetics and to generate data for model validation

The chapter on gas‐upgrading discusses technologies for gas drying CO2 and

hydrogen removal based on adsorption absorption and membranes and includes a techno‐economic comparison

The chapter on the GoBiGas project (ldquoGothenburg Bio Gasrdquo) presents the boundary conditions and technologies applied in the 20 mW

SNG wood to SNG plant

in Gothenburg Sweden which was commissioned in 2014The next chapter explains the development of the power to gas process at the

Zentrum fuumlr solare Wasserstofferzeugung (ZSW) including the 6 mWSNG

plant in Werlte Germany

The chapter on fluidised bed methanation describes the process development at the Paul Scherrer Institut aiming at a flexible technology for efficiently converting wood to SNG and for hydrogen conversion within power to gas applications

The following chapter presents the technologies developed at the Energy Center of the Netherlands (ECN) for efficient SNG production from wood especially their allothermal gasification technology (mILENA) and their broad experience with gas cleaning

The chapter on hydrothermal gasification discusses the unique technology allow-ing for the simultaneous catalytic gasification and methanation of wet biomass under super‐critical conditions

The chapter on agnionrsquos small scale SNG concept focuses on two novel technol-ogies that allow for significant process simplification especially in small scale bio‐SNG plants the pressurized heatpipe reformer and the polytropic fixed bed methanation

The last chapter offers a view on the research for even more simplified SNG processes that is for methanation steps that allow for integrated desulfurization and methanation

The author of these lines wishes to express his gratitude especially to the contrib-utors of this book and to the persons at the publisher for their excellent work but also to all colleagues scientific collaborators partners friends and scientists in the community for many fruitful and interesting discussions All of you bring the field forward and made this book possible

Synthetic Natural Gas from Coal Dry Biomass and Power-to-Gas Applications First EditionEdited by Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollazcopy 2016 John Wiley amp Sons Inc Published 2016 by John Wiley amp Sons Inc

5

2Coal and Biomass GasifiCation for snG ProduCtion

Stefan Heyne Martin Seemann and Tilman J Schildhauer

21 introduCtion ndash BasiC requirements for GasifiCation in the framework of snG ProduCtion

Within the production of synthetic natural gas ndash basically methane ndash from solid feed-stock such as coal or biomass the major conversion step is gasification generating a product gas containing a mixture of permanent and condensable gases as well as solid residues (eg char ash) The gasification step can be conducted in different atmospheres and using different reaction agents Figure 21 represents the basic pathway from solid fuel to methane considering the main elements carbon hydrogen and oxygen It is obvious that an increase in hydrogen content is necessary for all feedstock illustrated At the same time the oxygen content needs to be reduced in particular for biogenic feedstock that is oxygenated to a higher degree

There exist different strategies or pathways for performing the conversion from feedstock towards methane within gasification as illustrated in Figure 21 Adding steam as a gasification agent is common practice not only due to the stoichiometric effect but also for enhanced char gasification and temperature moderation within the reactor H

2 addition is used in hydrogasification leading to a higher initial methane

6 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

content in the product gas [3 4] Co2 removal is an intrinsic part of the SnG produc-

tion process some gasification concepts using adsorptive bed material for direct Co2

removal within the gasification reactor [5] The addition of oxygen (common practice for all direct gasification technologies) actually leads to an increased need for Co

2

removal downstream of the reactor For indirect gasification where ungasified char is combusted in a separate chamber for heat supply the composition is changed towards methane via path (c) in Figure 21 Pretreatment technologies such as torrefaction decrease the oxygen content of the feedstock at the cost of increased energy demand

22 thermodynamiCs of GasifiCation

For an increased understanding of the role of gasification for the overall SnG process the basic thermodynamic aspects within gasification are discussed in the following The gasification process is a series of different conversions involving both homoge-neous and heterogeneous reactions The basic steps from solid fuel to product gas are drying pyrolysis or devolatilization and gasification depending on the physical size of the fuel these different steps occur in a sequential order for small particles or

40

20

0

60

80

0 20 40 60 80

0

20

40

60

80

Oxygen

Carbon

Hyd

roge

n

Feedstock

CH4

H2O

CO2

O2

H2

Carbon1 Biomass (hardwood softwood straw)2 Lignite coal3 Bituminous coal4 Anthracite coal

3

4

1

2

a removing CO2b adding H2c removing char (C)d adding steame adding O2

a

b d

e

c

fiGure 21 CHo diagram for coal and biomass Feedstock composition based on [1 2] data from Higman 2008 [1] Phyllis2 database for biomass and waste httpswwwecnnlphyllis2 Energy research Centre of the netherlands

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 7

overlap in bigger particles The detailed description of the complete process is a com-plex task and the considerations made in the following therefore focus on specific parts of the process and their implications for the overall conversion starting with some stoichiometric aspects for gasification

221 Gasification reactions

The major reactions occurring during the gasification step that commonly are consid-ered relevant are

C s o g Co g kJ mol partial oxidation0 5 1112 (21)

Co g o g Co g kJ mol carbon monoxide combustion0 5 2832 2 (22)

C s o g Co g kJ mol carbon combustion2 2 394ndash (23)

C s Co g Co g kJ mol reverse Boudouard reaction2 2 172 (24)

C s H o g Co g H g kJ mol water gas reaction2 2 131 (25)

Co g H o g H g Co g kJ mol water gas shift reaction2 2 2 41ndash (26)

CH g H o g H g Co g kJ mol steam reforming4 2 23 206 (27)

The char gasification reactions converting carbon into gaseous fuels [Equations (24) and (25)] are endothermic reactions requiring heat supply that is realized either by combusting part of the fuel in the same reactor (direct or autothermal gasification) or by indirect heat supply from an external combustion or heat source (indirect or allo-thermal gasification)

222 overall Gasification Process ndash equilibrium Based Considerations

Considering the overall process from coal or biomass to methane at the example of steam gasification the reaction stoichiometry can be expressed as

C o H o CH Cox y zH a b c2 4 2 (28)

with a xy z

bx y z

cx y z

4 2 2 8 4 2 8 4

Table 21 gives the coefficients for steam gasification to methane [Equation (28)] for different coal and biomass feedstock materials allowing the calculation of the heat

ta

Bl

e 2

1

Com

posi

tion

and

ove

rall

rea

ctio

n d

ata

for

stea

m G

asif

icat

ion

for

dif

fere

nt f

eeds

tock

mat

eria

ls

Feed

stoc

kM

olar

C

ompo

sitio

nl

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]c

rea

ctio

n C

oeff

icie

nts

for

Equ

atio

n (2

8)

ΔH

rM

etha

ne Y

ield

ab

c[M

Jkg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

[kg

CH

4kg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

Coa

laB

row

n co

al ndash

rhe

in

Ger

man

yC

H0

88o

029

262

273

063

20

537

046

3ndash0

19

048

9

lig

nite

ndash n

dak

ota

uSA

CH

072

o0

2526

727

70

697

052

90

471

06

050

9B

itum

inou

s ndash

typi

cal

Sout

h A

fric

aC

H0

68o

008

3435

10

792

056

70

433

12

10

654

Ant

hrac

ite ndash

ruh

r G

erm

any

CH

047

o0

0236

237

00

873

055

30

447

14

60

693

Bio

mas

sbW

illow

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

46o

065

185

199

031

00

520

048

0ndash0

45

035

0B

eech

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

47o

069

179

192

028

60

511

048

9ndash0

71

033

3Fi

r ndash

soft

woo

dC

H1

45o

065

196

210

031

30

520

048

0ndash1

58

035

0Sp

ruce

ndash s

oftw

ood

CH

142

o0

6818

419

70

304

050

80

492

ndash11

70

335

Whe

at s

traw

CH

146

o0

6818

319

60

297

051

20

488

ndash08

40

338

ric

e st

raw

CH

143

o0

6817

518

80

303

050

80

492

ndash02

30

335

a Tak

en f

rom

Hig

man

and

van

der

Bur

gt [

1]

b Tak

en f

rom

Phy

llis

[2]

ndash av

erag

e da

ta f

or m

ater

ial g

roup

c H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

] =

lH

V [

MJ

kg d

af]

+ 2

44

middot 89

4 middot H

[w

t d

af]

100

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 9

of reaction (based on the HHV of feedstock and methane all reactants and products at 25 degC) as well as the stoichiometric methane yield per kilogram of feedstock The heat of reaction for the overall reaction corresponds to well below 10 for all feed-stock materials For coal based feedstock with low oxygen content the reaction is endothermic while for brown coal and biomass feedstock it is exothermic The methane yield per kilogram feedstock also is considerably lower for biomass based feedstock due to the high oxygen content one option to improve the methane yield would be the additional supply of hydrogen as for example considered in hydrogas-ification The only technical conversion process capable of converting carbonaceous feedstock directly to methane and carbon dioxide according to the reaction in Equation (28) is gasification under supercritical conditions so‐called hydrothermal gasification [6ndash8] This technology is capable of handling wet feedstock but not yet available at commercial scale and is not covered in this chapter Common gasifica-tion technology converts the feedstock to a product gas being a mixture of Co Co

2

H2 H

2o CH

4 light and higher hydrocarbons and trace components followed by a

downstream gas cleaning and methane synthesis stepThe major operating parameters for gasification are pressure and temperature

Equilibrium calculations for steam gasification (05 kg H2okg daf feedstock) for a

generic biomass are used to illustrate the basic trends for the product gas composition and heat demand with changing pressure and temperature All feedstock is assumed to be converted to product gas As can be observed from Figure 22 methane formation is favored by lower temperatures and higher pressures Hydrogen and carbon monoxide formation increases with temperature and so does the endothermi-city of the overall reaction The theoretically exothermic reaction to CH

4 and Co

2 at

25 degC [similar to Equation (28)] turns into an endothermic reaction requiring heat supply at higher temperature

light hydrocarbons (represented by C2H

4) and tars (represented by C

10H

8) are only

formed to a very small extent according to equilibrium calculations The amount of steam added for gasification will mainly influence the H

2Co ratio via the water gas

shift reaction Equation (26) In reality the equilibrium state is usually not reached in the shown temperature range but the actual product gas composition resulting from gasification is influenced by a number of other parameters as will be discussed in subsequent sections An increase in gasification pressure favors methane formation predicted by equilibrium calculations at 800 degC the methane molar fraction increases from 0 to about 155 from 1 to 30 bar With more methane being formed the endo-thermic heat of reaction is reduced by 666 from 1 to 30 bar Again no to very little formation of light hydrocarbons and tars is predicted by the equilibrium even at higher pressures At high pressures and moderate temperatures a mixture of basically CH

4 Co

2 and H

2o ndash representing Equation (28) ndash can be obtained A process

example is hydrothermal gasification which is operating at these conditions but still is at development state [6ndash8] The above‐mentioned trends are all under the assumption of complete conversion of feedstock to product gas Many gasification concepts how-ever have a considerable amount of char remaining unconverted being removed with the ashes or in indirect gasification being converted in a separate combustion chamber for supplying the gasification heat The carbon feedstock entering the gas phase

10 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

during gasification will therefore be drastically changed when carbon conversion is incomplete Even minor effects on the hydrogen and oxygen balance in the gas phase can be expected as for example biomass char still contains oxygen and hydrogen [9] Figure 23 depicts the influence of pressure and temperature on carbon conversion at temperatures below 800 degC considerable amounts of solid carbon formation are pre-dicted This will in turn influence the equilibrium conditions in the gas phase as the carbon stock in gas phase is reduced The major reactions affected are the Boudouard water gas and waterndashgas shift reactions Equations (24) to (26) Incomplete carbon conversion leads to a decrease of Co concentration in the product gas as well as a decrease in H

2 compared to equilibrium at complete conversion

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

30minus2000

0

2000

4000

6000

ΔH

r [kJ

kg

daf

feed

]

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

300

01020304

y CH

4y H

2y H

2O

y CO

2y C

O

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

T [degC] T [degC]

T [degC]T [degC]

T [degC] T [degC]

P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar] P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar]

fiGure 22 Pressure and temperature dependence of the molar concentration of major gas species and the heat of reaction for steam gasification (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic

biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH143

o066

) assuming complete carbon conversion calculated by ASPEn PluS

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 11

223 Gasification ndash a multi‐step Process deviating from equilibrium

Equilibrium calculations while useful for identifying trends with changing operating conditions cannot however predict the performance of technical equipment to a full extent They represent a boundary value that can be approached but never reached The gasification process on a physical level is a multi‐stage process starting with drying of the feedstock followed by pyrolysis and gasificationcombustion The kinetics of the numerous homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions occurring ndash as well as the residence time and reactor setup ndash ultimately determine the product gas composition resulting from gasification Figure 24 illustrates a simplified reaction network for the conversion from received fuel to product gas The drying and pri-mary pyrolysis (also referred to as devolatilization) steps are similar for all gasifica-tion technologies whereas the extent of gasification reactions occurring as well as the approach to equilibrium are a strong function of the gasification medium and the reactor setup during pyrolysis a considerable amount of tars a complex mixture of 1‐ to 5‐ring aromatic hydrocarbons is formed that will undergo various conversion pathways during gasification In the final product gas tar can still represent a consid-erable amount of energy for example biomass steam gasification at 800 degC can result in more than 33 g tarsnm3 corresponding to about 8 of the total product gas energy content on a lower heating value basis [10]

200400

600800

10001200

0

10

20

30

04

02

0

06

08

1

T [degC]

P [bar]

Am

ount

of

feed

stoc

k ca

rbon

conv

erte

d to

gas

pha

se

fiGure 23 Carbon conversion predicted by equilibrium calculations for steam gasifica-tion (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt

CH143

o066

)

12 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

The gas composition from primary pyrolysis represents the starting point for the gasification reactions neves et al [9] conducted an extensive literature review of data on pyrolysis experiments and derived an empirical model for estimating gas species yields as well as tar and char yields and elemental composition as a function of peak pyrolysis temperature Figure 25 illustrates the pyrolysis gas composition and the total gas and char yield based on nevesrsquo model In contrast to the equilibrium calculations for gasification represented in Figure 22 the model predicts consider-able amounts of tars as well as a considerable amount of char produced from pyrol-ysis Even light hydrocarbons are present in the pyrolysis gas Generally speaking the product distribution from pyrolysis as presented in Figure 25 undergoes conversion towards the equilibrium conditions during the final conversion step in Figure 24 ndash the gasification step

The extent of conversion towards the equilibrium state is a function of a large number of parameters such as pressure and temperature reactor design and associated residence time for gas and solids as well as gasndashsolid mixing and the presence of catalytically active materials promoting specific reactions among others

Secondary PyrolysisGasication

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

DehydrationPolymerizationGasication

ReformingCrackingOxidationWater-gas shift

dry fuel

Primary Pyrolysis

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

Drying

As-receivedfuel particle Moisture

Dry fuel

Gasication medium(H2O H2 O2 CO2

)

Productgas

fiGure 24 Conversion process of a fuel particle during gasification (adopted and modi-fied from neves et al [9])

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 13

224 heat management of the Gasification Process

As temperature is the major influencing parameter on the kinetics of the different gasification reactions the thermal management of the gasification reactor is of particular importance The conversion steps from solid fuel to product gas as illus-trated in Figure 24 occur at different temperature levels A qualitative representation

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

Temperature (ordmC)

Tars (C10H8)

CxHy

CH4

CO

CO2

H2O

H2

Mol

ar f

ract

ion

of c

ompo

nent

i

(a)

Temperature (ordmC)

Yie

ld (

kgk

g da

f fu

el)

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1

Char yield

Total yield per kg daf fuelGases tars and pyrolytic water

(b)

fiGure 25 Pyrolysis gas molar composition (a) and overall mass yields (b) as a function of temperature (based on neves [9]) for a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066)

14 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of the temperature profile for a fuel particle over time is illustrated in Figure 26a After particle heat‐up the moisture is evaporated The dry fuel particle is further heated releasing pyrolysis gases and finally the char particle is gasified Heat for gasification needs to be supplied by the hot environment Particle combustion indicated by the dashed line occurs at a particle temperature above environ-ment due to the exothermic nature of the combustion reactions For complete conversion of a biomass fuel with initial moisture content of 20 wt the distribution of the heat demand for conversion on the different processes is illustrated in Figure 26b The gasification heat demand is dominant but even pyrolysis and drying

Dry

ing

Time

(a)

(b)

Tem

pera

ture

Dev

olat

iliza

tion

Pyro

lysi

s Char gasication

Char combustion

Surrounding temperature

a dcb

a ndash Preheating ndash 40b ndash Drying ndash 82

c ndash Pyrolysis ndash 76d ndash Gasication ndash 802

Fraction of total heat demand(6566 kJkg daf fuel)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat demand [kJkg daf fuel]

Gasication temperature (850 degC)

Pyrolysistemperature

(450 degC)

fiGure 26 (a) Qualitative representation of the temperature evolution of a fuel particle during gasification (b) Steam gasification heat demand profile for full conversion of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) at equilibrium (SB ratio = 05

steam supply at 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture)

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 15

represent a considerable share of the specific heat demand for conversion of course in reality pyrolysis and gasification rather occur over a certain temperature range instead of the fixed temperatures used for the calculation (nevesrsquo model for pyrolysis [9] and equilibrium calculations for the gasification) In addition the processes are not strictly sequential but partly occur in parallel within a gasification reactor nevertheless the gasification heat demand will be largest and above all requires the highest temperature level

All heat for the conversion process within the gasification unit needs to be supplied by combustion of part of the fuel or additional external fuel at high temperature Changing the initial moisture content of the biomass will reduce the drying heat demand [b in Figure 26b] and therefore improve the conversion efficiency External drying also allows for using a heat source at lower temperature improving the conversion process from an exergy perspective Even the pyrolysis process can be conducted in a separate reactor with a separate heat source For these considerations in relation to the thermal management of the gasification process temperaturendashheat load graphs can be a useful tool for identifying improvements for the energy efficiency of the gasification process Figure 27 presents such a graph as an example of an indirect gasification process modelled using nevesrsquo pyrolysis model and gasification at equilibrium It is assumed that the amount of char combusted is set to ensure that the combustion heat covers the heat demand for fuel heat‐up drying pyrolysis and gasification The supply of steam to gasification (400 degC) and hot air to combustion (400 degC) is an additional heat demand that needs to be covered The thick curve in Figure 27 represents the aggregation of all the above‐mentioned heat demands whereas the dashed curve is a representation of all heat sources namely the combustion

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat load [kJkg daf fuel]

Preheating biomass air and water (steam)

Moisture evaporationand steam generation

Pyrolysis andpreheating air and steam

Gasific

ation

Tpyrolysis = 450 ordmC

Tgasification = 850 ordmC

Tcombustion = 900 ordmCChar combustion

Gas

coo

ling

(pro

duct

gas

and

com

busti

on fl

ue g

as)Maximum amount

of excess heat3610 kJkg daf

fiGure 27 Temperature heat load curve for indirect steam gasification of a generic bio-mass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) SB ratio = 05 air and steam supply

at 25 degC and heated to 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture

16 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of char and the cooling of hot product gas and combustion flue gases to ambient tem-perature It is obvious that for ideal heat transfer the process has a considerable amount of excess heat allowing for a further increase in conversion to product gas by more efficient use of the heat and reducing the char combustion Converting more solid fuel to product gas will increase the heat demand while at the same time the heat supply will decrease as less char is burnt Even considering the overall SnG process these curves can be used for a holistic analysis of the heat integration of sinks and sources including the operations up‐ and downstream of the gasification step Heat from the methanation reaction might for example be used for biomass drying or for regeneration of an amine solution used for downstream Co

2 removal

The slope of the heat demand curves for pyrolysis and gasification also is dependent on the gas composition that actually is obtained during the different processes A deviation from equilibrium conditions for the gasification will result in considerable changes of the conversion heat demand Two parameters commonly used in thermal conversion processes are used to illustrate the influence of different parameters on the energy performance of the gasification process The first param-eter is the relative air to fuel ratio λ defining the amount of air (oxygen) actually supplied to the reaction in relation to the amount necessary for complete combustion according to stoichiometry

n

nair o actual

air o stoichiometric

2

2

(27)

The second parameter commonly used in gasification is the chemical efficiency ηch

relating the chemical energy content of the product gas to the fuel chemical energy η

ch can be defined on both a lower and a higher heating value basis but in order to

avoid confusion with respect to moisture content the higher heating value is used here

ch HHV

PG

fuel fuel

HHV

HHV

i

i i

n

n (28)

Figure 28 shows λ and ηchHHV

for the base case as illustrated in Figure 27 as well as the influence of changes in different operating parameters Increasing the feed tem-perature for both steam to gasification (Point 1 in Figure 28) and air to combustion (Point 3 in Figure 28) increases the chemical efficiency and reduces λ as less char needs to be burnt reducing the incoming moisture content of the biomass from 20 to 10 wt (Point 4 in Figure 28) results in a remarkable effect reducing the necessary air to fuel ratio and gives a relative increase of the chemical efficiency of 32 Assuming heat losses from the gasification unit (point 6 in Figure 28) corresponding to 2 of the thermal input on a higher heating value basis on the other hand considerably increases the air to fuel ratio and leads to a relative decrease of the chemical efficiency by 3 All changes except for points 5 7 and 8 represent thermal

Page 13: cover thumb - download.e-bookshelf.de · 10.4 PSI’s Catalytic SNG Process 266 10.4.1 Process Description and Layout 266 10.4.2 Mass Balance 268 10.4.3 Energy Balance 269 10.4.4

2 INTRODUCTORy REmARKS

enhanced oil recovery (EOR) Back then a dozen coal to SNG projects were started including EOR Now due to the rapidly increasing exploitation of the shale gas and the connected possibility for a significant reduction of CO

2 emission all the projects

in the United States have been stoppedHowever all the mentioned motivations for SNG production that is shortage of

domestic natural gas use of domestic coal reserves which are far away from the highly populated areas and the possibility for clean and efficient combustion still prevail in China Therefore China is now by far the most important market for the production of SNG from coal Three large plants have started operation and further plants are planned or under construction

In Europe several aspects triggered a reconsideration of SNG production about 15 years ago Due to its cleaner combustion and inherently lower CO

2 emission

using natural gas in transportation (eg for CNG cars) is supported in many coun-tries and has even been economically beneficial for the past few years due to the lower gas price With the aim of the European Commission to replace up to 20 of European fuel consumption by biofuel replacing natural gas partly with bio‐methane becomes necessary So far bio‐methane is mostly produced by up‐grading biogas from anaerobic digestion However due to the limited amount of substrate this pathway cannot be increased much more and other sources of bio‐methane are sought

Additionally many European countries wish to use their domestic biomass resources for energy production in order to decrease CO

2 emissions and the import

of energy A major part of the biomass is ligno‐cellulosic (mostly wood) and mainly used for heating for example in wood pellet heating As the heat demand is gen-erally decreasing due to better building insulation the conversion of wood to high value forms of energy that is electricity and fuels is of increasing interest Like in the case of coal conversion to fuels requires (so far) gasification as the first step As shown by process simulations and the first demonstration plants the conversion of wood to SNG can reach significantly higher efficiencies than conversion to liquid fuels

Very recently a third aspect began to gain greater importance especially in Central Europe Due to the increasing integration of stochastic renewable sources like photovoltaics and wind energy into electricity generation the demand for balancing the electricity supply and the demand over spatial and temporal distances is increasing For the future even the seasonal storage of electricity may be necessary Here the production of SNG can play an important role While the gasification of solid feedstocks is a more or less continuous process the further conversion to electricity or SNG can be flexibly adjusted to the balancing needs of the electricity grid within so‐called polygeneration schemes

moreover in times where the electricity production from renewables exceeds the actual demand in the electricity grid (a situation that today occasionally is observed in Central Europe and is expected to be more common in future) producing SNG could utilize the excess electricity instead of curtailing photovoltaics or wind tur-bines In so‐called power to gas applications hydrogen is produced from excess electricity by electrolysis of water and then converted to SNG by methanation of

OVERVIEW 3

carbon oxides As a source of carbon oxides biogas producer gas from (biomass) gasification flue gas from industry or even CO

2 from the atmosphere can be consid-

ered opening a pathway to produce SNG without solid feedstock that can be stored or transported over long distances within the existing natural gas infrastructure

12 overvIeW

This book aims at a suitable overview over the different pathways to produce SNG (Figure 11)

The first four chapters cover the main process steps during conversion of coal and dry biomass to SNG gasification gas cleaning methanation and gas upgrading The main technology options will be highlighted and the impact of a technology choice for downstream processes and the complete process chain In these chapters espe-cially in the chapter on methanation reactors the state of the art coal to SNG processes are discussed in detail

The following chapters describe a number of novel processes for the production of SNG with their specific combination of process steps as well as the boundary con-ditions for which the respective process was developed These processes comprise those which are already in operation (eg the 20 mW

SNG bio‐SNG production in

Gothenburg Sweden or the 6 mWSNG

power to gas plant in Werlte Germany) and processes which are still under development

The gasification chapter covers the thermodynamics of gasification and presents both coal and biomass gasification technologies

Coal Dry biomass

gasification

Gas cleaning

Methanation

Methanation

SNG (CH4)

CO2 from air or industry

H2O CO2(H2)

H2 from electrolysis(power-to-gas)

Algae manure

Hydrothermalgasification

Biogas fromdigestion

Raw SNG CH4 H2O (CO2 H2)

Gas upgrading

FIgure 11 The different pathways to produce SNG

4 INTRODUCTORy REmARKS

The gas cleaning chapter discusses the impurities to be expected in gasification‐derived producer gas explains the state of the art gas cleaning technologies and focuses on the innovative gas cleaning steps which are developed for hot gas cleaning

The chapter on methanation reactors presents the chemical reactions proceeding inside the reactors their thermodynamic limitation and their reaction mechanisms Further an overview of the different reactor types with their advantages and chal-lenges is given covering coal to SNG biomass to SNG and power to gas processes The last section of this chapter focuses on the modeling and simulation of methana-tion reactors including the necessary experiments to determine reaction kinetics and to generate data for model validation

The chapter on gas‐upgrading discusses technologies for gas drying CO2 and

hydrogen removal based on adsorption absorption and membranes and includes a techno‐economic comparison

The chapter on the GoBiGas project (ldquoGothenburg Bio Gasrdquo) presents the boundary conditions and technologies applied in the 20 mW

SNG wood to SNG plant

in Gothenburg Sweden which was commissioned in 2014The next chapter explains the development of the power to gas process at the

Zentrum fuumlr solare Wasserstofferzeugung (ZSW) including the 6 mWSNG

plant in Werlte Germany

The chapter on fluidised bed methanation describes the process development at the Paul Scherrer Institut aiming at a flexible technology for efficiently converting wood to SNG and for hydrogen conversion within power to gas applications

The following chapter presents the technologies developed at the Energy Center of the Netherlands (ECN) for efficient SNG production from wood especially their allothermal gasification technology (mILENA) and their broad experience with gas cleaning

The chapter on hydrothermal gasification discusses the unique technology allow-ing for the simultaneous catalytic gasification and methanation of wet biomass under super‐critical conditions

The chapter on agnionrsquos small scale SNG concept focuses on two novel technol-ogies that allow for significant process simplification especially in small scale bio‐SNG plants the pressurized heatpipe reformer and the polytropic fixed bed methanation

The last chapter offers a view on the research for even more simplified SNG processes that is for methanation steps that allow for integrated desulfurization and methanation

The author of these lines wishes to express his gratitude especially to the contrib-utors of this book and to the persons at the publisher for their excellent work but also to all colleagues scientific collaborators partners friends and scientists in the community for many fruitful and interesting discussions All of you bring the field forward and made this book possible

Synthetic Natural Gas from Coal Dry Biomass and Power-to-Gas Applications First EditionEdited by Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollazcopy 2016 John Wiley amp Sons Inc Published 2016 by John Wiley amp Sons Inc

5

2Coal and Biomass GasifiCation for snG ProduCtion

Stefan Heyne Martin Seemann and Tilman J Schildhauer

21 introduCtion ndash BasiC requirements for GasifiCation in the framework of snG ProduCtion

Within the production of synthetic natural gas ndash basically methane ndash from solid feed-stock such as coal or biomass the major conversion step is gasification generating a product gas containing a mixture of permanent and condensable gases as well as solid residues (eg char ash) The gasification step can be conducted in different atmospheres and using different reaction agents Figure 21 represents the basic pathway from solid fuel to methane considering the main elements carbon hydrogen and oxygen It is obvious that an increase in hydrogen content is necessary for all feedstock illustrated At the same time the oxygen content needs to be reduced in particular for biogenic feedstock that is oxygenated to a higher degree

There exist different strategies or pathways for performing the conversion from feedstock towards methane within gasification as illustrated in Figure 21 Adding steam as a gasification agent is common practice not only due to the stoichiometric effect but also for enhanced char gasification and temperature moderation within the reactor H

2 addition is used in hydrogasification leading to a higher initial methane

6 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

content in the product gas [3 4] Co2 removal is an intrinsic part of the SnG produc-

tion process some gasification concepts using adsorptive bed material for direct Co2

removal within the gasification reactor [5] The addition of oxygen (common practice for all direct gasification technologies) actually leads to an increased need for Co

2

removal downstream of the reactor For indirect gasification where ungasified char is combusted in a separate chamber for heat supply the composition is changed towards methane via path (c) in Figure 21 Pretreatment technologies such as torrefaction decrease the oxygen content of the feedstock at the cost of increased energy demand

22 thermodynamiCs of GasifiCation

For an increased understanding of the role of gasification for the overall SnG process the basic thermodynamic aspects within gasification are discussed in the following The gasification process is a series of different conversions involving both homoge-neous and heterogeneous reactions The basic steps from solid fuel to product gas are drying pyrolysis or devolatilization and gasification depending on the physical size of the fuel these different steps occur in a sequential order for small particles or

40

20

0

60

80

0 20 40 60 80

0

20

40

60

80

Oxygen

Carbon

Hyd

roge

n

Feedstock

CH4

H2O

CO2

O2

H2

Carbon1 Biomass (hardwood softwood straw)2 Lignite coal3 Bituminous coal4 Anthracite coal

3

4

1

2

a removing CO2b adding H2c removing char (C)d adding steame adding O2

a

b d

e

c

fiGure 21 CHo diagram for coal and biomass Feedstock composition based on [1 2] data from Higman 2008 [1] Phyllis2 database for biomass and waste httpswwwecnnlphyllis2 Energy research Centre of the netherlands

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 7

overlap in bigger particles The detailed description of the complete process is a com-plex task and the considerations made in the following therefore focus on specific parts of the process and their implications for the overall conversion starting with some stoichiometric aspects for gasification

221 Gasification reactions

The major reactions occurring during the gasification step that commonly are consid-ered relevant are

C s o g Co g kJ mol partial oxidation0 5 1112 (21)

Co g o g Co g kJ mol carbon monoxide combustion0 5 2832 2 (22)

C s o g Co g kJ mol carbon combustion2 2 394ndash (23)

C s Co g Co g kJ mol reverse Boudouard reaction2 2 172 (24)

C s H o g Co g H g kJ mol water gas reaction2 2 131 (25)

Co g H o g H g Co g kJ mol water gas shift reaction2 2 2 41ndash (26)

CH g H o g H g Co g kJ mol steam reforming4 2 23 206 (27)

The char gasification reactions converting carbon into gaseous fuels [Equations (24) and (25)] are endothermic reactions requiring heat supply that is realized either by combusting part of the fuel in the same reactor (direct or autothermal gasification) or by indirect heat supply from an external combustion or heat source (indirect or allo-thermal gasification)

222 overall Gasification Process ndash equilibrium Based Considerations

Considering the overall process from coal or biomass to methane at the example of steam gasification the reaction stoichiometry can be expressed as

C o H o CH Cox y zH a b c2 4 2 (28)

with a xy z

bx y z

cx y z

4 2 2 8 4 2 8 4

Table 21 gives the coefficients for steam gasification to methane [Equation (28)] for different coal and biomass feedstock materials allowing the calculation of the heat

ta

Bl

e 2

1

Com

posi

tion

and

ove

rall

rea

ctio

n d

ata

for

stea

m G

asif

icat

ion

for

dif

fere

nt f

eeds

tock

mat

eria

ls

Feed

stoc

kM

olar

C

ompo

sitio

nl

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]c

rea

ctio

n C

oeff

icie

nts

for

Equ

atio

n (2

8)

ΔH

rM

etha

ne Y

ield

ab

c[M

Jkg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

[kg

CH

4kg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

Coa

laB

row

n co

al ndash

rhe

in

Ger

man

yC

H0

88o

029

262

273

063

20

537

046

3ndash0

19

048

9

lig

nite

ndash n

dak

ota

uSA

CH

072

o0

2526

727

70

697

052

90

471

06

050

9B

itum

inou

s ndash

typi

cal

Sout

h A

fric

aC

H0

68o

008

3435

10

792

056

70

433

12

10

654

Ant

hrac

ite ndash

ruh

r G

erm

any

CH

047

o0

0236

237

00

873

055

30

447

14

60

693

Bio

mas

sbW

illow

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

46o

065

185

199

031

00

520

048

0ndash0

45

035

0B

eech

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

47o

069

179

192

028

60

511

048

9ndash0

71

033

3Fi

r ndash

soft

woo

dC

H1

45o

065

196

210

031

30

520

048

0ndash1

58

035

0Sp

ruce

ndash s

oftw

ood

CH

142

o0

6818

419

70

304

050

80

492

ndash11

70

335

Whe

at s

traw

CH

146

o0

6818

319

60

297

051

20

488

ndash08

40

338

ric

e st

raw

CH

143

o0

6817

518

80

303

050

80

492

ndash02

30

335

a Tak

en f

rom

Hig

man

and

van

der

Bur

gt [

1]

b Tak

en f

rom

Phy

llis

[2]

ndash av

erag

e da

ta f

or m

ater

ial g

roup

c H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

] =

lH

V [

MJ

kg d

af]

+ 2

44

middot 89

4 middot H

[w

t d

af]

100

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 9

of reaction (based on the HHV of feedstock and methane all reactants and products at 25 degC) as well as the stoichiometric methane yield per kilogram of feedstock The heat of reaction for the overall reaction corresponds to well below 10 for all feed-stock materials For coal based feedstock with low oxygen content the reaction is endothermic while for brown coal and biomass feedstock it is exothermic The methane yield per kilogram feedstock also is considerably lower for biomass based feedstock due to the high oxygen content one option to improve the methane yield would be the additional supply of hydrogen as for example considered in hydrogas-ification The only technical conversion process capable of converting carbonaceous feedstock directly to methane and carbon dioxide according to the reaction in Equation (28) is gasification under supercritical conditions so‐called hydrothermal gasification [6ndash8] This technology is capable of handling wet feedstock but not yet available at commercial scale and is not covered in this chapter Common gasifica-tion technology converts the feedstock to a product gas being a mixture of Co Co

2

H2 H

2o CH

4 light and higher hydrocarbons and trace components followed by a

downstream gas cleaning and methane synthesis stepThe major operating parameters for gasification are pressure and temperature

Equilibrium calculations for steam gasification (05 kg H2okg daf feedstock) for a

generic biomass are used to illustrate the basic trends for the product gas composition and heat demand with changing pressure and temperature All feedstock is assumed to be converted to product gas As can be observed from Figure 22 methane formation is favored by lower temperatures and higher pressures Hydrogen and carbon monoxide formation increases with temperature and so does the endothermi-city of the overall reaction The theoretically exothermic reaction to CH

4 and Co

2 at

25 degC [similar to Equation (28)] turns into an endothermic reaction requiring heat supply at higher temperature

light hydrocarbons (represented by C2H

4) and tars (represented by C

10H

8) are only

formed to a very small extent according to equilibrium calculations The amount of steam added for gasification will mainly influence the H

2Co ratio via the water gas

shift reaction Equation (26) In reality the equilibrium state is usually not reached in the shown temperature range but the actual product gas composition resulting from gasification is influenced by a number of other parameters as will be discussed in subsequent sections An increase in gasification pressure favors methane formation predicted by equilibrium calculations at 800 degC the methane molar fraction increases from 0 to about 155 from 1 to 30 bar With more methane being formed the endo-thermic heat of reaction is reduced by 666 from 1 to 30 bar Again no to very little formation of light hydrocarbons and tars is predicted by the equilibrium even at higher pressures At high pressures and moderate temperatures a mixture of basically CH

4 Co

2 and H

2o ndash representing Equation (28) ndash can be obtained A process

example is hydrothermal gasification which is operating at these conditions but still is at development state [6ndash8] The above‐mentioned trends are all under the assumption of complete conversion of feedstock to product gas Many gasification concepts how-ever have a considerable amount of char remaining unconverted being removed with the ashes or in indirect gasification being converted in a separate combustion chamber for supplying the gasification heat The carbon feedstock entering the gas phase

10 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

during gasification will therefore be drastically changed when carbon conversion is incomplete Even minor effects on the hydrogen and oxygen balance in the gas phase can be expected as for example biomass char still contains oxygen and hydrogen [9] Figure 23 depicts the influence of pressure and temperature on carbon conversion at temperatures below 800 degC considerable amounts of solid carbon formation are pre-dicted This will in turn influence the equilibrium conditions in the gas phase as the carbon stock in gas phase is reduced The major reactions affected are the Boudouard water gas and waterndashgas shift reactions Equations (24) to (26) Incomplete carbon conversion leads to a decrease of Co concentration in the product gas as well as a decrease in H

2 compared to equilibrium at complete conversion

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

30minus2000

0

2000

4000

6000

ΔH

r [kJ

kg

daf

feed

]

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

300

01020304

y CH

4y H

2y H

2O

y CO

2y C

O

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

T [degC] T [degC]

T [degC]T [degC]

T [degC] T [degC]

P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar] P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar]

fiGure 22 Pressure and temperature dependence of the molar concentration of major gas species and the heat of reaction for steam gasification (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic

biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH143

o066

) assuming complete carbon conversion calculated by ASPEn PluS

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 11

223 Gasification ndash a multi‐step Process deviating from equilibrium

Equilibrium calculations while useful for identifying trends with changing operating conditions cannot however predict the performance of technical equipment to a full extent They represent a boundary value that can be approached but never reached The gasification process on a physical level is a multi‐stage process starting with drying of the feedstock followed by pyrolysis and gasificationcombustion The kinetics of the numerous homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions occurring ndash as well as the residence time and reactor setup ndash ultimately determine the product gas composition resulting from gasification Figure 24 illustrates a simplified reaction network for the conversion from received fuel to product gas The drying and pri-mary pyrolysis (also referred to as devolatilization) steps are similar for all gasifica-tion technologies whereas the extent of gasification reactions occurring as well as the approach to equilibrium are a strong function of the gasification medium and the reactor setup during pyrolysis a considerable amount of tars a complex mixture of 1‐ to 5‐ring aromatic hydrocarbons is formed that will undergo various conversion pathways during gasification In the final product gas tar can still represent a consid-erable amount of energy for example biomass steam gasification at 800 degC can result in more than 33 g tarsnm3 corresponding to about 8 of the total product gas energy content on a lower heating value basis [10]

200400

600800

10001200

0

10

20

30

04

02

0

06

08

1

T [degC]

P [bar]

Am

ount

of

feed

stoc

k ca

rbon

conv

erte

d to

gas

pha

se

fiGure 23 Carbon conversion predicted by equilibrium calculations for steam gasifica-tion (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt

CH143

o066

)

12 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

The gas composition from primary pyrolysis represents the starting point for the gasification reactions neves et al [9] conducted an extensive literature review of data on pyrolysis experiments and derived an empirical model for estimating gas species yields as well as tar and char yields and elemental composition as a function of peak pyrolysis temperature Figure 25 illustrates the pyrolysis gas composition and the total gas and char yield based on nevesrsquo model In contrast to the equilibrium calculations for gasification represented in Figure 22 the model predicts consider-able amounts of tars as well as a considerable amount of char produced from pyrol-ysis Even light hydrocarbons are present in the pyrolysis gas Generally speaking the product distribution from pyrolysis as presented in Figure 25 undergoes conversion towards the equilibrium conditions during the final conversion step in Figure 24 ndash the gasification step

The extent of conversion towards the equilibrium state is a function of a large number of parameters such as pressure and temperature reactor design and associated residence time for gas and solids as well as gasndashsolid mixing and the presence of catalytically active materials promoting specific reactions among others

Secondary PyrolysisGasication

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

DehydrationPolymerizationGasication

ReformingCrackingOxidationWater-gas shift

dry fuel

Primary Pyrolysis

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

Drying

As-receivedfuel particle Moisture

Dry fuel

Gasication medium(H2O H2 O2 CO2

)

Productgas

fiGure 24 Conversion process of a fuel particle during gasification (adopted and modi-fied from neves et al [9])

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 13

224 heat management of the Gasification Process

As temperature is the major influencing parameter on the kinetics of the different gasification reactions the thermal management of the gasification reactor is of particular importance The conversion steps from solid fuel to product gas as illus-trated in Figure 24 occur at different temperature levels A qualitative representation

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

Temperature (ordmC)

Tars (C10H8)

CxHy

CH4

CO

CO2

H2O

H2

Mol

ar f

ract

ion

of c

ompo

nent

i

(a)

Temperature (ordmC)

Yie

ld (

kgk

g da

f fu

el)

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1

Char yield

Total yield per kg daf fuelGases tars and pyrolytic water

(b)

fiGure 25 Pyrolysis gas molar composition (a) and overall mass yields (b) as a function of temperature (based on neves [9]) for a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066)

14 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of the temperature profile for a fuel particle over time is illustrated in Figure 26a After particle heat‐up the moisture is evaporated The dry fuel particle is further heated releasing pyrolysis gases and finally the char particle is gasified Heat for gasification needs to be supplied by the hot environment Particle combustion indicated by the dashed line occurs at a particle temperature above environ-ment due to the exothermic nature of the combustion reactions For complete conversion of a biomass fuel with initial moisture content of 20 wt the distribution of the heat demand for conversion on the different processes is illustrated in Figure 26b The gasification heat demand is dominant but even pyrolysis and drying

Dry

ing

Time

(a)

(b)

Tem

pera

ture

Dev

olat

iliza

tion

Pyro

lysi

s Char gasication

Char combustion

Surrounding temperature

a dcb

a ndash Preheating ndash 40b ndash Drying ndash 82

c ndash Pyrolysis ndash 76d ndash Gasication ndash 802

Fraction of total heat demand(6566 kJkg daf fuel)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat demand [kJkg daf fuel]

Gasication temperature (850 degC)

Pyrolysistemperature

(450 degC)

fiGure 26 (a) Qualitative representation of the temperature evolution of a fuel particle during gasification (b) Steam gasification heat demand profile for full conversion of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) at equilibrium (SB ratio = 05

steam supply at 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture)

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 15

represent a considerable share of the specific heat demand for conversion of course in reality pyrolysis and gasification rather occur over a certain temperature range instead of the fixed temperatures used for the calculation (nevesrsquo model for pyrolysis [9] and equilibrium calculations for the gasification) In addition the processes are not strictly sequential but partly occur in parallel within a gasification reactor nevertheless the gasification heat demand will be largest and above all requires the highest temperature level

All heat for the conversion process within the gasification unit needs to be supplied by combustion of part of the fuel or additional external fuel at high temperature Changing the initial moisture content of the biomass will reduce the drying heat demand [b in Figure 26b] and therefore improve the conversion efficiency External drying also allows for using a heat source at lower temperature improving the conversion process from an exergy perspective Even the pyrolysis process can be conducted in a separate reactor with a separate heat source For these considerations in relation to the thermal management of the gasification process temperaturendashheat load graphs can be a useful tool for identifying improvements for the energy efficiency of the gasification process Figure 27 presents such a graph as an example of an indirect gasification process modelled using nevesrsquo pyrolysis model and gasification at equilibrium It is assumed that the amount of char combusted is set to ensure that the combustion heat covers the heat demand for fuel heat‐up drying pyrolysis and gasification The supply of steam to gasification (400 degC) and hot air to combustion (400 degC) is an additional heat demand that needs to be covered The thick curve in Figure 27 represents the aggregation of all the above‐mentioned heat demands whereas the dashed curve is a representation of all heat sources namely the combustion

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat load [kJkg daf fuel]

Preheating biomass air and water (steam)

Moisture evaporationand steam generation

Pyrolysis andpreheating air and steam

Gasific

ation

Tpyrolysis = 450 ordmC

Tgasification = 850 ordmC

Tcombustion = 900 ordmCChar combustion

Gas

coo

ling

(pro

duct

gas

and

com

busti

on fl

ue g

as)Maximum amount

of excess heat3610 kJkg daf

fiGure 27 Temperature heat load curve for indirect steam gasification of a generic bio-mass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) SB ratio = 05 air and steam supply

at 25 degC and heated to 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture

16 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of char and the cooling of hot product gas and combustion flue gases to ambient tem-perature It is obvious that for ideal heat transfer the process has a considerable amount of excess heat allowing for a further increase in conversion to product gas by more efficient use of the heat and reducing the char combustion Converting more solid fuel to product gas will increase the heat demand while at the same time the heat supply will decrease as less char is burnt Even considering the overall SnG process these curves can be used for a holistic analysis of the heat integration of sinks and sources including the operations up‐ and downstream of the gasification step Heat from the methanation reaction might for example be used for biomass drying or for regeneration of an amine solution used for downstream Co

2 removal

The slope of the heat demand curves for pyrolysis and gasification also is dependent on the gas composition that actually is obtained during the different processes A deviation from equilibrium conditions for the gasification will result in considerable changes of the conversion heat demand Two parameters commonly used in thermal conversion processes are used to illustrate the influence of different parameters on the energy performance of the gasification process The first param-eter is the relative air to fuel ratio λ defining the amount of air (oxygen) actually supplied to the reaction in relation to the amount necessary for complete combustion according to stoichiometry

n

nair o actual

air o stoichiometric

2

2

(27)

The second parameter commonly used in gasification is the chemical efficiency ηch

relating the chemical energy content of the product gas to the fuel chemical energy η

ch can be defined on both a lower and a higher heating value basis but in order to

avoid confusion with respect to moisture content the higher heating value is used here

ch HHV

PG

fuel fuel

HHV

HHV

i

i i

n

n (28)

Figure 28 shows λ and ηchHHV

for the base case as illustrated in Figure 27 as well as the influence of changes in different operating parameters Increasing the feed tem-perature for both steam to gasification (Point 1 in Figure 28) and air to combustion (Point 3 in Figure 28) increases the chemical efficiency and reduces λ as less char needs to be burnt reducing the incoming moisture content of the biomass from 20 to 10 wt (Point 4 in Figure 28) results in a remarkable effect reducing the necessary air to fuel ratio and gives a relative increase of the chemical efficiency of 32 Assuming heat losses from the gasification unit (point 6 in Figure 28) corresponding to 2 of the thermal input on a higher heating value basis on the other hand considerably increases the air to fuel ratio and leads to a relative decrease of the chemical efficiency by 3 All changes except for points 5 7 and 8 represent thermal

Page 14: cover thumb - download.e-bookshelf.de · 10.4 PSI’s Catalytic SNG Process 266 10.4.1 Process Description and Layout 266 10.4.2 Mass Balance 268 10.4.3 Energy Balance 269 10.4.4

OVERVIEW 3

carbon oxides As a source of carbon oxides biogas producer gas from (biomass) gasification flue gas from industry or even CO

2 from the atmosphere can be consid-

ered opening a pathway to produce SNG without solid feedstock that can be stored or transported over long distances within the existing natural gas infrastructure

12 overvIeW

This book aims at a suitable overview over the different pathways to produce SNG (Figure 11)

The first four chapters cover the main process steps during conversion of coal and dry biomass to SNG gasification gas cleaning methanation and gas upgrading The main technology options will be highlighted and the impact of a technology choice for downstream processes and the complete process chain In these chapters espe-cially in the chapter on methanation reactors the state of the art coal to SNG processes are discussed in detail

The following chapters describe a number of novel processes for the production of SNG with their specific combination of process steps as well as the boundary con-ditions for which the respective process was developed These processes comprise those which are already in operation (eg the 20 mW

SNG bio‐SNG production in

Gothenburg Sweden or the 6 mWSNG

power to gas plant in Werlte Germany) and processes which are still under development

The gasification chapter covers the thermodynamics of gasification and presents both coal and biomass gasification technologies

Coal Dry biomass

gasification

Gas cleaning

Methanation

Methanation

SNG (CH4)

CO2 from air or industry

H2O CO2(H2)

H2 from electrolysis(power-to-gas)

Algae manure

Hydrothermalgasification

Biogas fromdigestion

Raw SNG CH4 H2O (CO2 H2)

Gas upgrading

FIgure 11 The different pathways to produce SNG

4 INTRODUCTORy REmARKS

The gas cleaning chapter discusses the impurities to be expected in gasification‐derived producer gas explains the state of the art gas cleaning technologies and focuses on the innovative gas cleaning steps which are developed for hot gas cleaning

The chapter on methanation reactors presents the chemical reactions proceeding inside the reactors their thermodynamic limitation and their reaction mechanisms Further an overview of the different reactor types with their advantages and chal-lenges is given covering coal to SNG biomass to SNG and power to gas processes The last section of this chapter focuses on the modeling and simulation of methana-tion reactors including the necessary experiments to determine reaction kinetics and to generate data for model validation

The chapter on gas‐upgrading discusses technologies for gas drying CO2 and

hydrogen removal based on adsorption absorption and membranes and includes a techno‐economic comparison

The chapter on the GoBiGas project (ldquoGothenburg Bio Gasrdquo) presents the boundary conditions and technologies applied in the 20 mW

SNG wood to SNG plant

in Gothenburg Sweden which was commissioned in 2014The next chapter explains the development of the power to gas process at the

Zentrum fuumlr solare Wasserstofferzeugung (ZSW) including the 6 mWSNG

plant in Werlte Germany

The chapter on fluidised bed methanation describes the process development at the Paul Scherrer Institut aiming at a flexible technology for efficiently converting wood to SNG and for hydrogen conversion within power to gas applications

The following chapter presents the technologies developed at the Energy Center of the Netherlands (ECN) for efficient SNG production from wood especially their allothermal gasification technology (mILENA) and their broad experience with gas cleaning

The chapter on hydrothermal gasification discusses the unique technology allow-ing for the simultaneous catalytic gasification and methanation of wet biomass under super‐critical conditions

The chapter on agnionrsquos small scale SNG concept focuses on two novel technol-ogies that allow for significant process simplification especially in small scale bio‐SNG plants the pressurized heatpipe reformer and the polytropic fixed bed methanation

The last chapter offers a view on the research for even more simplified SNG processes that is for methanation steps that allow for integrated desulfurization and methanation

The author of these lines wishes to express his gratitude especially to the contrib-utors of this book and to the persons at the publisher for their excellent work but also to all colleagues scientific collaborators partners friends and scientists in the community for many fruitful and interesting discussions All of you bring the field forward and made this book possible

Synthetic Natural Gas from Coal Dry Biomass and Power-to-Gas Applications First EditionEdited by Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollazcopy 2016 John Wiley amp Sons Inc Published 2016 by John Wiley amp Sons Inc

5

2Coal and Biomass GasifiCation for snG ProduCtion

Stefan Heyne Martin Seemann and Tilman J Schildhauer

21 introduCtion ndash BasiC requirements for GasifiCation in the framework of snG ProduCtion

Within the production of synthetic natural gas ndash basically methane ndash from solid feed-stock such as coal or biomass the major conversion step is gasification generating a product gas containing a mixture of permanent and condensable gases as well as solid residues (eg char ash) The gasification step can be conducted in different atmospheres and using different reaction agents Figure 21 represents the basic pathway from solid fuel to methane considering the main elements carbon hydrogen and oxygen It is obvious that an increase in hydrogen content is necessary for all feedstock illustrated At the same time the oxygen content needs to be reduced in particular for biogenic feedstock that is oxygenated to a higher degree

There exist different strategies or pathways for performing the conversion from feedstock towards methane within gasification as illustrated in Figure 21 Adding steam as a gasification agent is common practice not only due to the stoichiometric effect but also for enhanced char gasification and temperature moderation within the reactor H

2 addition is used in hydrogasification leading to a higher initial methane

6 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

content in the product gas [3 4] Co2 removal is an intrinsic part of the SnG produc-

tion process some gasification concepts using adsorptive bed material for direct Co2

removal within the gasification reactor [5] The addition of oxygen (common practice for all direct gasification technologies) actually leads to an increased need for Co

2

removal downstream of the reactor For indirect gasification where ungasified char is combusted in a separate chamber for heat supply the composition is changed towards methane via path (c) in Figure 21 Pretreatment technologies such as torrefaction decrease the oxygen content of the feedstock at the cost of increased energy demand

22 thermodynamiCs of GasifiCation

For an increased understanding of the role of gasification for the overall SnG process the basic thermodynamic aspects within gasification are discussed in the following The gasification process is a series of different conversions involving both homoge-neous and heterogeneous reactions The basic steps from solid fuel to product gas are drying pyrolysis or devolatilization and gasification depending on the physical size of the fuel these different steps occur in a sequential order for small particles or

40

20

0

60

80

0 20 40 60 80

0

20

40

60

80

Oxygen

Carbon

Hyd

roge

n

Feedstock

CH4

H2O

CO2

O2

H2

Carbon1 Biomass (hardwood softwood straw)2 Lignite coal3 Bituminous coal4 Anthracite coal

3

4

1

2

a removing CO2b adding H2c removing char (C)d adding steame adding O2

a

b d

e

c

fiGure 21 CHo diagram for coal and biomass Feedstock composition based on [1 2] data from Higman 2008 [1] Phyllis2 database for biomass and waste httpswwwecnnlphyllis2 Energy research Centre of the netherlands

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 7

overlap in bigger particles The detailed description of the complete process is a com-plex task and the considerations made in the following therefore focus on specific parts of the process and their implications for the overall conversion starting with some stoichiometric aspects for gasification

221 Gasification reactions

The major reactions occurring during the gasification step that commonly are consid-ered relevant are

C s o g Co g kJ mol partial oxidation0 5 1112 (21)

Co g o g Co g kJ mol carbon monoxide combustion0 5 2832 2 (22)

C s o g Co g kJ mol carbon combustion2 2 394ndash (23)

C s Co g Co g kJ mol reverse Boudouard reaction2 2 172 (24)

C s H o g Co g H g kJ mol water gas reaction2 2 131 (25)

Co g H o g H g Co g kJ mol water gas shift reaction2 2 2 41ndash (26)

CH g H o g H g Co g kJ mol steam reforming4 2 23 206 (27)

The char gasification reactions converting carbon into gaseous fuels [Equations (24) and (25)] are endothermic reactions requiring heat supply that is realized either by combusting part of the fuel in the same reactor (direct or autothermal gasification) or by indirect heat supply from an external combustion or heat source (indirect or allo-thermal gasification)

222 overall Gasification Process ndash equilibrium Based Considerations

Considering the overall process from coal or biomass to methane at the example of steam gasification the reaction stoichiometry can be expressed as

C o H o CH Cox y zH a b c2 4 2 (28)

with a xy z

bx y z

cx y z

4 2 2 8 4 2 8 4

Table 21 gives the coefficients for steam gasification to methane [Equation (28)] for different coal and biomass feedstock materials allowing the calculation of the heat

ta

Bl

e 2

1

Com

posi

tion

and

ove

rall

rea

ctio

n d

ata

for

stea

m G

asif

icat

ion

for

dif

fere

nt f

eeds

tock

mat

eria

ls

Feed

stoc

kM

olar

C

ompo

sitio

nl

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]c

rea

ctio

n C

oeff

icie

nts

for

Equ

atio

n (2

8)

ΔH

rM

etha

ne Y

ield

ab

c[M

Jkg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

[kg

CH

4kg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

Coa

laB

row

n co

al ndash

rhe

in

Ger

man

yC

H0

88o

029

262

273

063

20

537

046

3ndash0

19

048

9

lig

nite

ndash n

dak

ota

uSA

CH

072

o0

2526

727

70

697

052

90

471

06

050

9B

itum

inou

s ndash

typi

cal

Sout

h A

fric

aC

H0

68o

008

3435

10

792

056

70

433

12

10

654

Ant

hrac

ite ndash

ruh

r G

erm

any

CH

047

o0

0236

237

00

873

055

30

447

14

60

693

Bio

mas

sbW

illow

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

46o

065

185

199

031

00

520

048

0ndash0

45

035

0B

eech

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

47o

069

179

192

028

60

511

048

9ndash0

71

033

3Fi

r ndash

soft

woo

dC

H1

45o

065

196

210

031

30

520

048

0ndash1

58

035

0Sp

ruce

ndash s

oftw

ood

CH

142

o0

6818

419

70

304

050

80

492

ndash11

70

335

Whe

at s

traw

CH

146

o0

6818

319

60

297

051

20

488

ndash08

40

338

ric

e st

raw

CH

143

o0

6817

518

80

303

050

80

492

ndash02

30

335

a Tak

en f

rom

Hig

man

and

van

der

Bur

gt [

1]

b Tak

en f

rom

Phy

llis

[2]

ndash av

erag

e da

ta f

or m

ater

ial g

roup

c H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

] =

lH

V [

MJ

kg d

af]

+ 2

44

middot 89

4 middot H

[w

t d

af]

100

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 9

of reaction (based on the HHV of feedstock and methane all reactants and products at 25 degC) as well as the stoichiometric methane yield per kilogram of feedstock The heat of reaction for the overall reaction corresponds to well below 10 for all feed-stock materials For coal based feedstock with low oxygen content the reaction is endothermic while for brown coal and biomass feedstock it is exothermic The methane yield per kilogram feedstock also is considerably lower for biomass based feedstock due to the high oxygen content one option to improve the methane yield would be the additional supply of hydrogen as for example considered in hydrogas-ification The only technical conversion process capable of converting carbonaceous feedstock directly to methane and carbon dioxide according to the reaction in Equation (28) is gasification under supercritical conditions so‐called hydrothermal gasification [6ndash8] This technology is capable of handling wet feedstock but not yet available at commercial scale and is not covered in this chapter Common gasifica-tion technology converts the feedstock to a product gas being a mixture of Co Co

2

H2 H

2o CH

4 light and higher hydrocarbons and trace components followed by a

downstream gas cleaning and methane synthesis stepThe major operating parameters for gasification are pressure and temperature

Equilibrium calculations for steam gasification (05 kg H2okg daf feedstock) for a

generic biomass are used to illustrate the basic trends for the product gas composition and heat demand with changing pressure and temperature All feedstock is assumed to be converted to product gas As can be observed from Figure 22 methane formation is favored by lower temperatures and higher pressures Hydrogen and carbon monoxide formation increases with temperature and so does the endothermi-city of the overall reaction The theoretically exothermic reaction to CH

4 and Co

2 at

25 degC [similar to Equation (28)] turns into an endothermic reaction requiring heat supply at higher temperature

light hydrocarbons (represented by C2H

4) and tars (represented by C

10H

8) are only

formed to a very small extent according to equilibrium calculations The amount of steam added for gasification will mainly influence the H

2Co ratio via the water gas

shift reaction Equation (26) In reality the equilibrium state is usually not reached in the shown temperature range but the actual product gas composition resulting from gasification is influenced by a number of other parameters as will be discussed in subsequent sections An increase in gasification pressure favors methane formation predicted by equilibrium calculations at 800 degC the methane molar fraction increases from 0 to about 155 from 1 to 30 bar With more methane being formed the endo-thermic heat of reaction is reduced by 666 from 1 to 30 bar Again no to very little formation of light hydrocarbons and tars is predicted by the equilibrium even at higher pressures At high pressures and moderate temperatures a mixture of basically CH

4 Co

2 and H

2o ndash representing Equation (28) ndash can be obtained A process

example is hydrothermal gasification which is operating at these conditions but still is at development state [6ndash8] The above‐mentioned trends are all under the assumption of complete conversion of feedstock to product gas Many gasification concepts how-ever have a considerable amount of char remaining unconverted being removed with the ashes or in indirect gasification being converted in a separate combustion chamber for supplying the gasification heat The carbon feedstock entering the gas phase

10 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

during gasification will therefore be drastically changed when carbon conversion is incomplete Even minor effects on the hydrogen and oxygen balance in the gas phase can be expected as for example biomass char still contains oxygen and hydrogen [9] Figure 23 depicts the influence of pressure and temperature on carbon conversion at temperatures below 800 degC considerable amounts of solid carbon formation are pre-dicted This will in turn influence the equilibrium conditions in the gas phase as the carbon stock in gas phase is reduced The major reactions affected are the Boudouard water gas and waterndashgas shift reactions Equations (24) to (26) Incomplete carbon conversion leads to a decrease of Co concentration in the product gas as well as a decrease in H

2 compared to equilibrium at complete conversion

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

30minus2000

0

2000

4000

6000

ΔH

r [kJ

kg

daf

feed

]

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

300

01020304

y CH

4y H

2y H

2O

y CO

2y C

O

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

T [degC] T [degC]

T [degC]T [degC]

T [degC] T [degC]

P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar] P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar]

fiGure 22 Pressure and temperature dependence of the molar concentration of major gas species and the heat of reaction for steam gasification (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic

biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH143

o066

) assuming complete carbon conversion calculated by ASPEn PluS

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 11

223 Gasification ndash a multi‐step Process deviating from equilibrium

Equilibrium calculations while useful for identifying trends with changing operating conditions cannot however predict the performance of technical equipment to a full extent They represent a boundary value that can be approached but never reached The gasification process on a physical level is a multi‐stage process starting with drying of the feedstock followed by pyrolysis and gasificationcombustion The kinetics of the numerous homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions occurring ndash as well as the residence time and reactor setup ndash ultimately determine the product gas composition resulting from gasification Figure 24 illustrates a simplified reaction network for the conversion from received fuel to product gas The drying and pri-mary pyrolysis (also referred to as devolatilization) steps are similar for all gasifica-tion technologies whereas the extent of gasification reactions occurring as well as the approach to equilibrium are a strong function of the gasification medium and the reactor setup during pyrolysis a considerable amount of tars a complex mixture of 1‐ to 5‐ring aromatic hydrocarbons is formed that will undergo various conversion pathways during gasification In the final product gas tar can still represent a consid-erable amount of energy for example biomass steam gasification at 800 degC can result in more than 33 g tarsnm3 corresponding to about 8 of the total product gas energy content on a lower heating value basis [10]

200400

600800

10001200

0

10

20

30

04

02

0

06

08

1

T [degC]

P [bar]

Am

ount

of

feed

stoc

k ca

rbon

conv

erte

d to

gas

pha

se

fiGure 23 Carbon conversion predicted by equilibrium calculations for steam gasifica-tion (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt

CH143

o066

)

12 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

The gas composition from primary pyrolysis represents the starting point for the gasification reactions neves et al [9] conducted an extensive literature review of data on pyrolysis experiments and derived an empirical model for estimating gas species yields as well as tar and char yields and elemental composition as a function of peak pyrolysis temperature Figure 25 illustrates the pyrolysis gas composition and the total gas and char yield based on nevesrsquo model In contrast to the equilibrium calculations for gasification represented in Figure 22 the model predicts consider-able amounts of tars as well as a considerable amount of char produced from pyrol-ysis Even light hydrocarbons are present in the pyrolysis gas Generally speaking the product distribution from pyrolysis as presented in Figure 25 undergoes conversion towards the equilibrium conditions during the final conversion step in Figure 24 ndash the gasification step

The extent of conversion towards the equilibrium state is a function of a large number of parameters such as pressure and temperature reactor design and associated residence time for gas and solids as well as gasndashsolid mixing and the presence of catalytically active materials promoting specific reactions among others

Secondary PyrolysisGasication

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

DehydrationPolymerizationGasication

ReformingCrackingOxidationWater-gas shift

dry fuel

Primary Pyrolysis

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

Drying

As-receivedfuel particle Moisture

Dry fuel

Gasication medium(H2O H2 O2 CO2

)

Productgas

fiGure 24 Conversion process of a fuel particle during gasification (adopted and modi-fied from neves et al [9])

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 13

224 heat management of the Gasification Process

As temperature is the major influencing parameter on the kinetics of the different gasification reactions the thermal management of the gasification reactor is of particular importance The conversion steps from solid fuel to product gas as illus-trated in Figure 24 occur at different temperature levels A qualitative representation

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

Temperature (ordmC)

Tars (C10H8)

CxHy

CH4

CO

CO2

H2O

H2

Mol

ar f

ract

ion

of c

ompo

nent

i

(a)

Temperature (ordmC)

Yie

ld (

kgk

g da

f fu

el)

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1

Char yield

Total yield per kg daf fuelGases tars and pyrolytic water

(b)

fiGure 25 Pyrolysis gas molar composition (a) and overall mass yields (b) as a function of temperature (based on neves [9]) for a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066)

14 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of the temperature profile for a fuel particle over time is illustrated in Figure 26a After particle heat‐up the moisture is evaporated The dry fuel particle is further heated releasing pyrolysis gases and finally the char particle is gasified Heat for gasification needs to be supplied by the hot environment Particle combustion indicated by the dashed line occurs at a particle temperature above environ-ment due to the exothermic nature of the combustion reactions For complete conversion of a biomass fuel with initial moisture content of 20 wt the distribution of the heat demand for conversion on the different processes is illustrated in Figure 26b The gasification heat demand is dominant but even pyrolysis and drying

Dry

ing

Time

(a)

(b)

Tem

pera

ture

Dev

olat

iliza

tion

Pyro

lysi

s Char gasication

Char combustion

Surrounding temperature

a dcb

a ndash Preheating ndash 40b ndash Drying ndash 82

c ndash Pyrolysis ndash 76d ndash Gasication ndash 802

Fraction of total heat demand(6566 kJkg daf fuel)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat demand [kJkg daf fuel]

Gasication temperature (850 degC)

Pyrolysistemperature

(450 degC)

fiGure 26 (a) Qualitative representation of the temperature evolution of a fuel particle during gasification (b) Steam gasification heat demand profile for full conversion of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) at equilibrium (SB ratio = 05

steam supply at 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture)

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 15

represent a considerable share of the specific heat demand for conversion of course in reality pyrolysis and gasification rather occur over a certain temperature range instead of the fixed temperatures used for the calculation (nevesrsquo model for pyrolysis [9] and equilibrium calculations for the gasification) In addition the processes are not strictly sequential but partly occur in parallel within a gasification reactor nevertheless the gasification heat demand will be largest and above all requires the highest temperature level

All heat for the conversion process within the gasification unit needs to be supplied by combustion of part of the fuel or additional external fuel at high temperature Changing the initial moisture content of the biomass will reduce the drying heat demand [b in Figure 26b] and therefore improve the conversion efficiency External drying also allows for using a heat source at lower temperature improving the conversion process from an exergy perspective Even the pyrolysis process can be conducted in a separate reactor with a separate heat source For these considerations in relation to the thermal management of the gasification process temperaturendashheat load graphs can be a useful tool for identifying improvements for the energy efficiency of the gasification process Figure 27 presents such a graph as an example of an indirect gasification process modelled using nevesrsquo pyrolysis model and gasification at equilibrium It is assumed that the amount of char combusted is set to ensure that the combustion heat covers the heat demand for fuel heat‐up drying pyrolysis and gasification The supply of steam to gasification (400 degC) and hot air to combustion (400 degC) is an additional heat demand that needs to be covered The thick curve in Figure 27 represents the aggregation of all the above‐mentioned heat demands whereas the dashed curve is a representation of all heat sources namely the combustion

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat load [kJkg daf fuel]

Preheating biomass air and water (steam)

Moisture evaporationand steam generation

Pyrolysis andpreheating air and steam

Gasific

ation

Tpyrolysis = 450 ordmC

Tgasification = 850 ordmC

Tcombustion = 900 ordmCChar combustion

Gas

coo

ling

(pro

duct

gas

and

com

busti

on fl

ue g

as)Maximum amount

of excess heat3610 kJkg daf

fiGure 27 Temperature heat load curve for indirect steam gasification of a generic bio-mass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) SB ratio = 05 air and steam supply

at 25 degC and heated to 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture

16 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of char and the cooling of hot product gas and combustion flue gases to ambient tem-perature It is obvious that for ideal heat transfer the process has a considerable amount of excess heat allowing for a further increase in conversion to product gas by more efficient use of the heat and reducing the char combustion Converting more solid fuel to product gas will increase the heat demand while at the same time the heat supply will decrease as less char is burnt Even considering the overall SnG process these curves can be used for a holistic analysis of the heat integration of sinks and sources including the operations up‐ and downstream of the gasification step Heat from the methanation reaction might for example be used for biomass drying or for regeneration of an amine solution used for downstream Co

2 removal

The slope of the heat demand curves for pyrolysis and gasification also is dependent on the gas composition that actually is obtained during the different processes A deviation from equilibrium conditions for the gasification will result in considerable changes of the conversion heat demand Two parameters commonly used in thermal conversion processes are used to illustrate the influence of different parameters on the energy performance of the gasification process The first param-eter is the relative air to fuel ratio λ defining the amount of air (oxygen) actually supplied to the reaction in relation to the amount necessary for complete combustion according to stoichiometry

n

nair o actual

air o stoichiometric

2

2

(27)

The second parameter commonly used in gasification is the chemical efficiency ηch

relating the chemical energy content of the product gas to the fuel chemical energy η

ch can be defined on both a lower and a higher heating value basis but in order to

avoid confusion with respect to moisture content the higher heating value is used here

ch HHV

PG

fuel fuel

HHV

HHV

i

i i

n

n (28)

Figure 28 shows λ and ηchHHV

for the base case as illustrated in Figure 27 as well as the influence of changes in different operating parameters Increasing the feed tem-perature for both steam to gasification (Point 1 in Figure 28) and air to combustion (Point 3 in Figure 28) increases the chemical efficiency and reduces λ as less char needs to be burnt reducing the incoming moisture content of the biomass from 20 to 10 wt (Point 4 in Figure 28) results in a remarkable effect reducing the necessary air to fuel ratio and gives a relative increase of the chemical efficiency of 32 Assuming heat losses from the gasification unit (point 6 in Figure 28) corresponding to 2 of the thermal input on a higher heating value basis on the other hand considerably increases the air to fuel ratio and leads to a relative decrease of the chemical efficiency by 3 All changes except for points 5 7 and 8 represent thermal

Page 15: cover thumb - download.e-bookshelf.de · 10.4 PSI’s Catalytic SNG Process 266 10.4.1 Process Description and Layout 266 10.4.2 Mass Balance 268 10.4.3 Energy Balance 269 10.4.4

4 INTRODUCTORy REmARKS

The gas cleaning chapter discusses the impurities to be expected in gasification‐derived producer gas explains the state of the art gas cleaning technologies and focuses on the innovative gas cleaning steps which are developed for hot gas cleaning

The chapter on methanation reactors presents the chemical reactions proceeding inside the reactors their thermodynamic limitation and their reaction mechanisms Further an overview of the different reactor types with their advantages and chal-lenges is given covering coal to SNG biomass to SNG and power to gas processes The last section of this chapter focuses on the modeling and simulation of methana-tion reactors including the necessary experiments to determine reaction kinetics and to generate data for model validation

The chapter on gas‐upgrading discusses technologies for gas drying CO2 and

hydrogen removal based on adsorption absorption and membranes and includes a techno‐economic comparison

The chapter on the GoBiGas project (ldquoGothenburg Bio Gasrdquo) presents the boundary conditions and technologies applied in the 20 mW

SNG wood to SNG plant

in Gothenburg Sweden which was commissioned in 2014The next chapter explains the development of the power to gas process at the

Zentrum fuumlr solare Wasserstofferzeugung (ZSW) including the 6 mWSNG

plant in Werlte Germany

The chapter on fluidised bed methanation describes the process development at the Paul Scherrer Institut aiming at a flexible technology for efficiently converting wood to SNG and for hydrogen conversion within power to gas applications

The following chapter presents the technologies developed at the Energy Center of the Netherlands (ECN) for efficient SNG production from wood especially their allothermal gasification technology (mILENA) and their broad experience with gas cleaning

The chapter on hydrothermal gasification discusses the unique technology allow-ing for the simultaneous catalytic gasification and methanation of wet biomass under super‐critical conditions

The chapter on agnionrsquos small scale SNG concept focuses on two novel technol-ogies that allow for significant process simplification especially in small scale bio‐SNG plants the pressurized heatpipe reformer and the polytropic fixed bed methanation

The last chapter offers a view on the research for even more simplified SNG processes that is for methanation steps that allow for integrated desulfurization and methanation

The author of these lines wishes to express his gratitude especially to the contrib-utors of this book and to the persons at the publisher for their excellent work but also to all colleagues scientific collaborators partners friends and scientists in the community for many fruitful and interesting discussions All of you bring the field forward and made this book possible

Synthetic Natural Gas from Coal Dry Biomass and Power-to-Gas Applications First EditionEdited by Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollazcopy 2016 John Wiley amp Sons Inc Published 2016 by John Wiley amp Sons Inc

5

2Coal and Biomass GasifiCation for snG ProduCtion

Stefan Heyne Martin Seemann and Tilman J Schildhauer

21 introduCtion ndash BasiC requirements for GasifiCation in the framework of snG ProduCtion

Within the production of synthetic natural gas ndash basically methane ndash from solid feed-stock such as coal or biomass the major conversion step is gasification generating a product gas containing a mixture of permanent and condensable gases as well as solid residues (eg char ash) The gasification step can be conducted in different atmospheres and using different reaction agents Figure 21 represents the basic pathway from solid fuel to methane considering the main elements carbon hydrogen and oxygen It is obvious that an increase in hydrogen content is necessary for all feedstock illustrated At the same time the oxygen content needs to be reduced in particular for biogenic feedstock that is oxygenated to a higher degree

There exist different strategies or pathways for performing the conversion from feedstock towards methane within gasification as illustrated in Figure 21 Adding steam as a gasification agent is common practice not only due to the stoichiometric effect but also for enhanced char gasification and temperature moderation within the reactor H

2 addition is used in hydrogasification leading to a higher initial methane

6 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

content in the product gas [3 4] Co2 removal is an intrinsic part of the SnG produc-

tion process some gasification concepts using adsorptive bed material for direct Co2

removal within the gasification reactor [5] The addition of oxygen (common practice for all direct gasification technologies) actually leads to an increased need for Co

2

removal downstream of the reactor For indirect gasification where ungasified char is combusted in a separate chamber for heat supply the composition is changed towards methane via path (c) in Figure 21 Pretreatment technologies such as torrefaction decrease the oxygen content of the feedstock at the cost of increased energy demand

22 thermodynamiCs of GasifiCation

For an increased understanding of the role of gasification for the overall SnG process the basic thermodynamic aspects within gasification are discussed in the following The gasification process is a series of different conversions involving both homoge-neous and heterogeneous reactions The basic steps from solid fuel to product gas are drying pyrolysis or devolatilization and gasification depending on the physical size of the fuel these different steps occur in a sequential order for small particles or

40

20

0

60

80

0 20 40 60 80

0

20

40

60

80

Oxygen

Carbon

Hyd

roge

n

Feedstock

CH4

H2O

CO2

O2

H2

Carbon1 Biomass (hardwood softwood straw)2 Lignite coal3 Bituminous coal4 Anthracite coal

3

4

1

2

a removing CO2b adding H2c removing char (C)d adding steame adding O2

a

b d

e

c

fiGure 21 CHo diagram for coal and biomass Feedstock composition based on [1 2] data from Higman 2008 [1] Phyllis2 database for biomass and waste httpswwwecnnlphyllis2 Energy research Centre of the netherlands

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 7

overlap in bigger particles The detailed description of the complete process is a com-plex task and the considerations made in the following therefore focus on specific parts of the process and their implications for the overall conversion starting with some stoichiometric aspects for gasification

221 Gasification reactions

The major reactions occurring during the gasification step that commonly are consid-ered relevant are

C s o g Co g kJ mol partial oxidation0 5 1112 (21)

Co g o g Co g kJ mol carbon monoxide combustion0 5 2832 2 (22)

C s o g Co g kJ mol carbon combustion2 2 394ndash (23)

C s Co g Co g kJ mol reverse Boudouard reaction2 2 172 (24)

C s H o g Co g H g kJ mol water gas reaction2 2 131 (25)

Co g H o g H g Co g kJ mol water gas shift reaction2 2 2 41ndash (26)

CH g H o g H g Co g kJ mol steam reforming4 2 23 206 (27)

The char gasification reactions converting carbon into gaseous fuels [Equations (24) and (25)] are endothermic reactions requiring heat supply that is realized either by combusting part of the fuel in the same reactor (direct or autothermal gasification) or by indirect heat supply from an external combustion or heat source (indirect or allo-thermal gasification)

222 overall Gasification Process ndash equilibrium Based Considerations

Considering the overall process from coal or biomass to methane at the example of steam gasification the reaction stoichiometry can be expressed as

C o H o CH Cox y zH a b c2 4 2 (28)

with a xy z

bx y z

cx y z

4 2 2 8 4 2 8 4

Table 21 gives the coefficients for steam gasification to methane [Equation (28)] for different coal and biomass feedstock materials allowing the calculation of the heat

ta

Bl

e 2

1

Com

posi

tion

and

ove

rall

rea

ctio

n d

ata

for

stea

m G

asif

icat

ion

for

dif

fere

nt f

eeds

tock

mat

eria

ls

Feed

stoc

kM

olar

C

ompo

sitio

nl

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]c

rea

ctio

n C

oeff

icie

nts

for

Equ

atio

n (2

8)

ΔH

rM

etha

ne Y

ield

ab

c[M

Jkg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

[kg

CH

4kg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

Coa

laB

row

n co

al ndash

rhe

in

Ger

man

yC

H0

88o

029

262

273

063

20

537

046

3ndash0

19

048

9

lig

nite

ndash n

dak

ota

uSA

CH

072

o0

2526

727

70

697

052

90

471

06

050

9B

itum

inou

s ndash

typi

cal

Sout

h A

fric

aC

H0

68o

008

3435

10

792

056

70

433

12

10

654

Ant

hrac

ite ndash

ruh

r G

erm

any

CH

047

o0

0236

237

00

873

055

30

447

14

60

693

Bio

mas

sbW

illow

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

46o

065

185

199

031

00

520

048

0ndash0

45

035

0B

eech

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

47o

069

179

192

028

60

511

048

9ndash0

71

033

3Fi

r ndash

soft

woo

dC

H1

45o

065

196

210

031

30

520

048

0ndash1

58

035

0Sp

ruce

ndash s

oftw

ood

CH

142

o0

6818

419

70

304

050

80

492

ndash11

70

335

Whe

at s

traw

CH

146

o0

6818

319

60

297

051

20

488

ndash08

40

338

ric

e st

raw

CH

143

o0

6817

518

80

303

050

80

492

ndash02

30

335

a Tak

en f

rom

Hig

man

and

van

der

Bur

gt [

1]

b Tak

en f

rom

Phy

llis

[2]

ndash av

erag

e da

ta f

or m

ater

ial g

roup

c H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

] =

lH

V [

MJ

kg d

af]

+ 2

44

middot 89

4 middot H

[w

t d

af]

100

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 9

of reaction (based on the HHV of feedstock and methane all reactants and products at 25 degC) as well as the stoichiometric methane yield per kilogram of feedstock The heat of reaction for the overall reaction corresponds to well below 10 for all feed-stock materials For coal based feedstock with low oxygen content the reaction is endothermic while for brown coal and biomass feedstock it is exothermic The methane yield per kilogram feedstock also is considerably lower for biomass based feedstock due to the high oxygen content one option to improve the methane yield would be the additional supply of hydrogen as for example considered in hydrogas-ification The only technical conversion process capable of converting carbonaceous feedstock directly to methane and carbon dioxide according to the reaction in Equation (28) is gasification under supercritical conditions so‐called hydrothermal gasification [6ndash8] This technology is capable of handling wet feedstock but not yet available at commercial scale and is not covered in this chapter Common gasifica-tion technology converts the feedstock to a product gas being a mixture of Co Co

2

H2 H

2o CH

4 light and higher hydrocarbons and trace components followed by a

downstream gas cleaning and methane synthesis stepThe major operating parameters for gasification are pressure and temperature

Equilibrium calculations for steam gasification (05 kg H2okg daf feedstock) for a

generic biomass are used to illustrate the basic trends for the product gas composition and heat demand with changing pressure and temperature All feedstock is assumed to be converted to product gas As can be observed from Figure 22 methane formation is favored by lower temperatures and higher pressures Hydrogen and carbon monoxide formation increases with temperature and so does the endothermi-city of the overall reaction The theoretically exothermic reaction to CH

4 and Co

2 at

25 degC [similar to Equation (28)] turns into an endothermic reaction requiring heat supply at higher temperature

light hydrocarbons (represented by C2H

4) and tars (represented by C

10H

8) are only

formed to a very small extent according to equilibrium calculations The amount of steam added for gasification will mainly influence the H

2Co ratio via the water gas

shift reaction Equation (26) In reality the equilibrium state is usually not reached in the shown temperature range but the actual product gas composition resulting from gasification is influenced by a number of other parameters as will be discussed in subsequent sections An increase in gasification pressure favors methane formation predicted by equilibrium calculations at 800 degC the methane molar fraction increases from 0 to about 155 from 1 to 30 bar With more methane being formed the endo-thermic heat of reaction is reduced by 666 from 1 to 30 bar Again no to very little formation of light hydrocarbons and tars is predicted by the equilibrium even at higher pressures At high pressures and moderate temperatures a mixture of basically CH

4 Co

2 and H

2o ndash representing Equation (28) ndash can be obtained A process

example is hydrothermal gasification which is operating at these conditions but still is at development state [6ndash8] The above‐mentioned trends are all under the assumption of complete conversion of feedstock to product gas Many gasification concepts how-ever have a considerable amount of char remaining unconverted being removed with the ashes or in indirect gasification being converted in a separate combustion chamber for supplying the gasification heat The carbon feedstock entering the gas phase

10 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

during gasification will therefore be drastically changed when carbon conversion is incomplete Even minor effects on the hydrogen and oxygen balance in the gas phase can be expected as for example biomass char still contains oxygen and hydrogen [9] Figure 23 depicts the influence of pressure and temperature on carbon conversion at temperatures below 800 degC considerable amounts of solid carbon formation are pre-dicted This will in turn influence the equilibrium conditions in the gas phase as the carbon stock in gas phase is reduced The major reactions affected are the Boudouard water gas and waterndashgas shift reactions Equations (24) to (26) Incomplete carbon conversion leads to a decrease of Co concentration in the product gas as well as a decrease in H

2 compared to equilibrium at complete conversion

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

30minus2000

0

2000

4000

6000

ΔH

r [kJ

kg

daf

feed

]

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

300

01020304

y CH

4y H

2y H

2O

y CO

2y C

O

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

T [degC] T [degC]

T [degC]T [degC]

T [degC] T [degC]

P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar] P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar]

fiGure 22 Pressure and temperature dependence of the molar concentration of major gas species and the heat of reaction for steam gasification (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic

biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH143

o066

) assuming complete carbon conversion calculated by ASPEn PluS

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 11

223 Gasification ndash a multi‐step Process deviating from equilibrium

Equilibrium calculations while useful for identifying trends with changing operating conditions cannot however predict the performance of technical equipment to a full extent They represent a boundary value that can be approached but never reached The gasification process on a physical level is a multi‐stage process starting with drying of the feedstock followed by pyrolysis and gasificationcombustion The kinetics of the numerous homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions occurring ndash as well as the residence time and reactor setup ndash ultimately determine the product gas composition resulting from gasification Figure 24 illustrates a simplified reaction network for the conversion from received fuel to product gas The drying and pri-mary pyrolysis (also referred to as devolatilization) steps are similar for all gasifica-tion technologies whereas the extent of gasification reactions occurring as well as the approach to equilibrium are a strong function of the gasification medium and the reactor setup during pyrolysis a considerable amount of tars a complex mixture of 1‐ to 5‐ring aromatic hydrocarbons is formed that will undergo various conversion pathways during gasification In the final product gas tar can still represent a consid-erable amount of energy for example biomass steam gasification at 800 degC can result in more than 33 g tarsnm3 corresponding to about 8 of the total product gas energy content on a lower heating value basis [10]

200400

600800

10001200

0

10

20

30

04

02

0

06

08

1

T [degC]

P [bar]

Am

ount

of

feed

stoc

k ca

rbon

conv

erte

d to

gas

pha

se

fiGure 23 Carbon conversion predicted by equilibrium calculations for steam gasifica-tion (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt

CH143

o066

)

12 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

The gas composition from primary pyrolysis represents the starting point for the gasification reactions neves et al [9] conducted an extensive literature review of data on pyrolysis experiments and derived an empirical model for estimating gas species yields as well as tar and char yields and elemental composition as a function of peak pyrolysis temperature Figure 25 illustrates the pyrolysis gas composition and the total gas and char yield based on nevesrsquo model In contrast to the equilibrium calculations for gasification represented in Figure 22 the model predicts consider-able amounts of tars as well as a considerable amount of char produced from pyrol-ysis Even light hydrocarbons are present in the pyrolysis gas Generally speaking the product distribution from pyrolysis as presented in Figure 25 undergoes conversion towards the equilibrium conditions during the final conversion step in Figure 24 ndash the gasification step

The extent of conversion towards the equilibrium state is a function of a large number of parameters such as pressure and temperature reactor design and associated residence time for gas and solids as well as gasndashsolid mixing and the presence of catalytically active materials promoting specific reactions among others

Secondary PyrolysisGasication

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

DehydrationPolymerizationGasication

ReformingCrackingOxidationWater-gas shift

dry fuel

Primary Pyrolysis

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

Drying

As-receivedfuel particle Moisture

Dry fuel

Gasication medium(H2O H2 O2 CO2

)

Productgas

fiGure 24 Conversion process of a fuel particle during gasification (adopted and modi-fied from neves et al [9])

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 13

224 heat management of the Gasification Process

As temperature is the major influencing parameter on the kinetics of the different gasification reactions the thermal management of the gasification reactor is of particular importance The conversion steps from solid fuel to product gas as illus-trated in Figure 24 occur at different temperature levels A qualitative representation

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

Temperature (ordmC)

Tars (C10H8)

CxHy

CH4

CO

CO2

H2O

H2

Mol

ar f

ract

ion

of c

ompo

nent

i

(a)

Temperature (ordmC)

Yie

ld (

kgk

g da

f fu

el)

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1

Char yield

Total yield per kg daf fuelGases tars and pyrolytic water

(b)

fiGure 25 Pyrolysis gas molar composition (a) and overall mass yields (b) as a function of temperature (based on neves [9]) for a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066)

14 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of the temperature profile for a fuel particle over time is illustrated in Figure 26a After particle heat‐up the moisture is evaporated The dry fuel particle is further heated releasing pyrolysis gases and finally the char particle is gasified Heat for gasification needs to be supplied by the hot environment Particle combustion indicated by the dashed line occurs at a particle temperature above environ-ment due to the exothermic nature of the combustion reactions For complete conversion of a biomass fuel with initial moisture content of 20 wt the distribution of the heat demand for conversion on the different processes is illustrated in Figure 26b The gasification heat demand is dominant but even pyrolysis and drying

Dry

ing

Time

(a)

(b)

Tem

pera

ture

Dev

olat

iliza

tion

Pyro

lysi

s Char gasication

Char combustion

Surrounding temperature

a dcb

a ndash Preheating ndash 40b ndash Drying ndash 82

c ndash Pyrolysis ndash 76d ndash Gasication ndash 802

Fraction of total heat demand(6566 kJkg daf fuel)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat demand [kJkg daf fuel]

Gasication temperature (850 degC)

Pyrolysistemperature

(450 degC)

fiGure 26 (a) Qualitative representation of the temperature evolution of a fuel particle during gasification (b) Steam gasification heat demand profile for full conversion of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) at equilibrium (SB ratio = 05

steam supply at 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture)

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 15

represent a considerable share of the specific heat demand for conversion of course in reality pyrolysis and gasification rather occur over a certain temperature range instead of the fixed temperatures used for the calculation (nevesrsquo model for pyrolysis [9] and equilibrium calculations for the gasification) In addition the processes are not strictly sequential but partly occur in parallel within a gasification reactor nevertheless the gasification heat demand will be largest and above all requires the highest temperature level

All heat for the conversion process within the gasification unit needs to be supplied by combustion of part of the fuel or additional external fuel at high temperature Changing the initial moisture content of the biomass will reduce the drying heat demand [b in Figure 26b] and therefore improve the conversion efficiency External drying also allows for using a heat source at lower temperature improving the conversion process from an exergy perspective Even the pyrolysis process can be conducted in a separate reactor with a separate heat source For these considerations in relation to the thermal management of the gasification process temperaturendashheat load graphs can be a useful tool for identifying improvements for the energy efficiency of the gasification process Figure 27 presents such a graph as an example of an indirect gasification process modelled using nevesrsquo pyrolysis model and gasification at equilibrium It is assumed that the amount of char combusted is set to ensure that the combustion heat covers the heat demand for fuel heat‐up drying pyrolysis and gasification The supply of steam to gasification (400 degC) and hot air to combustion (400 degC) is an additional heat demand that needs to be covered The thick curve in Figure 27 represents the aggregation of all the above‐mentioned heat demands whereas the dashed curve is a representation of all heat sources namely the combustion

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat load [kJkg daf fuel]

Preheating biomass air and water (steam)

Moisture evaporationand steam generation

Pyrolysis andpreheating air and steam

Gasific

ation

Tpyrolysis = 450 ordmC

Tgasification = 850 ordmC

Tcombustion = 900 ordmCChar combustion

Gas

coo

ling

(pro

duct

gas

and

com

busti

on fl

ue g

as)Maximum amount

of excess heat3610 kJkg daf

fiGure 27 Temperature heat load curve for indirect steam gasification of a generic bio-mass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) SB ratio = 05 air and steam supply

at 25 degC and heated to 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture

16 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of char and the cooling of hot product gas and combustion flue gases to ambient tem-perature It is obvious that for ideal heat transfer the process has a considerable amount of excess heat allowing for a further increase in conversion to product gas by more efficient use of the heat and reducing the char combustion Converting more solid fuel to product gas will increase the heat demand while at the same time the heat supply will decrease as less char is burnt Even considering the overall SnG process these curves can be used for a holistic analysis of the heat integration of sinks and sources including the operations up‐ and downstream of the gasification step Heat from the methanation reaction might for example be used for biomass drying or for regeneration of an amine solution used for downstream Co

2 removal

The slope of the heat demand curves for pyrolysis and gasification also is dependent on the gas composition that actually is obtained during the different processes A deviation from equilibrium conditions for the gasification will result in considerable changes of the conversion heat demand Two parameters commonly used in thermal conversion processes are used to illustrate the influence of different parameters on the energy performance of the gasification process The first param-eter is the relative air to fuel ratio λ defining the amount of air (oxygen) actually supplied to the reaction in relation to the amount necessary for complete combustion according to stoichiometry

n

nair o actual

air o stoichiometric

2

2

(27)

The second parameter commonly used in gasification is the chemical efficiency ηch

relating the chemical energy content of the product gas to the fuel chemical energy η

ch can be defined on both a lower and a higher heating value basis but in order to

avoid confusion with respect to moisture content the higher heating value is used here

ch HHV

PG

fuel fuel

HHV

HHV

i

i i

n

n (28)

Figure 28 shows λ and ηchHHV

for the base case as illustrated in Figure 27 as well as the influence of changes in different operating parameters Increasing the feed tem-perature for both steam to gasification (Point 1 in Figure 28) and air to combustion (Point 3 in Figure 28) increases the chemical efficiency and reduces λ as less char needs to be burnt reducing the incoming moisture content of the biomass from 20 to 10 wt (Point 4 in Figure 28) results in a remarkable effect reducing the necessary air to fuel ratio and gives a relative increase of the chemical efficiency of 32 Assuming heat losses from the gasification unit (point 6 in Figure 28) corresponding to 2 of the thermal input on a higher heating value basis on the other hand considerably increases the air to fuel ratio and leads to a relative decrease of the chemical efficiency by 3 All changes except for points 5 7 and 8 represent thermal

Page 16: cover thumb - download.e-bookshelf.de · 10.4 PSI’s Catalytic SNG Process 266 10.4.1 Process Description and Layout 266 10.4.2 Mass Balance 268 10.4.3 Energy Balance 269 10.4.4

Synthetic Natural Gas from Coal Dry Biomass and Power-to-Gas Applications First EditionEdited by Tilman J Schildhauer and Serge MA Biollazcopy 2016 John Wiley amp Sons Inc Published 2016 by John Wiley amp Sons Inc

5

2Coal and Biomass GasifiCation for snG ProduCtion

Stefan Heyne Martin Seemann and Tilman J Schildhauer

21 introduCtion ndash BasiC requirements for GasifiCation in the framework of snG ProduCtion

Within the production of synthetic natural gas ndash basically methane ndash from solid feed-stock such as coal or biomass the major conversion step is gasification generating a product gas containing a mixture of permanent and condensable gases as well as solid residues (eg char ash) The gasification step can be conducted in different atmospheres and using different reaction agents Figure 21 represents the basic pathway from solid fuel to methane considering the main elements carbon hydrogen and oxygen It is obvious that an increase in hydrogen content is necessary for all feedstock illustrated At the same time the oxygen content needs to be reduced in particular for biogenic feedstock that is oxygenated to a higher degree

There exist different strategies or pathways for performing the conversion from feedstock towards methane within gasification as illustrated in Figure 21 Adding steam as a gasification agent is common practice not only due to the stoichiometric effect but also for enhanced char gasification and temperature moderation within the reactor H

2 addition is used in hydrogasification leading to a higher initial methane

6 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

content in the product gas [3 4] Co2 removal is an intrinsic part of the SnG produc-

tion process some gasification concepts using adsorptive bed material for direct Co2

removal within the gasification reactor [5] The addition of oxygen (common practice for all direct gasification technologies) actually leads to an increased need for Co

2

removal downstream of the reactor For indirect gasification where ungasified char is combusted in a separate chamber for heat supply the composition is changed towards methane via path (c) in Figure 21 Pretreatment technologies such as torrefaction decrease the oxygen content of the feedstock at the cost of increased energy demand

22 thermodynamiCs of GasifiCation

For an increased understanding of the role of gasification for the overall SnG process the basic thermodynamic aspects within gasification are discussed in the following The gasification process is a series of different conversions involving both homoge-neous and heterogeneous reactions The basic steps from solid fuel to product gas are drying pyrolysis or devolatilization and gasification depending on the physical size of the fuel these different steps occur in a sequential order for small particles or

40

20

0

60

80

0 20 40 60 80

0

20

40

60

80

Oxygen

Carbon

Hyd

roge

n

Feedstock

CH4

H2O

CO2

O2

H2

Carbon1 Biomass (hardwood softwood straw)2 Lignite coal3 Bituminous coal4 Anthracite coal

3

4

1

2

a removing CO2b adding H2c removing char (C)d adding steame adding O2

a

b d

e

c

fiGure 21 CHo diagram for coal and biomass Feedstock composition based on [1 2] data from Higman 2008 [1] Phyllis2 database for biomass and waste httpswwwecnnlphyllis2 Energy research Centre of the netherlands

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 7

overlap in bigger particles The detailed description of the complete process is a com-plex task and the considerations made in the following therefore focus on specific parts of the process and their implications for the overall conversion starting with some stoichiometric aspects for gasification

221 Gasification reactions

The major reactions occurring during the gasification step that commonly are consid-ered relevant are

C s o g Co g kJ mol partial oxidation0 5 1112 (21)

Co g o g Co g kJ mol carbon monoxide combustion0 5 2832 2 (22)

C s o g Co g kJ mol carbon combustion2 2 394ndash (23)

C s Co g Co g kJ mol reverse Boudouard reaction2 2 172 (24)

C s H o g Co g H g kJ mol water gas reaction2 2 131 (25)

Co g H o g H g Co g kJ mol water gas shift reaction2 2 2 41ndash (26)

CH g H o g H g Co g kJ mol steam reforming4 2 23 206 (27)

The char gasification reactions converting carbon into gaseous fuels [Equations (24) and (25)] are endothermic reactions requiring heat supply that is realized either by combusting part of the fuel in the same reactor (direct or autothermal gasification) or by indirect heat supply from an external combustion or heat source (indirect or allo-thermal gasification)

222 overall Gasification Process ndash equilibrium Based Considerations

Considering the overall process from coal or biomass to methane at the example of steam gasification the reaction stoichiometry can be expressed as

C o H o CH Cox y zH a b c2 4 2 (28)

with a xy z

bx y z

cx y z

4 2 2 8 4 2 8 4

Table 21 gives the coefficients for steam gasification to methane [Equation (28)] for different coal and biomass feedstock materials allowing the calculation of the heat

ta

Bl

e 2

1

Com

posi

tion

and

ove

rall

rea

ctio

n d

ata

for

stea

m G

asif

icat

ion

for

dif

fere

nt f

eeds

tock

mat

eria

ls

Feed

stoc

kM

olar

C

ompo

sitio

nl

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]c

rea

ctio

n C

oeff

icie

nts

for

Equ

atio

n (2

8)

ΔH

rM

etha

ne Y

ield

ab

c[M

Jkg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

[kg

CH

4kg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

Coa

laB

row

n co

al ndash

rhe

in

Ger

man

yC

H0

88o

029

262

273

063

20

537

046

3ndash0

19

048

9

lig

nite

ndash n

dak

ota

uSA

CH

072

o0

2526

727

70

697

052

90

471

06

050

9B

itum

inou

s ndash

typi

cal

Sout

h A

fric

aC

H0

68o

008

3435

10

792

056

70

433

12

10

654

Ant

hrac

ite ndash

ruh

r G

erm

any

CH

047

o0

0236

237

00

873

055

30

447

14

60

693

Bio

mas

sbW

illow

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

46o

065

185

199

031

00

520

048

0ndash0

45

035

0B

eech

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

47o

069

179

192

028

60

511

048

9ndash0

71

033

3Fi

r ndash

soft

woo

dC

H1

45o

065

196

210

031

30

520

048

0ndash1

58

035

0Sp

ruce

ndash s

oftw

ood

CH

142

o0

6818

419

70

304

050

80

492

ndash11

70

335

Whe

at s

traw

CH

146

o0

6818

319

60

297

051

20

488

ndash08

40

338

ric

e st

raw

CH

143

o0

6817

518

80

303

050

80

492

ndash02

30

335

a Tak

en f

rom

Hig

man

and

van

der

Bur

gt [

1]

b Tak

en f

rom

Phy

llis

[2]

ndash av

erag

e da

ta f

or m

ater

ial g

roup

c H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

] =

lH

V [

MJ

kg d

af]

+ 2

44

middot 89

4 middot H

[w

t d

af]

100

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 9

of reaction (based on the HHV of feedstock and methane all reactants and products at 25 degC) as well as the stoichiometric methane yield per kilogram of feedstock The heat of reaction for the overall reaction corresponds to well below 10 for all feed-stock materials For coal based feedstock with low oxygen content the reaction is endothermic while for brown coal and biomass feedstock it is exothermic The methane yield per kilogram feedstock also is considerably lower for biomass based feedstock due to the high oxygen content one option to improve the methane yield would be the additional supply of hydrogen as for example considered in hydrogas-ification The only technical conversion process capable of converting carbonaceous feedstock directly to methane and carbon dioxide according to the reaction in Equation (28) is gasification under supercritical conditions so‐called hydrothermal gasification [6ndash8] This technology is capable of handling wet feedstock but not yet available at commercial scale and is not covered in this chapter Common gasifica-tion technology converts the feedstock to a product gas being a mixture of Co Co

2

H2 H

2o CH

4 light and higher hydrocarbons and trace components followed by a

downstream gas cleaning and methane synthesis stepThe major operating parameters for gasification are pressure and temperature

Equilibrium calculations for steam gasification (05 kg H2okg daf feedstock) for a

generic biomass are used to illustrate the basic trends for the product gas composition and heat demand with changing pressure and temperature All feedstock is assumed to be converted to product gas As can be observed from Figure 22 methane formation is favored by lower temperatures and higher pressures Hydrogen and carbon monoxide formation increases with temperature and so does the endothermi-city of the overall reaction The theoretically exothermic reaction to CH

4 and Co

2 at

25 degC [similar to Equation (28)] turns into an endothermic reaction requiring heat supply at higher temperature

light hydrocarbons (represented by C2H

4) and tars (represented by C

10H

8) are only

formed to a very small extent according to equilibrium calculations The amount of steam added for gasification will mainly influence the H

2Co ratio via the water gas

shift reaction Equation (26) In reality the equilibrium state is usually not reached in the shown temperature range but the actual product gas composition resulting from gasification is influenced by a number of other parameters as will be discussed in subsequent sections An increase in gasification pressure favors methane formation predicted by equilibrium calculations at 800 degC the methane molar fraction increases from 0 to about 155 from 1 to 30 bar With more methane being formed the endo-thermic heat of reaction is reduced by 666 from 1 to 30 bar Again no to very little formation of light hydrocarbons and tars is predicted by the equilibrium even at higher pressures At high pressures and moderate temperatures a mixture of basically CH

4 Co

2 and H

2o ndash representing Equation (28) ndash can be obtained A process

example is hydrothermal gasification which is operating at these conditions but still is at development state [6ndash8] The above‐mentioned trends are all under the assumption of complete conversion of feedstock to product gas Many gasification concepts how-ever have a considerable amount of char remaining unconverted being removed with the ashes or in indirect gasification being converted in a separate combustion chamber for supplying the gasification heat The carbon feedstock entering the gas phase

10 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

during gasification will therefore be drastically changed when carbon conversion is incomplete Even minor effects on the hydrogen and oxygen balance in the gas phase can be expected as for example biomass char still contains oxygen and hydrogen [9] Figure 23 depicts the influence of pressure and temperature on carbon conversion at temperatures below 800 degC considerable amounts of solid carbon formation are pre-dicted This will in turn influence the equilibrium conditions in the gas phase as the carbon stock in gas phase is reduced The major reactions affected are the Boudouard water gas and waterndashgas shift reactions Equations (24) to (26) Incomplete carbon conversion leads to a decrease of Co concentration in the product gas as well as a decrease in H

2 compared to equilibrium at complete conversion

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

30minus2000

0

2000

4000

6000

ΔH

r [kJ

kg

daf

feed

]

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

300

01020304

y CH

4y H

2y H

2O

y CO

2y C

O

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

T [degC] T [degC]

T [degC]T [degC]

T [degC] T [degC]

P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar] P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar]

fiGure 22 Pressure and temperature dependence of the molar concentration of major gas species and the heat of reaction for steam gasification (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic

biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH143

o066

) assuming complete carbon conversion calculated by ASPEn PluS

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 11

223 Gasification ndash a multi‐step Process deviating from equilibrium

Equilibrium calculations while useful for identifying trends with changing operating conditions cannot however predict the performance of technical equipment to a full extent They represent a boundary value that can be approached but never reached The gasification process on a physical level is a multi‐stage process starting with drying of the feedstock followed by pyrolysis and gasificationcombustion The kinetics of the numerous homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions occurring ndash as well as the residence time and reactor setup ndash ultimately determine the product gas composition resulting from gasification Figure 24 illustrates a simplified reaction network for the conversion from received fuel to product gas The drying and pri-mary pyrolysis (also referred to as devolatilization) steps are similar for all gasifica-tion technologies whereas the extent of gasification reactions occurring as well as the approach to equilibrium are a strong function of the gasification medium and the reactor setup during pyrolysis a considerable amount of tars a complex mixture of 1‐ to 5‐ring aromatic hydrocarbons is formed that will undergo various conversion pathways during gasification In the final product gas tar can still represent a consid-erable amount of energy for example biomass steam gasification at 800 degC can result in more than 33 g tarsnm3 corresponding to about 8 of the total product gas energy content on a lower heating value basis [10]

200400

600800

10001200

0

10

20

30

04

02

0

06

08

1

T [degC]

P [bar]

Am

ount

of

feed

stoc

k ca

rbon

conv

erte

d to

gas

pha

se

fiGure 23 Carbon conversion predicted by equilibrium calculations for steam gasifica-tion (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt

CH143

o066

)

12 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

The gas composition from primary pyrolysis represents the starting point for the gasification reactions neves et al [9] conducted an extensive literature review of data on pyrolysis experiments and derived an empirical model for estimating gas species yields as well as tar and char yields and elemental composition as a function of peak pyrolysis temperature Figure 25 illustrates the pyrolysis gas composition and the total gas and char yield based on nevesrsquo model In contrast to the equilibrium calculations for gasification represented in Figure 22 the model predicts consider-able amounts of tars as well as a considerable amount of char produced from pyrol-ysis Even light hydrocarbons are present in the pyrolysis gas Generally speaking the product distribution from pyrolysis as presented in Figure 25 undergoes conversion towards the equilibrium conditions during the final conversion step in Figure 24 ndash the gasification step

The extent of conversion towards the equilibrium state is a function of a large number of parameters such as pressure and temperature reactor design and associated residence time for gas and solids as well as gasndashsolid mixing and the presence of catalytically active materials promoting specific reactions among others

Secondary PyrolysisGasication

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

DehydrationPolymerizationGasication

ReformingCrackingOxidationWater-gas shift

dry fuel

Primary Pyrolysis

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

Drying

As-receivedfuel particle Moisture

Dry fuel

Gasication medium(H2O H2 O2 CO2

)

Productgas

fiGure 24 Conversion process of a fuel particle during gasification (adopted and modi-fied from neves et al [9])

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 13

224 heat management of the Gasification Process

As temperature is the major influencing parameter on the kinetics of the different gasification reactions the thermal management of the gasification reactor is of particular importance The conversion steps from solid fuel to product gas as illus-trated in Figure 24 occur at different temperature levels A qualitative representation

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

Temperature (ordmC)

Tars (C10H8)

CxHy

CH4

CO

CO2

H2O

H2

Mol

ar f

ract

ion

of c

ompo

nent

i

(a)

Temperature (ordmC)

Yie

ld (

kgk

g da

f fu

el)

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1

Char yield

Total yield per kg daf fuelGases tars and pyrolytic water

(b)

fiGure 25 Pyrolysis gas molar composition (a) and overall mass yields (b) as a function of temperature (based on neves [9]) for a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066)

14 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of the temperature profile for a fuel particle over time is illustrated in Figure 26a After particle heat‐up the moisture is evaporated The dry fuel particle is further heated releasing pyrolysis gases and finally the char particle is gasified Heat for gasification needs to be supplied by the hot environment Particle combustion indicated by the dashed line occurs at a particle temperature above environ-ment due to the exothermic nature of the combustion reactions For complete conversion of a biomass fuel with initial moisture content of 20 wt the distribution of the heat demand for conversion on the different processes is illustrated in Figure 26b The gasification heat demand is dominant but even pyrolysis and drying

Dry

ing

Time

(a)

(b)

Tem

pera

ture

Dev

olat

iliza

tion

Pyro

lysi

s Char gasication

Char combustion

Surrounding temperature

a dcb

a ndash Preheating ndash 40b ndash Drying ndash 82

c ndash Pyrolysis ndash 76d ndash Gasication ndash 802

Fraction of total heat demand(6566 kJkg daf fuel)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat demand [kJkg daf fuel]

Gasication temperature (850 degC)

Pyrolysistemperature

(450 degC)

fiGure 26 (a) Qualitative representation of the temperature evolution of a fuel particle during gasification (b) Steam gasification heat demand profile for full conversion of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) at equilibrium (SB ratio = 05

steam supply at 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture)

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 15

represent a considerable share of the specific heat demand for conversion of course in reality pyrolysis and gasification rather occur over a certain temperature range instead of the fixed temperatures used for the calculation (nevesrsquo model for pyrolysis [9] and equilibrium calculations for the gasification) In addition the processes are not strictly sequential but partly occur in parallel within a gasification reactor nevertheless the gasification heat demand will be largest and above all requires the highest temperature level

All heat for the conversion process within the gasification unit needs to be supplied by combustion of part of the fuel or additional external fuel at high temperature Changing the initial moisture content of the biomass will reduce the drying heat demand [b in Figure 26b] and therefore improve the conversion efficiency External drying also allows for using a heat source at lower temperature improving the conversion process from an exergy perspective Even the pyrolysis process can be conducted in a separate reactor with a separate heat source For these considerations in relation to the thermal management of the gasification process temperaturendashheat load graphs can be a useful tool for identifying improvements for the energy efficiency of the gasification process Figure 27 presents such a graph as an example of an indirect gasification process modelled using nevesrsquo pyrolysis model and gasification at equilibrium It is assumed that the amount of char combusted is set to ensure that the combustion heat covers the heat demand for fuel heat‐up drying pyrolysis and gasification The supply of steam to gasification (400 degC) and hot air to combustion (400 degC) is an additional heat demand that needs to be covered The thick curve in Figure 27 represents the aggregation of all the above‐mentioned heat demands whereas the dashed curve is a representation of all heat sources namely the combustion

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat load [kJkg daf fuel]

Preheating biomass air and water (steam)

Moisture evaporationand steam generation

Pyrolysis andpreheating air and steam

Gasific

ation

Tpyrolysis = 450 ordmC

Tgasification = 850 ordmC

Tcombustion = 900 ordmCChar combustion

Gas

coo

ling

(pro

duct

gas

and

com

busti

on fl

ue g

as)Maximum amount

of excess heat3610 kJkg daf

fiGure 27 Temperature heat load curve for indirect steam gasification of a generic bio-mass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) SB ratio = 05 air and steam supply

at 25 degC and heated to 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture

16 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of char and the cooling of hot product gas and combustion flue gases to ambient tem-perature It is obvious that for ideal heat transfer the process has a considerable amount of excess heat allowing for a further increase in conversion to product gas by more efficient use of the heat and reducing the char combustion Converting more solid fuel to product gas will increase the heat demand while at the same time the heat supply will decrease as less char is burnt Even considering the overall SnG process these curves can be used for a holistic analysis of the heat integration of sinks and sources including the operations up‐ and downstream of the gasification step Heat from the methanation reaction might for example be used for biomass drying or for regeneration of an amine solution used for downstream Co

2 removal

The slope of the heat demand curves for pyrolysis and gasification also is dependent on the gas composition that actually is obtained during the different processes A deviation from equilibrium conditions for the gasification will result in considerable changes of the conversion heat demand Two parameters commonly used in thermal conversion processes are used to illustrate the influence of different parameters on the energy performance of the gasification process The first param-eter is the relative air to fuel ratio λ defining the amount of air (oxygen) actually supplied to the reaction in relation to the amount necessary for complete combustion according to stoichiometry

n

nair o actual

air o stoichiometric

2

2

(27)

The second parameter commonly used in gasification is the chemical efficiency ηch

relating the chemical energy content of the product gas to the fuel chemical energy η

ch can be defined on both a lower and a higher heating value basis but in order to

avoid confusion with respect to moisture content the higher heating value is used here

ch HHV

PG

fuel fuel

HHV

HHV

i

i i

n

n (28)

Figure 28 shows λ and ηchHHV

for the base case as illustrated in Figure 27 as well as the influence of changes in different operating parameters Increasing the feed tem-perature for both steam to gasification (Point 1 in Figure 28) and air to combustion (Point 3 in Figure 28) increases the chemical efficiency and reduces λ as less char needs to be burnt reducing the incoming moisture content of the biomass from 20 to 10 wt (Point 4 in Figure 28) results in a remarkable effect reducing the necessary air to fuel ratio and gives a relative increase of the chemical efficiency of 32 Assuming heat losses from the gasification unit (point 6 in Figure 28) corresponding to 2 of the thermal input on a higher heating value basis on the other hand considerably increases the air to fuel ratio and leads to a relative decrease of the chemical efficiency by 3 All changes except for points 5 7 and 8 represent thermal

Page 17: cover thumb - download.e-bookshelf.de · 10.4 PSI’s Catalytic SNG Process 266 10.4.1 Process Description and Layout 266 10.4.2 Mass Balance 268 10.4.3 Energy Balance 269 10.4.4

6 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

content in the product gas [3 4] Co2 removal is an intrinsic part of the SnG produc-

tion process some gasification concepts using adsorptive bed material for direct Co2

removal within the gasification reactor [5] The addition of oxygen (common practice for all direct gasification technologies) actually leads to an increased need for Co

2

removal downstream of the reactor For indirect gasification where ungasified char is combusted in a separate chamber for heat supply the composition is changed towards methane via path (c) in Figure 21 Pretreatment technologies such as torrefaction decrease the oxygen content of the feedstock at the cost of increased energy demand

22 thermodynamiCs of GasifiCation

For an increased understanding of the role of gasification for the overall SnG process the basic thermodynamic aspects within gasification are discussed in the following The gasification process is a series of different conversions involving both homoge-neous and heterogeneous reactions The basic steps from solid fuel to product gas are drying pyrolysis or devolatilization and gasification depending on the physical size of the fuel these different steps occur in a sequential order for small particles or

40

20

0

60

80

0 20 40 60 80

0

20

40

60

80

Oxygen

Carbon

Hyd

roge

n

Feedstock

CH4

H2O

CO2

O2

H2

Carbon1 Biomass (hardwood softwood straw)2 Lignite coal3 Bituminous coal4 Anthracite coal

3

4

1

2

a removing CO2b adding H2c removing char (C)d adding steame adding O2

a

b d

e

c

fiGure 21 CHo diagram for coal and biomass Feedstock composition based on [1 2] data from Higman 2008 [1] Phyllis2 database for biomass and waste httpswwwecnnlphyllis2 Energy research Centre of the netherlands

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 7

overlap in bigger particles The detailed description of the complete process is a com-plex task and the considerations made in the following therefore focus on specific parts of the process and their implications for the overall conversion starting with some stoichiometric aspects for gasification

221 Gasification reactions

The major reactions occurring during the gasification step that commonly are consid-ered relevant are

C s o g Co g kJ mol partial oxidation0 5 1112 (21)

Co g o g Co g kJ mol carbon monoxide combustion0 5 2832 2 (22)

C s o g Co g kJ mol carbon combustion2 2 394ndash (23)

C s Co g Co g kJ mol reverse Boudouard reaction2 2 172 (24)

C s H o g Co g H g kJ mol water gas reaction2 2 131 (25)

Co g H o g H g Co g kJ mol water gas shift reaction2 2 2 41ndash (26)

CH g H o g H g Co g kJ mol steam reforming4 2 23 206 (27)

The char gasification reactions converting carbon into gaseous fuels [Equations (24) and (25)] are endothermic reactions requiring heat supply that is realized either by combusting part of the fuel in the same reactor (direct or autothermal gasification) or by indirect heat supply from an external combustion or heat source (indirect or allo-thermal gasification)

222 overall Gasification Process ndash equilibrium Based Considerations

Considering the overall process from coal or biomass to methane at the example of steam gasification the reaction stoichiometry can be expressed as

C o H o CH Cox y zH a b c2 4 2 (28)

with a xy z

bx y z

cx y z

4 2 2 8 4 2 8 4

Table 21 gives the coefficients for steam gasification to methane [Equation (28)] for different coal and biomass feedstock materials allowing the calculation of the heat

ta

Bl

e 2

1

Com

posi

tion

and

ove

rall

rea

ctio

n d

ata

for

stea

m G

asif

icat

ion

for

dif

fere

nt f

eeds

tock

mat

eria

ls

Feed

stoc

kM

olar

C

ompo

sitio

nl

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]c

rea

ctio

n C

oeff

icie

nts

for

Equ

atio

n (2

8)

ΔH

rM

etha

ne Y

ield

ab

c[M

Jkg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

[kg

CH

4kg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

Coa

laB

row

n co

al ndash

rhe

in

Ger

man

yC

H0

88o

029

262

273

063

20

537

046

3ndash0

19

048

9

lig

nite

ndash n

dak

ota

uSA

CH

072

o0

2526

727

70

697

052

90

471

06

050

9B

itum

inou

s ndash

typi

cal

Sout

h A

fric

aC

H0

68o

008

3435

10

792

056

70

433

12

10

654

Ant

hrac

ite ndash

ruh

r G

erm

any

CH

047

o0

0236

237

00

873

055

30

447

14

60

693

Bio

mas

sbW

illow

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

46o

065

185

199

031

00

520

048

0ndash0

45

035

0B

eech

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

47o

069

179

192

028

60

511

048

9ndash0

71

033

3Fi

r ndash

soft

woo

dC

H1

45o

065

196

210

031

30

520

048

0ndash1

58

035

0Sp

ruce

ndash s

oftw

ood

CH

142

o0

6818

419

70

304

050

80

492

ndash11

70

335

Whe

at s

traw

CH

146

o0

6818

319

60

297

051

20

488

ndash08

40

338

ric

e st

raw

CH

143

o0

6817

518

80

303

050

80

492

ndash02

30

335

a Tak

en f

rom

Hig

man

and

van

der

Bur

gt [

1]

b Tak

en f

rom

Phy

llis

[2]

ndash av

erag

e da

ta f

or m

ater

ial g

roup

c H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

] =

lH

V [

MJ

kg d

af]

+ 2

44

middot 89

4 middot H

[w

t d

af]

100

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 9

of reaction (based on the HHV of feedstock and methane all reactants and products at 25 degC) as well as the stoichiometric methane yield per kilogram of feedstock The heat of reaction for the overall reaction corresponds to well below 10 for all feed-stock materials For coal based feedstock with low oxygen content the reaction is endothermic while for brown coal and biomass feedstock it is exothermic The methane yield per kilogram feedstock also is considerably lower for biomass based feedstock due to the high oxygen content one option to improve the methane yield would be the additional supply of hydrogen as for example considered in hydrogas-ification The only technical conversion process capable of converting carbonaceous feedstock directly to methane and carbon dioxide according to the reaction in Equation (28) is gasification under supercritical conditions so‐called hydrothermal gasification [6ndash8] This technology is capable of handling wet feedstock but not yet available at commercial scale and is not covered in this chapter Common gasifica-tion technology converts the feedstock to a product gas being a mixture of Co Co

2

H2 H

2o CH

4 light and higher hydrocarbons and trace components followed by a

downstream gas cleaning and methane synthesis stepThe major operating parameters for gasification are pressure and temperature

Equilibrium calculations for steam gasification (05 kg H2okg daf feedstock) for a

generic biomass are used to illustrate the basic trends for the product gas composition and heat demand with changing pressure and temperature All feedstock is assumed to be converted to product gas As can be observed from Figure 22 methane formation is favored by lower temperatures and higher pressures Hydrogen and carbon monoxide formation increases with temperature and so does the endothermi-city of the overall reaction The theoretically exothermic reaction to CH

4 and Co

2 at

25 degC [similar to Equation (28)] turns into an endothermic reaction requiring heat supply at higher temperature

light hydrocarbons (represented by C2H

4) and tars (represented by C

10H

8) are only

formed to a very small extent according to equilibrium calculations The amount of steam added for gasification will mainly influence the H

2Co ratio via the water gas

shift reaction Equation (26) In reality the equilibrium state is usually not reached in the shown temperature range but the actual product gas composition resulting from gasification is influenced by a number of other parameters as will be discussed in subsequent sections An increase in gasification pressure favors methane formation predicted by equilibrium calculations at 800 degC the methane molar fraction increases from 0 to about 155 from 1 to 30 bar With more methane being formed the endo-thermic heat of reaction is reduced by 666 from 1 to 30 bar Again no to very little formation of light hydrocarbons and tars is predicted by the equilibrium even at higher pressures At high pressures and moderate temperatures a mixture of basically CH

4 Co

2 and H

2o ndash representing Equation (28) ndash can be obtained A process

example is hydrothermal gasification which is operating at these conditions but still is at development state [6ndash8] The above‐mentioned trends are all under the assumption of complete conversion of feedstock to product gas Many gasification concepts how-ever have a considerable amount of char remaining unconverted being removed with the ashes or in indirect gasification being converted in a separate combustion chamber for supplying the gasification heat The carbon feedstock entering the gas phase

10 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

during gasification will therefore be drastically changed when carbon conversion is incomplete Even minor effects on the hydrogen and oxygen balance in the gas phase can be expected as for example biomass char still contains oxygen and hydrogen [9] Figure 23 depicts the influence of pressure and temperature on carbon conversion at temperatures below 800 degC considerable amounts of solid carbon formation are pre-dicted This will in turn influence the equilibrium conditions in the gas phase as the carbon stock in gas phase is reduced The major reactions affected are the Boudouard water gas and waterndashgas shift reactions Equations (24) to (26) Incomplete carbon conversion leads to a decrease of Co concentration in the product gas as well as a decrease in H

2 compared to equilibrium at complete conversion

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

30minus2000

0

2000

4000

6000

ΔH

r [kJ

kg

daf

feed

]

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

300

01020304

y CH

4y H

2y H

2O

y CO

2y C

O

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

T [degC] T [degC]

T [degC]T [degC]

T [degC] T [degC]

P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar] P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar]

fiGure 22 Pressure and temperature dependence of the molar concentration of major gas species and the heat of reaction for steam gasification (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic

biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH143

o066

) assuming complete carbon conversion calculated by ASPEn PluS

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 11

223 Gasification ndash a multi‐step Process deviating from equilibrium

Equilibrium calculations while useful for identifying trends with changing operating conditions cannot however predict the performance of technical equipment to a full extent They represent a boundary value that can be approached but never reached The gasification process on a physical level is a multi‐stage process starting with drying of the feedstock followed by pyrolysis and gasificationcombustion The kinetics of the numerous homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions occurring ndash as well as the residence time and reactor setup ndash ultimately determine the product gas composition resulting from gasification Figure 24 illustrates a simplified reaction network for the conversion from received fuel to product gas The drying and pri-mary pyrolysis (also referred to as devolatilization) steps are similar for all gasifica-tion technologies whereas the extent of gasification reactions occurring as well as the approach to equilibrium are a strong function of the gasification medium and the reactor setup during pyrolysis a considerable amount of tars a complex mixture of 1‐ to 5‐ring aromatic hydrocarbons is formed that will undergo various conversion pathways during gasification In the final product gas tar can still represent a consid-erable amount of energy for example biomass steam gasification at 800 degC can result in more than 33 g tarsnm3 corresponding to about 8 of the total product gas energy content on a lower heating value basis [10]

200400

600800

10001200

0

10

20

30

04

02

0

06

08

1

T [degC]

P [bar]

Am

ount

of

feed

stoc

k ca

rbon

conv

erte

d to

gas

pha

se

fiGure 23 Carbon conversion predicted by equilibrium calculations for steam gasifica-tion (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt

CH143

o066

)

12 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

The gas composition from primary pyrolysis represents the starting point for the gasification reactions neves et al [9] conducted an extensive literature review of data on pyrolysis experiments and derived an empirical model for estimating gas species yields as well as tar and char yields and elemental composition as a function of peak pyrolysis temperature Figure 25 illustrates the pyrolysis gas composition and the total gas and char yield based on nevesrsquo model In contrast to the equilibrium calculations for gasification represented in Figure 22 the model predicts consider-able amounts of tars as well as a considerable amount of char produced from pyrol-ysis Even light hydrocarbons are present in the pyrolysis gas Generally speaking the product distribution from pyrolysis as presented in Figure 25 undergoes conversion towards the equilibrium conditions during the final conversion step in Figure 24 ndash the gasification step

The extent of conversion towards the equilibrium state is a function of a large number of parameters such as pressure and temperature reactor design and associated residence time for gas and solids as well as gasndashsolid mixing and the presence of catalytically active materials promoting specific reactions among others

Secondary PyrolysisGasication

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

DehydrationPolymerizationGasication

ReformingCrackingOxidationWater-gas shift

dry fuel

Primary Pyrolysis

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

Drying

As-receivedfuel particle Moisture

Dry fuel

Gasication medium(H2O H2 O2 CO2

)

Productgas

fiGure 24 Conversion process of a fuel particle during gasification (adopted and modi-fied from neves et al [9])

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 13

224 heat management of the Gasification Process

As temperature is the major influencing parameter on the kinetics of the different gasification reactions the thermal management of the gasification reactor is of particular importance The conversion steps from solid fuel to product gas as illus-trated in Figure 24 occur at different temperature levels A qualitative representation

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

Temperature (ordmC)

Tars (C10H8)

CxHy

CH4

CO

CO2

H2O

H2

Mol

ar f

ract

ion

of c

ompo

nent

i

(a)

Temperature (ordmC)

Yie

ld (

kgk

g da

f fu

el)

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1

Char yield

Total yield per kg daf fuelGases tars and pyrolytic water

(b)

fiGure 25 Pyrolysis gas molar composition (a) and overall mass yields (b) as a function of temperature (based on neves [9]) for a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066)

14 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of the temperature profile for a fuel particle over time is illustrated in Figure 26a After particle heat‐up the moisture is evaporated The dry fuel particle is further heated releasing pyrolysis gases and finally the char particle is gasified Heat for gasification needs to be supplied by the hot environment Particle combustion indicated by the dashed line occurs at a particle temperature above environ-ment due to the exothermic nature of the combustion reactions For complete conversion of a biomass fuel with initial moisture content of 20 wt the distribution of the heat demand for conversion on the different processes is illustrated in Figure 26b The gasification heat demand is dominant but even pyrolysis and drying

Dry

ing

Time

(a)

(b)

Tem

pera

ture

Dev

olat

iliza

tion

Pyro

lysi

s Char gasication

Char combustion

Surrounding temperature

a dcb

a ndash Preheating ndash 40b ndash Drying ndash 82

c ndash Pyrolysis ndash 76d ndash Gasication ndash 802

Fraction of total heat demand(6566 kJkg daf fuel)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat demand [kJkg daf fuel]

Gasication temperature (850 degC)

Pyrolysistemperature

(450 degC)

fiGure 26 (a) Qualitative representation of the temperature evolution of a fuel particle during gasification (b) Steam gasification heat demand profile for full conversion of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) at equilibrium (SB ratio = 05

steam supply at 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture)

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 15

represent a considerable share of the specific heat demand for conversion of course in reality pyrolysis and gasification rather occur over a certain temperature range instead of the fixed temperatures used for the calculation (nevesrsquo model for pyrolysis [9] and equilibrium calculations for the gasification) In addition the processes are not strictly sequential but partly occur in parallel within a gasification reactor nevertheless the gasification heat demand will be largest and above all requires the highest temperature level

All heat for the conversion process within the gasification unit needs to be supplied by combustion of part of the fuel or additional external fuel at high temperature Changing the initial moisture content of the biomass will reduce the drying heat demand [b in Figure 26b] and therefore improve the conversion efficiency External drying also allows for using a heat source at lower temperature improving the conversion process from an exergy perspective Even the pyrolysis process can be conducted in a separate reactor with a separate heat source For these considerations in relation to the thermal management of the gasification process temperaturendashheat load graphs can be a useful tool for identifying improvements for the energy efficiency of the gasification process Figure 27 presents such a graph as an example of an indirect gasification process modelled using nevesrsquo pyrolysis model and gasification at equilibrium It is assumed that the amount of char combusted is set to ensure that the combustion heat covers the heat demand for fuel heat‐up drying pyrolysis and gasification The supply of steam to gasification (400 degC) and hot air to combustion (400 degC) is an additional heat demand that needs to be covered The thick curve in Figure 27 represents the aggregation of all the above‐mentioned heat demands whereas the dashed curve is a representation of all heat sources namely the combustion

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat load [kJkg daf fuel]

Preheating biomass air and water (steam)

Moisture evaporationand steam generation

Pyrolysis andpreheating air and steam

Gasific

ation

Tpyrolysis = 450 ordmC

Tgasification = 850 ordmC

Tcombustion = 900 ordmCChar combustion

Gas

coo

ling

(pro

duct

gas

and

com

busti

on fl

ue g

as)Maximum amount

of excess heat3610 kJkg daf

fiGure 27 Temperature heat load curve for indirect steam gasification of a generic bio-mass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) SB ratio = 05 air and steam supply

at 25 degC and heated to 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture

16 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of char and the cooling of hot product gas and combustion flue gases to ambient tem-perature It is obvious that for ideal heat transfer the process has a considerable amount of excess heat allowing for a further increase in conversion to product gas by more efficient use of the heat and reducing the char combustion Converting more solid fuel to product gas will increase the heat demand while at the same time the heat supply will decrease as less char is burnt Even considering the overall SnG process these curves can be used for a holistic analysis of the heat integration of sinks and sources including the operations up‐ and downstream of the gasification step Heat from the methanation reaction might for example be used for biomass drying or for regeneration of an amine solution used for downstream Co

2 removal

The slope of the heat demand curves for pyrolysis and gasification also is dependent on the gas composition that actually is obtained during the different processes A deviation from equilibrium conditions for the gasification will result in considerable changes of the conversion heat demand Two parameters commonly used in thermal conversion processes are used to illustrate the influence of different parameters on the energy performance of the gasification process The first param-eter is the relative air to fuel ratio λ defining the amount of air (oxygen) actually supplied to the reaction in relation to the amount necessary for complete combustion according to stoichiometry

n

nair o actual

air o stoichiometric

2

2

(27)

The second parameter commonly used in gasification is the chemical efficiency ηch

relating the chemical energy content of the product gas to the fuel chemical energy η

ch can be defined on both a lower and a higher heating value basis but in order to

avoid confusion with respect to moisture content the higher heating value is used here

ch HHV

PG

fuel fuel

HHV

HHV

i

i i

n

n (28)

Figure 28 shows λ and ηchHHV

for the base case as illustrated in Figure 27 as well as the influence of changes in different operating parameters Increasing the feed tem-perature for both steam to gasification (Point 1 in Figure 28) and air to combustion (Point 3 in Figure 28) increases the chemical efficiency and reduces λ as less char needs to be burnt reducing the incoming moisture content of the biomass from 20 to 10 wt (Point 4 in Figure 28) results in a remarkable effect reducing the necessary air to fuel ratio and gives a relative increase of the chemical efficiency of 32 Assuming heat losses from the gasification unit (point 6 in Figure 28) corresponding to 2 of the thermal input on a higher heating value basis on the other hand considerably increases the air to fuel ratio and leads to a relative decrease of the chemical efficiency by 3 All changes except for points 5 7 and 8 represent thermal

Page 18: cover thumb - download.e-bookshelf.de · 10.4 PSI’s Catalytic SNG Process 266 10.4.1 Process Description and Layout 266 10.4.2 Mass Balance 268 10.4.3 Energy Balance 269 10.4.4

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 7

overlap in bigger particles The detailed description of the complete process is a com-plex task and the considerations made in the following therefore focus on specific parts of the process and their implications for the overall conversion starting with some stoichiometric aspects for gasification

221 Gasification reactions

The major reactions occurring during the gasification step that commonly are consid-ered relevant are

C s o g Co g kJ mol partial oxidation0 5 1112 (21)

Co g o g Co g kJ mol carbon monoxide combustion0 5 2832 2 (22)

C s o g Co g kJ mol carbon combustion2 2 394ndash (23)

C s Co g Co g kJ mol reverse Boudouard reaction2 2 172 (24)

C s H o g Co g H g kJ mol water gas reaction2 2 131 (25)

Co g H o g H g Co g kJ mol water gas shift reaction2 2 2 41ndash (26)

CH g H o g H g Co g kJ mol steam reforming4 2 23 206 (27)

The char gasification reactions converting carbon into gaseous fuels [Equations (24) and (25)] are endothermic reactions requiring heat supply that is realized either by combusting part of the fuel in the same reactor (direct or autothermal gasification) or by indirect heat supply from an external combustion or heat source (indirect or allo-thermal gasification)

222 overall Gasification Process ndash equilibrium Based Considerations

Considering the overall process from coal or biomass to methane at the example of steam gasification the reaction stoichiometry can be expressed as

C o H o CH Cox y zH a b c2 4 2 (28)

with a xy z

bx y z

cx y z

4 2 2 8 4 2 8 4

Table 21 gives the coefficients for steam gasification to methane [Equation (28)] for different coal and biomass feedstock materials allowing the calculation of the heat

ta

Bl

e 2

1

Com

posi

tion

and

ove

rall

rea

ctio

n d

ata

for

stea

m G

asif

icat

ion

for

dif

fere

nt f

eeds

tock

mat

eria

ls

Feed

stoc

kM

olar

C

ompo

sitio

nl

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]c

rea

ctio

n C

oeff

icie

nts

for

Equ

atio

n (2

8)

ΔH

rM

etha

ne Y

ield

ab

c[M

Jkg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

[kg

CH

4kg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

Coa

laB

row

n co

al ndash

rhe

in

Ger

man

yC

H0

88o

029

262

273

063

20

537

046

3ndash0

19

048

9

lig

nite

ndash n

dak

ota

uSA

CH

072

o0

2526

727

70

697

052

90

471

06

050

9B

itum

inou

s ndash

typi

cal

Sout

h A

fric

aC

H0

68o

008

3435

10

792

056

70

433

12

10

654

Ant

hrac

ite ndash

ruh

r G

erm

any

CH

047

o0

0236

237

00

873

055

30

447

14

60

693

Bio

mas

sbW

illow

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

46o

065

185

199

031

00

520

048

0ndash0

45

035

0B

eech

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

47o

069

179

192

028

60

511

048

9ndash0

71

033

3Fi

r ndash

soft

woo

dC

H1

45o

065

196

210

031

30

520

048

0ndash1

58

035

0Sp

ruce

ndash s

oftw

ood

CH

142

o0

6818

419

70

304

050

80

492

ndash11

70

335

Whe

at s

traw

CH

146

o0

6818

319

60

297

051

20

488

ndash08

40

338

ric

e st

raw

CH

143

o0

6817

518

80

303

050

80

492

ndash02

30

335

a Tak

en f

rom

Hig

man

and

van

der

Bur

gt [

1]

b Tak

en f

rom

Phy

llis

[2]

ndash av

erag

e da

ta f

or m

ater

ial g

roup

c H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

] =

lH

V [

MJ

kg d

af]

+ 2

44

middot 89

4 middot H

[w

t d

af]

100

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 9

of reaction (based on the HHV of feedstock and methane all reactants and products at 25 degC) as well as the stoichiometric methane yield per kilogram of feedstock The heat of reaction for the overall reaction corresponds to well below 10 for all feed-stock materials For coal based feedstock with low oxygen content the reaction is endothermic while for brown coal and biomass feedstock it is exothermic The methane yield per kilogram feedstock also is considerably lower for biomass based feedstock due to the high oxygen content one option to improve the methane yield would be the additional supply of hydrogen as for example considered in hydrogas-ification The only technical conversion process capable of converting carbonaceous feedstock directly to methane and carbon dioxide according to the reaction in Equation (28) is gasification under supercritical conditions so‐called hydrothermal gasification [6ndash8] This technology is capable of handling wet feedstock but not yet available at commercial scale and is not covered in this chapter Common gasifica-tion technology converts the feedstock to a product gas being a mixture of Co Co

2

H2 H

2o CH

4 light and higher hydrocarbons and trace components followed by a

downstream gas cleaning and methane synthesis stepThe major operating parameters for gasification are pressure and temperature

Equilibrium calculations for steam gasification (05 kg H2okg daf feedstock) for a

generic biomass are used to illustrate the basic trends for the product gas composition and heat demand with changing pressure and temperature All feedstock is assumed to be converted to product gas As can be observed from Figure 22 methane formation is favored by lower temperatures and higher pressures Hydrogen and carbon monoxide formation increases with temperature and so does the endothermi-city of the overall reaction The theoretically exothermic reaction to CH

4 and Co

2 at

25 degC [similar to Equation (28)] turns into an endothermic reaction requiring heat supply at higher temperature

light hydrocarbons (represented by C2H

4) and tars (represented by C

10H

8) are only

formed to a very small extent according to equilibrium calculations The amount of steam added for gasification will mainly influence the H

2Co ratio via the water gas

shift reaction Equation (26) In reality the equilibrium state is usually not reached in the shown temperature range but the actual product gas composition resulting from gasification is influenced by a number of other parameters as will be discussed in subsequent sections An increase in gasification pressure favors methane formation predicted by equilibrium calculations at 800 degC the methane molar fraction increases from 0 to about 155 from 1 to 30 bar With more methane being formed the endo-thermic heat of reaction is reduced by 666 from 1 to 30 bar Again no to very little formation of light hydrocarbons and tars is predicted by the equilibrium even at higher pressures At high pressures and moderate temperatures a mixture of basically CH

4 Co

2 and H

2o ndash representing Equation (28) ndash can be obtained A process

example is hydrothermal gasification which is operating at these conditions but still is at development state [6ndash8] The above‐mentioned trends are all under the assumption of complete conversion of feedstock to product gas Many gasification concepts how-ever have a considerable amount of char remaining unconverted being removed with the ashes or in indirect gasification being converted in a separate combustion chamber for supplying the gasification heat The carbon feedstock entering the gas phase

10 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

during gasification will therefore be drastically changed when carbon conversion is incomplete Even minor effects on the hydrogen and oxygen balance in the gas phase can be expected as for example biomass char still contains oxygen and hydrogen [9] Figure 23 depicts the influence of pressure and temperature on carbon conversion at temperatures below 800 degC considerable amounts of solid carbon formation are pre-dicted This will in turn influence the equilibrium conditions in the gas phase as the carbon stock in gas phase is reduced The major reactions affected are the Boudouard water gas and waterndashgas shift reactions Equations (24) to (26) Incomplete carbon conversion leads to a decrease of Co concentration in the product gas as well as a decrease in H

2 compared to equilibrium at complete conversion

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

30minus2000

0

2000

4000

6000

ΔH

r [kJ

kg

daf

feed

]

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

300

01020304

y CH

4y H

2y H

2O

y CO

2y C

O

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

T [degC] T [degC]

T [degC]T [degC]

T [degC] T [degC]

P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar] P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar]

fiGure 22 Pressure and temperature dependence of the molar concentration of major gas species and the heat of reaction for steam gasification (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic

biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH143

o066

) assuming complete carbon conversion calculated by ASPEn PluS

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 11

223 Gasification ndash a multi‐step Process deviating from equilibrium

Equilibrium calculations while useful for identifying trends with changing operating conditions cannot however predict the performance of technical equipment to a full extent They represent a boundary value that can be approached but never reached The gasification process on a physical level is a multi‐stage process starting with drying of the feedstock followed by pyrolysis and gasificationcombustion The kinetics of the numerous homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions occurring ndash as well as the residence time and reactor setup ndash ultimately determine the product gas composition resulting from gasification Figure 24 illustrates a simplified reaction network for the conversion from received fuel to product gas The drying and pri-mary pyrolysis (also referred to as devolatilization) steps are similar for all gasifica-tion technologies whereas the extent of gasification reactions occurring as well as the approach to equilibrium are a strong function of the gasification medium and the reactor setup during pyrolysis a considerable amount of tars a complex mixture of 1‐ to 5‐ring aromatic hydrocarbons is formed that will undergo various conversion pathways during gasification In the final product gas tar can still represent a consid-erable amount of energy for example biomass steam gasification at 800 degC can result in more than 33 g tarsnm3 corresponding to about 8 of the total product gas energy content on a lower heating value basis [10]

200400

600800

10001200

0

10

20

30

04

02

0

06

08

1

T [degC]

P [bar]

Am

ount

of

feed

stoc

k ca

rbon

conv

erte

d to

gas

pha

se

fiGure 23 Carbon conversion predicted by equilibrium calculations for steam gasifica-tion (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt

CH143

o066

)

12 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

The gas composition from primary pyrolysis represents the starting point for the gasification reactions neves et al [9] conducted an extensive literature review of data on pyrolysis experiments and derived an empirical model for estimating gas species yields as well as tar and char yields and elemental composition as a function of peak pyrolysis temperature Figure 25 illustrates the pyrolysis gas composition and the total gas and char yield based on nevesrsquo model In contrast to the equilibrium calculations for gasification represented in Figure 22 the model predicts consider-able amounts of tars as well as a considerable amount of char produced from pyrol-ysis Even light hydrocarbons are present in the pyrolysis gas Generally speaking the product distribution from pyrolysis as presented in Figure 25 undergoes conversion towards the equilibrium conditions during the final conversion step in Figure 24 ndash the gasification step

The extent of conversion towards the equilibrium state is a function of a large number of parameters such as pressure and temperature reactor design and associated residence time for gas and solids as well as gasndashsolid mixing and the presence of catalytically active materials promoting specific reactions among others

Secondary PyrolysisGasication

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

DehydrationPolymerizationGasication

ReformingCrackingOxidationWater-gas shift

dry fuel

Primary Pyrolysis

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

Drying

As-receivedfuel particle Moisture

Dry fuel

Gasication medium(H2O H2 O2 CO2

)

Productgas

fiGure 24 Conversion process of a fuel particle during gasification (adopted and modi-fied from neves et al [9])

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 13

224 heat management of the Gasification Process

As temperature is the major influencing parameter on the kinetics of the different gasification reactions the thermal management of the gasification reactor is of particular importance The conversion steps from solid fuel to product gas as illus-trated in Figure 24 occur at different temperature levels A qualitative representation

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

Temperature (ordmC)

Tars (C10H8)

CxHy

CH4

CO

CO2

H2O

H2

Mol

ar f

ract

ion

of c

ompo

nent

i

(a)

Temperature (ordmC)

Yie

ld (

kgk

g da

f fu

el)

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1

Char yield

Total yield per kg daf fuelGases tars and pyrolytic water

(b)

fiGure 25 Pyrolysis gas molar composition (a) and overall mass yields (b) as a function of temperature (based on neves [9]) for a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066)

14 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of the temperature profile for a fuel particle over time is illustrated in Figure 26a After particle heat‐up the moisture is evaporated The dry fuel particle is further heated releasing pyrolysis gases and finally the char particle is gasified Heat for gasification needs to be supplied by the hot environment Particle combustion indicated by the dashed line occurs at a particle temperature above environ-ment due to the exothermic nature of the combustion reactions For complete conversion of a biomass fuel with initial moisture content of 20 wt the distribution of the heat demand for conversion on the different processes is illustrated in Figure 26b The gasification heat demand is dominant but even pyrolysis and drying

Dry

ing

Time

(a)

(b)

Tem

pera

ture

Dev

olat

iliza

tion

Pyro

lysi

s Char gasication

Char combustion

Surrounding temperature

a dcb

a ndash Preheating ndash 40b ndash Drying ndash 82

c ndash Pyrolysis ndash 76d ndash Gasication ndash 802

Fraction of total heat demand(6566 kJkg daf fuel)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat demand [kJkg daf fuel]

Gasication temperature (850 degC)

Pyrolysistemperature

(450 degC)

fiGure 26 (a) Qualitative representation of the temperature evolution of a fuel particle during gasification (b) Steam gasification heat demand profile for full conversion of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) at equilibrium (SB ratio = 05

steam supply at 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture)

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 15

represent a considerable share of the specific heat demand for conversion of course in reality pyrolysis and gasification rather occur over a certain temperature range instead of the fixed temperatures used for the calculation (nevesrsquo model for pyrolysis [9] and equilibrium calculations for the gasification) In addition the processes are not strictly sequential but partly occur in parallel within a gasification reactor nevertheless the gasification heat demand will be largest and above all requires the highest temperature level

All heat for the conversion process within the gasification unit needs to be supplied by combustion of part of the fuel or additional external fuel at high temperature Changing the initial moisture content of the biomass will reduce the drying heat demand [b in Figure 26b] and therefore improve the conversion efficiency External drying also allows for using a heat source at lower temperature improving the conversion process from an exergy perspective Even the pyrolysis process can be conducted in a separate reactor with a separate heat source For these considerations in relation to the thermal management of the gasification process temperaturendashheat load graphs can be a useful tool for identifying improvements for the energy efficiency of the gasification process Figure 27 presents such a graph as an example of an indirect gasification process modelled using nevesrsquo pyrolysis model and gasification at equilibrium It is assumed that the amount of char combusted is set to ensure that the combustion heat covers the heat demand for fuel heat‐up drying pyrolysis and gasification The supply of steam to gasification (400 degC) and hot air to combustion (400 degC) is an additional heat demand that needs to be covered The thick curve in Figure 27 represents the aggregation of all the above‐mentioned heat demands whereas the dashed curve is a representation of all heat sources namely the combustion

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat load [kJkg daf fuel]

Preheating biomass air and water (steam)

Moisture evaporationand steam generation

Pyrolysis andpreheating air and steam

Gasific

ation

Tpyrolysis = 450 ordmC

Tgasification = 850 ordmC

Tcombustion = 900 ordmCChar combustion

Gas

coo

ling

(pro

duct

gas

and

com

busti

on fl

ue g

as)Maximum amount

of excess heat3610 kJkg daf

fiGure 27 Temperature heat load curve for indirect steam gasification of a generic bio-mass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) SB ratio = 05 air and steam supply

at 25 degC and heated to 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture

16 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of char and the cooling of hot product gas and combustion flue gases to ambient tem-perature It is obvious that for ideal heat transfer the process has a considerable amount of excess heat allowing for a further increase in conversion to product gas by more efficient use of the heat and reducing the char combustion Converting more solid fuel to product gas will increase the heat demand while at the same time the heat supply will decrease as less char is burnt Even considering the overall SnG process these curves can be used for a holistic analysis of the heat integration of sinks and sources including the operations up‐ and downstream of the gasification step Heat from the methanation reaction might for example be used for biomass drying or for regeneration of an amine solution used for downstream Co

2 removal

The slope of the heat demand curves for pyrolysis and gasification also is dependent on the gas composition that actually is obtained during the different processes A deviation from equilibrium conditions for the gasification will result in considerable changes of the conversion heat demand Two parameters commonly used in thermal conversion processes are used to illustrate the influence of different parameters on the energy performance of the gasification process The first param-eter is the relative air to fuel ratio λ defining the amount of air (oxygen) actually supplied to the reaction in relation to the amount necessary for complete combustion according to stoichiometry

n

nair o actual

air o stoichiometric

2

2

(27)

The second parameter commonly used in gasification is the chemical efficiency ηch

relating the chemical energy content of the product gas to the fuel chemical energy η

ch can be defined on both a lower and a higher heating value basis but in order to

avoid confusion with respect to moisture content the higher heating value is used here

ch HHV

PG

fuel fuel

HHV

HHV

i

i i

n

n (28)

Figure 28 shows λ and ηchHHV

for the base case as illustrated in Figure 27 as well as the influence of changes in different operating parameters Increasing the feed tem-perature for both steam to gasification (Point 1 in Figure 28) and air to combustion (Point 3 in Figure 28) increases the chemical efficiency and reduces λ as less char needs to be burnt reducing the incoming moisture content of the biomass from 20 to 10 wt (Point 4 in Figure 28) results in a remarkable effect reducing the necessary air to fuel ratio and gives a relative increase of the chemical efficiency of 32 Assuming heat losses from the gasification unit (point 6 in Figure 28) corresponding to 2 of the thermal input on a higher heating value basis on the other hand considerably increases the air to fuel ratio and leads to a relative decrease of the chemical efficiency by 3 All changes except for points 5 7 and 8 represent thermal

Page 19: cover thumb - download.e-bookshelf.de · 10.4 PSI’s Catalytic SNG Process 266 10.4.1 Process Description and Layout 266 10.4.2 Mass Balance 268 10.4.3 Energy Balance 269 10.4.4

ta

Bl

e 2

1

Com

posi

tion

and

ove

rall

rea

ctio

n d

ata

for

stea

m G

asif

icat

ion

for

dif

fere

nt f

eeds

tock

mat

eria

ls

Feed

stoc

kM

olar

C

ompo

sitio

nl

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

]c

rea

ctio

n C

oeff

icie

nts

for

Equ

atio

n (2

8)

ΔH

rM

etha

ne Y

ield

ab

c[M

Jkg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

[kg

CH

4kg

daf

Fe

edst

ock]

Coa

laB

row

n co

al ndash

rhe

in

Ger

man

yC

H0

88o

029

262

273

063

20

537

046

3ndash0

19

048

9

lig

nite

ndash n

dak

ota

uSA

CH

072

o0

2526

727

70

697

052

90

471

06

050

9B

itum

inou

s ndash

typi

cal

Sout

h A

fric

aC

H0

68o

008

3435

10

792

056

70

433

12

10

654

Ant

hrac

ite ndash

ruh

r G

erm

any

CH

047

o0

0236

237

00

873

055

30

447

14

60

693

Bio

mas

sbW

illow

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

46o

065

185

199

031

00

520

048

0ndash0

45

035

0B

eech

woo

d ndash

hard

woo

dC

H1

47o

069

179

192

028

60

511

048

9ndash0

71

033

3Fi

r ndash

soft

woo

dC

H1

45o

065

196

210

031

30

520

048

0ndash1

58

035

0Sp

ruce

ndash s

oftw

ood

CH

142

o0

6818

419

70

304

050

80

492

ndash11

70

335

Whe

at s

traw

CH

146

o0

6818

319

60

297

051

20

488

ndash08

40

338

ric

e st

raw

CH

143

o0

6817

518

80

303

050

80

492

ndash02

30

335

a Tak

en f

rom

Hig

man

and

van

der

Bur

gt [

1]

b Tak

en f

rom

Phy

llis

[2]

ndash av

erag

e da

ta f

or m

ater

ial g

roup

c H

HV

[M

Jkg

daf

] =

lH

V [

MJ

kg d

af]

+ 2

44

middot 89

4 middot H

[w

t d

af]

100

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 9

of reaction (based on the HHV of feedstock and methane all reactants and products at 25 degC) as well as the stoichiometric methane yield per kilogram of feedstock The heat of reaction for the overall reaction corresponds to well below 10 for all feed-stock materials For coal based feedstock with low oxygen content the reaction is endothermic while for brown coal and biomass feedstock it is exothermic The methane yield per kilogram feedstock also is considerably lower for biomass based feedstock due to the high oxygen content one option to improve the methane yield would be the additional supply of hydrogen as for example considered in hydrogas-ification The only technical conversion process capable of converting carbonaceous feedstock directly to methane and carbon dioxide according to the reaction in Equation (28) is gasification under supercritical conditions so‐called hydrothermal gasification [6ndash8] This technology is capable of handling wet feedstock but not yet available at commercial scale and is not covered in this chapter Common gasifica-tion technology converts the feedstock to a product gas being a mixture of Co Co

2

H2 H

2o CH

4 light and higher hydrocarbons and trace components followed by a

downstream gas cleaning and methane synthesis stepThe major operating parameters for gasification are pressure and temperature

Equilibrium calculations for steam gasification (05 kg H2okg daf feedstock) for a

generic biomass are used to illustrate the basic trends for the product gas composition and heat demand with changing pressure and temperature All feedstock is assumed to be converted to product gas As can be observed from Figure 22 methane formation is favored by lower temperatures and higher pressures Hydrogen and carbon monoxide formation increases with temperature and so does the endothermi-city of the overall reaction The theoretically exothermic reaction to CH

4 and Co

2 at

25 degC [similar to Equation (28)] turns into an endothermic reaction requiring heat supply at higher temperature

light hydrocarbons (represented by C2H

4) and tars (represented by C

10H

8) are only

formed to a very small extent according to equilibrium calculations The amount of steam added for gasification will mainly influence the H

2Co ratio via the water gas

shift reaction Equation (26) In reality the equilibrium state is usually not reached in the shown temperature range but the actual product gas composition resulting from gasification is influenced by a number of other parameters as will be discussed in subsequent sections An increase in gasification pressure favors methane formation predicted by equilibrium calculations at 800 degC the methane molar fraction increases from 0 to about 155 from 1 to 30 bar With more methane being formed the endo-thermic heat of reaction is reduced by 666 from 1 to 30 bar Again no to very little formation of light hydrocarbons and tars is predicted by the equilibrium even at higher pressures At high pressures and moderate temperatures a mixture of basically CH

4 Co

2 and H

2o ndash representing Equation (28) ndash can be obtained A process

example is hydrothermal gasification which is operating at these conditions but still is at development state [6ndash8] The above‐mentioned trends are all under the assumption of complete conversion of feedstock to product gas Many gasification concepts how-ever have a considerable amount of char remaining unconverted being removed with the ashes or in indirect gasification being converted in a separate combustion chamber for supplying the gasification heat The carbon feedstock entering the gas phase

10 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

during gasification will therefore be drastically changed when carbon conversion is incomplete Even minor effects on the hydrogen and oxygen balance in the gas phase can be expected as for example biomass char still contains oxygen and hydrogen [9] Figure 23 depicts the influence of pressure and temperature on carbon conversion at temperatures below 800 degC considerable amounts of solid carbon formation are pre-dicted This will in turn influence the equilibrium conditions in the gas phase as the carbon stock in gas phase is reduced The major reactions affected are the Boudouard water gas and waterndashgas shift reactions Equations (24) to (26) Incomplete carbon conversion leads to a decrease of Co concentration in the product gas as well as a decrease in H

2 compared to equilibrium at complete conversion

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

30minus2000

0

2000

4000

6000

ΔH

r [kJ

kg

daf

feed

]

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

300

01020304

y CH

4y H

2y H

2O

y CO

2y C

O

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

T [degC] T [degC]

T [degC]T [degC]

T [degC] T [degC]

P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar] P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar]

fiGure 22 Pressure and temperature dependence of the molar concentration of major gas species and the heat of reaction for steam gasification (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic

biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH143

o066

) assuming complete carbon conversion calculated by ASPEn PluS

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 11

223 Gasification ndash a multi‐step Process deviating from equilibrium

Equilibrium calculations while useful for identifying trends with changing operating conditions cannot however predict the performance of technical equipment to a full extent They represent a boundary value that can be approached but never reached The gasification process on a physical level is a multi‐stage process starting with drying of the feedstock followed by pyrolysis and gasificationcombustion The kinetics of the numerous homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions occurring ndash as well as the residence time and reactor setup ndash ultimately determine the product gas composition resulting from gasification Figure 24 illustrates a simplified reaction network for the conversion from received fuel to product gas The drying and pri-mary pyrolysis (also referred to as devolatilization) steps are similar for all gasifica-tion technologies whereas the extent of gasification reactions occurring as well as the approach to equilibrium are a strong function of the gasification medium and the reactor setup during pyrolysis a considerable amount of tars a complex mixture of 1‐ to 5‐ring aromatic hydrocarbons is formed that will undergo various conversion pathways during gasification In the final product gas tar can still represent a consid-erable amount of energy for example biomass steam gasification at 800 degC can result in more than 33 g tarsnm3 corresponding to about 8 of the total product gas energy content on a lower heating value basis [10]

200400

600800

10001200

0

10

20

30

04

02

0

06

08

1

T [degC]

P [bar]

Am

ount

of

feed

stoc

k ca

rbon

conv

erte

d to

gas

pha

se

fiGure 23 Carbon conversion predicted by equilibrium calculations for steam gasifica-tion (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt

CH143

o066

)

12 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

The gas composition from primary pyrolysis represents the starting point for the gasification reactions neves et al [9] conducted an extensive literature review of data on pyrolysis experiments and derived an empirical model for estimating gas species yields as well as tar and char yields and elemental composition as a function of peak pyrolysis temperature Figure 25 illustrates the pyrolysis gas composition and the total gas and char yield based on nevesrsquo model In contrast to the equilibrium calculations for gasification represented in Figure 22 the model predicts consider-able amounts of tars as well as a considerable amount of char produced from pyrol-ysis Even light hydrocarbons are present in the pyrolysis gas Generally speaking the product distribution from pyrolysis as presented in Figure 25 undergoes conversion towards the equilibrium conditions during the final conversion step in Figure 24 ndash the gasification step

The extent of conversion towards the equilibrium state is a function of a large number of parameters such as pressure and temperature reactor design and associated residence time for gas and solids as well as gasndashsolid mixing and the presence of catalytically active materials promoting specific reactions among others

Secondary PyrolysisGasication

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

DehydrationPolymerizationGasication

ReformingCrackingOxidationWater-gas shift

dry fuel

Primary Pyrolysis

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

Drying

As-receivedfuel particle Moisture

Dry fuel

Gasication medium(H2O H2 O2 CO2

)

Productgas

fiGure 24 Conversion process of a fuel particle during gasification (adopted and modi-fied from neves et al [9])

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 13

224 heat management of the Gasification Process

As temperature is the major influencing parameter on the kinetics of the different gasification reactions the thermal management of the gasification reactor is of particular importance The conversion steps from solid fuel to product gas as illus-trated in Figure 24 occur at different temperature levels A qualitative representation

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

Temperature (ordmC)

Tars (C10H8)

CxHy

CH4

CO

CO2

H2O

H2

Mol

ar f

ract

ion

of c

ompo

nent

i

(a)

Temperature (ordmC)

Yie

ld (

kgk

g da

f fu

el)

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1

Char yield

Total yield per kg daf fuelGases tars and pyrolytic water

(b)

fiGure 25 Pyrolysis gas molar composition (a) and overall mass yields (b) as a function of temperature (based on neves [9]) for a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066)

14 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of the temperature profile for a fuel particle over time is illustrated in Figure 26a After particle heat‐up the moisture is evaporated The dry fuel particle is further heated releasing pyrolysis gases and finally the char particle is gasified Heat for gasification needs to be supplied by the hot environment Particle combustion indicated by the dashed line occurs at a particle temperature above environ-ment due to the exothermic nature of the combustion reactions For complete conversion of a biomass fuel with initial moisture content of 20 wt the distribution of the heat demand for conversion on the different processes is illustrated in Figure 26b The gasification heat demand is dominant but even pyrolysis and drying

Dry

ing

Time

(a)

(b)

Tem

pera

ture

Dev

olat

iliza

tion

Pyro

lysi

s Char gasication

Char combustion

Surrounding temperature

a dcb

a ndash Preheating ndash 40b ndash Drying ndash 82

c ndash Pyrolysis ndash 76d ndash Gasication ndash 802

Fraction of total heat demand(6566 kJkg daf fuel)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat demand [kJkg daf fuel]

Gasication temperature (850 degC)

Pyrolysistemperature

(450 degC)

fiGure 26 (a) Qualitative representation of the temperature evolution of a fuel particle during gasification (b) Steam gasification heat demand profile for full conversion of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) at equilibrium (SB ratio = 05

steam supply at 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture)

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 15

represent a considerable share of the specific heat demand for conversion of course in reality pyrolysis and gasification rather occur over a certain temperature range instead of the fixed temperatures used for the calculation (nevesrsquo model for pyrolysis [9] and equilibrium calculations for the gasification) In addition the processes are not strictly sequential but partly occur in parallel within a gasification reactor nevertheless the gasification heat demand will be largest and above all requires the highest temperature level

All heat for the conversion process within the gasification unit needs to be supplied by combustion of part of the fuel or additional external fuel at high temperature Changing the initial moisture content of the biomass will reduce the drying heat demand [b in Figure 26b] and therefore improve the conversion efficiency External drying also allows for using a heat source at lower temperature improving the conversion process from an exergy perspective Even the pyrolysis process can be conducted in a separate reactor with a separate heat source For these considerations in relation to the thermal management of the gasification process temperaturendashheat load graphs can be a useful tool for identifying improvements for the energy efficiency of the gasification process Figure 27 presents such a graph as an example of an indirect gasification process modelled using nevesrsquo pyrolysis model and gasification at equilibrium It is assumed that the amount of char combusted is set to ensure that the combustion heat covers the heat demand for fuel heat‐up drying pyrolysis and gasification The supply of steam to gasification (400 degC) and hot air to combustion (400 degC) is an additional heat demand that needs to be covered The thick curve in Figure 27 represents the aggregation of all the above‐mentioned heat demands whereas the dashed curve is a representation of all heat sources namely the combustion

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat load [kJkg daf fuel]

Preheating biomass air and water (steam)

Moisture evaporationand steam generation

Pyrolysis andpreheating air and steam

Gasific

ation

Tpyrolysis = 450 ordmC

Tgasification = 850 ordmC

Tcombustion = 900 ordmCChar combustion

Gas

coo

ling

(pro

duct

gas

and

com

busti

on fl

ue g

as)Maximum amount

of excess heat3610 kJkg daf

fiGure 27 Temperature heat load curve for indirect steam gasification of a generic bio-mass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) SB ratio = 05 air and steam supply

at 25 degC and heated to 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture

16 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of char and the cooling of hot product gas and combustion flue gases to ambient tem-perature It is obvious that for ideal heat transfer the process has a considerable amount of excess heat allowing for a further increase in conversion to product gas by more efficient use of the heat and reducing the char combustion Converting more solid fuel to product gas will increase the heat demand while at the same time the heat supply will decrease as less char is burnt Even considering the overall SnG process these curves can be used for a holistic analysis of the heat integration of sinks and sources including the operations up‐ and downstream of the gasification step Heat from the methanation reaction might for example be used for biomass drying or for regeneration of an amine solution used for downstream Co

2 removal

The slope of the heat demand curves for pyrolysis and gasification also is dependent on the gas composition that actually is obtained during the different processes A deviation from equilibrium conditions for the gasification will result in considerable changes of the conversion heat demand Two parameters commonly used in thermal conversion processes are used to illustrate the influence of different parameters on the energy performance of the gasification process The first param-eter is the relative air to fuel ratio λ defining the amount of air (oxygen) actually supplied to the reaction in relation to the amount necessary for complete combustion according to stoichiometry

n

nair o actual

air o stoichiometric

2

2

(27)

The second parameter commonly used in gasification is the chemical efficiency ηch

relating the chemical energy content of the product gas to the fuel chemical energy η

ch can be defined on both a lower and a higher heating value basis but in order to

avoid confusion with respect to moisture content the higher heating value is used here

ch HHV

PG

fuel fuel

HHV

HHV

i

i i

n

n (28)

Figure 28 shows λ and ηchHHV

for the base case as illustrated in Figure 27 as well as the influence of changes in different operating parameters Increasing the feed tem-perature for both steam to gasification (Point 1 in Figure 28) and air to combustion (Point 3 in Figure 28) increases the chemical efficiency and reduces λ as less char needs to be burnt reducing the incoming moisture content of the biomass from 20 to 10 wt (Point 4 in Figure 28) results in a remarkable effect reducing the necessary air to fuel ratio and gives a relative increase of the chemical efficiency of 32 Assuming heat losses from the gasification unit (point 6 in Figure 28) corresponding to 2 of the thermal input on a higher heating value basis on the other hand considerably increases the air to fuel ratio and leads to a relative decrease of the chemical efficiency by 3 All changes except for points 5 7 and 8 represent thermal

Page 20: cover thumb - download.e-bookshelf.de · 10.4 PSI’s Catalytic SNG Process 266 10.4.1 Process Description and Layout 266 10.4.2 Mass Balance 268 10.4.3 Energy Balance 269 10.4.4

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 9

of reaction (based on the HHV of feedstock and methane all reactants and products at 25 degC) as well as the stoichiometric methane yield per kilogram of feedstock The heat of reaction for the overall reaction corresponds to well below 10 for all feed-stock materials For coal based feedstock with low oxygen content the reaction is endothermic while for brown coal and biomass feedstock it is exothermic The methane yield per kilogram feedstock also is considerably lower for biomass based feedstock due to the high oxygen content one option to improve the methane yield would be the additional supply of hydrogen as for example considered in hydrogas-ification The only technical conversion process capable of converting carbonaceous feedstock directly to methane and carbon dioxide according to the reaction in Equation (28) is gasification under supercritical conditions so‐called hydrothermal gasification [6ndash8] This technology is capable of handling wet feedstock but not yet available at commercial scale and is not covered in this chapter Common gasifica-tion technology converts the feedstock to a product gas being a mixture of Co Co

2

H2 H

2o CH

4 light and higher hydrocarbons and trace components followed by a

downstream gas cleaning and methane synthesis stepThe major operating parameters for gasification are pressure and temperature

Equilibrium calculations for steam gasification (05 kg H2okg daf feedstock) for a

generic biomass are used to illustrate the basic trends for the product gas composition and heat demand with changing pressure and temperature All feedstock is assumed to be converted to product gas As can be observed from Figure 22 methane formation is favored by lower temperatures and higher pressures Hydrogen and carbon monoxide formation increases with temperature and so does the endothermi-city of the overall reaction The theoretically exothermic reaction to CH

4 and Co

2 at

25 degC [similar to Equation (28)] turns into an endothermic reaction requiring heat supply at higher temperature

light hydrocarbons (represented by C2H

4) and tars (represented by C

10H

8) are only

formed to a very small extent according to equilibrium calculations The amount of steam added for gasification will mainly influence the H

2Co ratio via the water gas

shift reaction Equation (26) In reality the equilibrium state is usually not reached in the shown temperature range but the actual product gas composition resulting from gasification is influenced by a number of other parameters as will be discussed in subsequent sections An increase in gasification pressure favors methane formation predicted by equilibrium calculations at 800 degC the methane molar fraction increases from 0 to about 155 from 1 to 30 bar With more methane being formed the endo-thermic heat of reaction is reduced by 666 from 1 to 30 bar Again no to very little formation of light hydrocarbons and tars is predicted by the equilibrium even at higher pressures At high pressures and moderate temperatures a mixture of basically CH

4 Co

2 and H

2o ndash representing Equation (28) ndash can be obtained A process

example is hydrothermal gasification which is operating at these conditions but still is at development state [6ndash8] The above‐mentioned trends are all under the assumption of complete conversion of feedstock to product gas Many gasification concepts how-ever have a considerable amount of char remaining unconverted being removed with the ashes or in indirect gasification being converted in a separate combustion chamber for supplying the gasification heat The carbon feedstock entering the gas phase

10 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

during gasification will therefore be drastically changed when carbon conversion is incomplete Even minor effects on the hydrogen and oxygen balance in the gas phase can be expected as for example biomass char still contains oxygen and hydrogen [9] Figure 23 depicts the influence of pressure and temperature on carbon conversion at temperatures below 800 degC considerable amounts of solid carbon formation are pre-dicted This will in turn influence the equilibrium conditions in the gas phase as the carbon stock in gas phase is reduced The major reactions affected are the Boudouard water gas and waterndashgas shift reactions Equations (24) to (26) Incomplete carbon conversion leads to a decrease of Co concentration in the product gas as well as a decrease in H

2 compared to equilibrium at complete conversion

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

30minus2000

0

2000

4000

6000

ΔH

r [kJ

kg

daf

feed

]

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

300

01020304

y CH

4y H

2y H

2O

y CO

2y C

O

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

T [degC] T [degC]

T [degC]T [degC]

T [degC] T [degC]

P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar] P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar]

fiGure 22 Pressure and temperature dependence of the molar concentration of major gas species and the heat of reaction for steam gasification (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic

biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH143

o066

) assuming complete carbon conversion calculated by ASPEn PluS

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 11

223 Gasification ndash a multi‐step Process deviating from equilibrium

Equilibrium calculations while useful for identifying trends with changing operating conditions cannot however predict the performance of technical equipment to a full extent They represent a boundary value that can be approached but never reached The gasification process on a physical level is a multi‐stage process starting with drying of the feedstock followed by pyrolysis and gasificationcombustion The kinetics of the numerous homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions occurring ndash as well as the residence time and reactor setup ndash ultimately determine the product gas composition resulting from gasification Figure 24 illustrates a simplified reaction network for the conversion from received fuel to product gas The drying and pri-mary pyrolysis (also referred to as devolatilization) steps are similar for all gasifica-tion technologies whereas the extent of gasification reactions occurring as well as the approach to equilibrium are a strong function of the gasification medium and the reactor setup during pyrolysis a considerable amount of tars a complex mixture of 1‐ to 5‐ring aromatic hydrocarbons is formed that will undergo various conversion pathways during gasification In the final product gas tar can still represent a consid-erable amount of energy for example biomass steam gasification at 800 degC can result in more than 33 g tarsnm3 corresponding to about 8 of the total product gas energy content on a lower heating value basis [10]

200400

600800

10001200

0

10

20

30

04

02

0

06

08

1

T [degC]

P [bar]

Am

ount

of

feed

stoc

k ca

rbon

conv

erte

d to

gas

pha

se

fiGure 23 Carbon conversion predicted by equilibrium calculations for steam gasifica-tion (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt

CH143

o066

)

12 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

The gas composition from primary pyrolysis represents the starting point for the gasification reactions neves et al [9] conducted an extensive literature review of data on pyrolysis experiments and derived an empirical model for estimating gas species yields as well as tar and char yields and elemental composition as a function of peak pyrolysis temperature Figure 25 illustrates the pyrolysis gas composition and the total gas and char yield based on nevesrsquo model In contrast to the equilibrium calculations for gasification represented in Figure 22 the model predicts consider-able amounts of tars as well as a considerable amount of char produced from pyrol-ysis Even light hydrocarbons are present in the pyrolysis gas Generally speaking the product distribution from pyrolysis as presented in Figure 25 undergoes conversion towards the equilibrium conditions during the final conversion step in Figure 24 ndash the gasification step

The extent of conversion towards the equilibrium state is a function of a large number of parameters such as pressure and temperature reactor design and associated residence time for gas and solids as well as gasndashsolid mixing and the presence of catalytically active materials promoting specific reactions among others

Secondary PyrolysisGasication

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

DehydrationPolymerizationGasication

ReformingCrackingOxidationWater-gas shift

dry fuel

Primary Pyrolysis

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

Drying

As-receivedfuel particle Moisture

Dry fuel

Gasication medium(H2O H2 O2 CO2

)

Productgas

fiGure 24 Conversion process of a fuel particle during gasification (adopted and modi-fied from neves et al [9])

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 13

224 heat management of the Gasification Process

As temperature is the major influencing parameter on the kinetics of the different gasification reactions the thermal management of the gasification reactor is of particular importance The conversion steps from solid fuel to product gas as illus-trated in Figure 24 occur at different temperature levels A qualitative representation

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

Temperature (ordmC)

Tars (C10H8)

CxHy

CH4

CO

CO2

H2O

H2

Mol

ar f

ract

ion

of c

ompo

nent

i

(a)

Temperature (ordmC)

Yie

ld (

kgk

g da

f fu

el)

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1

Char yield

Total yield per kg daf fuelGases tars and pyrolytic water

(b)

fiGure 25 Pyrolysis gas molar composition (a) and overall mass yields (b) as a function of temperature (based on neves [9]) for a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066)

14 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of the temperature profile for a fuel particle over time is illustrated in Figure 26a After particle heat‐up the moisture is evaporated The dry fuel particle is further heated releasing pyrolysis gases and finally the char particle is gasified Heat for gasification needs to be supplied by the hot environment Particle combustion indicated by the dashed line occurs at a particle temperature above environ-ment due to the exothermic nature of the combustion reactions For complete conversion of a biomass fuel with initial moisture content of 20 wt the distribution of the heat demand for conversion on the different processes is illustrated in Figure 26b The gasification heat demand is dominant but even pyrolysis and drying

Dry

ing

Time

(a)

(b)

Tem

pera

ture

Dev

olat

iliza

tion

Pyro

lysi

s Char gasication

Char combustion

Surrounding temperature

a dcb

a ndash Preheating ndash 40b ndash Drying ndash 82

c ndash Pyrolysis ndash 76d ndash Gasication ndash 802

Fraction of total heat demand(6566 kJkg daf fuel)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat demand [kJkg daf fuel]

Gasication temperature (850 degC)

Pyrolysistemperature

(450 degC)

fiGure 26 (a) Qualitative representation of the temperature evolution of a fuel particle during gasification (b) Steam gasification heat demand profile for full conversion of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) at equilibrium (SB ratio = 05

steam supply at 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture)

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 15

represent a considerable share of the specific heat demand for conversion of course in reality pyrolysis and gasification rather occur over a certain temperature range instead of the fixed temperatures used for the calculation (nevesrsquo model for pyrolysis [9] and equilibrium calculations for the gasification) In addition the processes are not strictly sequential but partly occur in parallel within a gasification reactor nevertheless the gasification heat demand will be largest and above all requires the highest temperature level

All heat for the conversion process within the gasification unit needs to be supplied by combustion of part of the fuel or additional external fuel at high temperature Changing the initial moisture content of the biomass will reduce the drying heat demand [b in Figure 26b] and therefore improve the conversion efficiency External drying also allows for using a heat source at lower temperature improving the conversion process from an exergy perspective Even the pyrolysis process can be conducted in a separate reactor with a separate heat source For these considerations in relation to the thermal management of the gasification process temperaturendashheat load graphs can be a useful tool for identifying improvements for the energy efficiency of the gasification process Figure 27 presents such a graph as an example of an indirect gasification process modelled using nevesrsquo pyrolysis model and gasification at equilibrium It is assumed that the amount of char combusted is set to ensure that the combustion heat covers the heat demand for fuel heat‐up drying pyrolysis and gasification The supply of steam to gasification (400 degC) and hot air to combustion (400 degC) is an additional heat demand that needs to be covered The thick curve in Figure 27 represents the aggregation of all the above‐mentioned heat demands whereas the dashed curve is a representation of all heat sources namely the combustion

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat load [kJkg daf fuel]

Preheating biomass air and water (steam)

Moisture evaporationand steam generation

Pyrolysis andpreheating air and steam

Gasific

ation

Tpyrolysis = 450 ordmC

Tgasification = 850 ordmC

Tcombustion = 900 ordmCChar combustion

Gas

coo

ling

(pro

duct

gas

and

com

busti

on fl

ue g

as)Maximum amount

of excess heat3610 kJkg daf

fiGure 27 Temperature heat load curve for indirect steam gasification of a generic bio-mass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) SB ratio = 05 air and steam supply

at 25 degC and heated to 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture

16 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of char and the cooling of hot product gas and combustion flue gases to ambient tem-perature It is obvious that for ideal heat transfer the process has a considerable amount of excess heat allowing for a further increase in conversion to product gas by more efficient use of the heat and reducing the char combustion Converting more solid fuel to product gas will increase the heat demand while at the same time the heat supply will decrease as less char is burnt Even considering the overall SnG process these curves can be used for a holistic analysis of the heat integration of sinks and sources including the operations up‐ and downstream of the gasification step Heat from the methanation reaction might for example be used for biomass drying or for regeneration of an amine solution used for downstream Co

2 removal

The slope of the heat demand curves for pyrolysis and gasification also is dependent on the gas composition that actually is obtained during the different processes A deviation from equilibrium conditions for the gasification will result in considerable changes of the conversion heat demand Two parameters commonly used in thermal conversion processes are used to illustrate the influence of different parameters on the energy performance of the gasification process The first param-eter is the relative air to fuel ratio λ defining the amount of air (oxygen) actually supplied to the reaction in relation to the amount necessary for complete combustion according to stoichiometry

n

nair o actual

air o stoichiometric

2

2

(27)

The second parameter commonly used in gasification is the chemical efficiency ηch

relating the chemical energy content of the product gas to the fuel chemical energy η

ch can be defined on both a lower and a higher heating value basis but in order to

avoid confusion with respect to moisture content the higher heating value is used here

ch HHV

PG

fuel fuel

HHV

HHV

i

i i

n

n (28)

Figure 28 shows λ and ηchHHV

for the base case as illustrated in Figure 27 as well as the influence of changes in different operating parameters Increasing the feed tem-perature for both steam to gasification (Point 1 in Figure 28) and air to combustion (Point 3 in Figure 28) increases the chemical efficiency and reduces λ as less char needs to be burnt reducing the incoming moisture content of the biomass from 20 to 10 wt (Point 4 in Figure 28) results in a remarkable effect reducing the necessary air to fuel ratio and gives a relative increase of the chemical efficiency of 32 Assuming heat losses from the gasification unit (point 6 in Figure 28) corresponding to 2 of the thermal input on a higher heating value basis on the other hand considerably increases the air to fuel ratio and leads to a relative decrease of the chemical efficiency by 3 All changes except for points 5 7 and 8 represent thermal

Page 21: cover thumb - download.e-bookshelf.de · 10.4 PSI’s Catalytic SNG Process 266 10.4.1 Process Description and Layout 266 10.4.2 Mass Balance 268 10.4.3 Energy Balance 269 10.4.4

10 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

during gasification will therefore be drastically changed when carbon conversion is incomplete Even minor effects on the hydrogen and oxygen balance in the gas phase can be expected as for example biomass char still contains oxygen and hydrogen [9] Figure 23 depicts the influence of pressure and temperature on carbon conversion at temperatures below 800 degC considerable amounts of solid carbon formation are pre-dicted This will in turn influence the equilibrium conditions in the gas phase as the carbon stock in gas phase is reduced The major reactions affected are the Boudouard water gas and waterndashgas shift reactions Equations (24) to (26) Incomplete carbon conversion leads to a decrease of Co concentration in the product gas as well as a decrease in H

2 compared to equilibrium at complete conversion

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

30minus2000

0

2000

4000

6000

ΔH

r [kJ

kg

daf

feed

]

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

300

01020304

y CH

4y H

2y H

2O

y CO

2y C

O

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0

10

20

300

01020304

300

01020304

T [degC] T [degC]

T [degC]T [degC]

T [degC] T [degC]

P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar] P [bar]

P [bar]

P [bar]

fiGure 22 Pressure and temperature dependence of the molar concentration of major gas species and the heat of reaction for steam gasification (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic

biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH143

o066

) assuming complete carbon conversion calculated by ASPEn PluS

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 11

223 Gasification ndash a multi‐step Process deviating from equilibrium

Equilibrium calculations while useful for identifying trends with changing operating conditions cannot however predict the performance of technical equipment to a full extent They represent a boundary value that can be approached but never reached The gasification process on a physical level is a multi‐stage process starting with drying of the feedstock followed by pyrolysis and gasificationcombustion The kinetics of the numerous homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions occurring ndash as well as the residence time and reactor setup ndash ultimately determine the product gas composition resulting from gasification Figure 24 illustrates a simplified reaction network for the conversion from received fuel to product gas The drying and pri-mary pyrolysis (also referred to as devolatilization) steps are similar for all gasifica-tion technologies whereas the extent of gasification reactions occurring as well as the approach to equilibrium are a strong function of the gasification medium and the reactor setup during pyrolysis a considerable amount of tars a complex mixture of 1‐ to 5‐ring aromatic hydrocarbons is formed that will undergo various conversion pathways during gasification In the final product gas tar can still represent a consid-erable amount of energy for example biomass steam gasification at 800 degC can result in more than 33 g tarsnm3 corresponding to about 8 of the total product gas energy content on a lower heating value basis [10]

200400

600800

10001200

0

10

20

30

04

02

0

06

08

1

T [degC]

P [bar]

Am

ount

of

feed

stoc

k ca

rbon

conv

erte

d to

gas

pha

se

fiGure 23 Carbon conversion predicted by equilibrium calculations for steam gasifica-tion (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt

CH143

o066

)

12 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

The gas composition from primary pyrolysis represents the starting point for the gasification reactions neves et al [9] conducted an extensive literature review of data on pyrolysis experiments and derived an empirical model for estimating gas species yields as well as tar and char yields and elemental composition as a function of peak pyrolysis temperature Figure 25 illustrates the pyrolysis gas composition and the total gas and char yield based on nevesrsquo model In contrast to the equilibrium calculations for gasification represented in Figure 22 the model predicts consider-able amounts of tars as well as a considerable amount of char produced from pyrol-ysis Even light hydrocarbons are present in the pyrolysis gas Generally speaking the product distribution from pyrolysis as presented in Figure 25 undergoes conversion towards the equilibrium conditions during the final conversion step in Figure 24 ndash the gasification step

The extent of conversion towards the equilibrium state is a function of a large number of parameters such as pressure and temperature reactor design and associated residence time for gas and solids as well as gasndashsolid mixing and the presence of catalytically active materials promoting specific reactions among others

Secondary PyrolysisGasication

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

DehydrationPolymerizationGasication

ReformingCrackingOxidationWater-gas shift

dry fuel

Primary Pyrolysis

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

Drying

As-receivedfuel particle Moisture

Dry fuel

Gasication medium(H2O H2 O2 CO2

)

Productgas

fiGure 24 Conversion process of a fuel particle during gasification (adopted and modi-fied from neves et al [9])

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 13

224 heat management of the Gasification Process

As temperature is the major influencing parameter on the kinetics of the different gasification reactions the thermal management of the gasification reactor is of particular importance The conversion steps from solid fuel to product gas as illus-trated in Figure 24 occur at different temperature levels A qualitative representation

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

Temperature (ordmC)

Tars (C10H8)

CxHy

CH4

CO

CO2

H2O

H2

Mol

ar f

ract

ion

of c

ompo

nent

i

(a)

Temperature (ordmC)

Yie

ld (

kgk

g da

f fu

el)

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1

Char yield

Total yield per kg daf fuelGases tars and pyrolytic water

(b)

fiGure 25 Pyrolysis gas molar composition (a) and overall mass yields (b) as a function of temperature (based on neves [9]) for a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066)

14 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of the temperature profile for a fuel particle over time is illustrated in Figure 26a After particle heat‐up the moisture is evaporated The dry fuel particle is further heated releasing pyrolysis gases and finally the char particle is gasified Heat for gasification needs to be supplied by the hot environment Particle combustion indicated by the dashed line occurs at a particle temperature above environ-ment due to the exothermic nature of the combustion reactions For complete conversion of a biomass fuel with initial moisture content of 20 wt the distribution of the heat demand for conversion on the different processes is illustrated in Figure 26b The gasification heat demand is dominant but even pyrolysis and drying

Dry

ing

Time

(a)

(b)

Tem

pera

ture

Dev

olat

iliza

tion

Pyro

lysi

s Char gasication

Char combustion

Surrounding temperature

a dcb

a ndash Preheating ndash 40b ndash Drying ndash 82

c ndash Pyrolysis ndash 76d ndash Gasication ndash 802

Fraction of total heat demand(6566 kJkg daf fuel)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat demand [kJkg daf fuel]

Gasication temperature (850 degC)

Pyrolysistemperature

(450 degC)

fiGure 26 (a) Qualitative representation of the temperature evolution of a fuel particle during gasification (b) Steam gasification heat demand profile for full conversion of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) at equilibrium (SB ratio = 05

steam supply at 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture)

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 15

represent a considerable share of the specific heat demand for conversion of course in reality pyrolysis and gasification rather occur over a certain temperature range instead of the fixed temperatures used for the calculation (nevesrsquo model for pyrolysis [9] and equilibrium calculations for the gasification) In addition the processes are not strictly sequential but partly occur in parallel within a gasification reactor nevertheless the gasification heat demand will be largest and above all requires the highest temperature level

All heat for the conversion process within the gasification unit needs to be supplied by combustion of part of the fuel or additional external fuel at high temperature Changing the initial moisture content of the biomass will reduce the drying heat demand [b in Figure 26b] and therefore improve the conversion efficiency External drying also allows for using a heat source at lower temperature improving the conversion process from an exergy perspective Even the pyrolysis process can be conducted in a separate reactor with a separate heat source For these considerations in relation to the thermal management of the gasification process temperaturendashheat load graphs can be a useful tool for identifying improvements for the energy efficiency of the gasification process Figure 27 presents such a graph as an example of an indirect gasification process modelled using nevesrsquo pyrolysis model and gasification at equilibrium It is assumed that the amount of char combusted is set to ensure that the combustion heat covers the heat demand for fuel heat‐up drying pyrolysis and gasification The supply of steam to gasification (400 degC) and hot air to combustion (400 degC) is an additional heat demand that needs to be covered The thick curve in Figure 27 represents the aggregation of all the above‐mentioned heat demands whereas the dashed curve is a representation of all heat sources namely the combustion

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat load [kJkg daf fuel]

Preheating biomass air and water (steam)

Moisture evaporationand steam generation

Pyrolysis andpreheating air and steam

Gasific

ation

Tpyrolysis = 450 ordmC

Tgasification = 850 ordmC

Tcombustion = 900 ordmCChar combustion

Gas

coo

ling

(pro

duct

gas

and

com

busti

on fl

ue g

as)Maximum amount

of excess heat3610 kJkg daf

fiGure 27 Temperature heat load curve for indirect steam gasification of a generic bio-mass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) SB ratio = 05 air and steam supply

at 25 degC and heated to 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture

16 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of char and the cooling of hot product gas and combustion flue gases to ambient tem-perature It is obvious that for ideal heat transfer the process has a considerable amount of excess heat allowing for a further increase in conversion to product gas by more efficient use of the heat and reducing the char combustion Converting more solid fuel to product gas will increase the heat demand while at the same time the heat supply will decrease as less char is burnt Even considering the overall SnG process these curves can be used for a holistic analysis of the heat integration of sinks and sources including the operations up‐ and downstream of the gasification step Heat from the methanation reaction might for example be used for biomass drying or for regeneration of an amine solution used for downstream Co

2 removal

The slope of the heat demand curves for pyrolysis and gasification also is dependent on the gas composition that actually is obtained during the different processes A deviation from equilibrium conditions for the gasification will result in considerable changes of the conversion heat demand Two parameters commonly used in thermal conversion processes are used to illustrate the influence of different parameters on the energy performance of the gasification process The first param-eter is the relative air to fuel ratio λ defining the amount of air (oxygen) actually supplied to the reaction in relation to the amount necessary for complete combustion according to stoichiometry

n

nair o actual

air o stoichiometric

2

2

(27)

The second parameter commonly used in gasification is the chemical efficiency ηch

relating the chemical energy content of the product gas to the fuel chemical energy η

ch can be defined on both a lower and a higher heating value basis but in order to

avoid confusion with respect to moisture content the higher heating value is used here

ch HHV

PG

fuel fuel

HHV

HHV

i

i i

n

n (28)

Figure 28 shows λ and ηchHHV

for the base case as illustrated in Figure 27 as well as the influence of changes in different operating parameters Increasing the feed tem-perature for both steam to gasification (Point 1 in Figure 28) and air to combustion (Point 3 in Figure 28) increases the chemical efficiency and reduces λ as less char needs to be burnt reducing the incoming moisture content of the biomass from 20 to 10 wt (Point 4 in Figure 28) results in a remarkable effect reducing the necessary air to fuel ratio and gives a relative increase of the chemical efficiency of 32 Assuming heat losses from the gasification unit (point 6 in Figure 28) corresponding to 2 of the thermal input on a higher heating value basis on the other hand considerably increases the air to fuel ratio and leads to a relative decrease of the chemical efficiency by 3 All changes except for points 5 7 and 8 represent thermal

Page 22: cover thumb - download.e-bookshelf.de · 10.4 PSI’s Catalytic SNG Process 266 10.4.1 Process Description and Layout 266 10.4.2 Mass Balance 268 10.4.3 Energy Balance 269 10.4.4

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 11

223 Gasification ndash a multi‐step Process deviating from equilibrium

Equilibrium calculations while useful for identifying trends with changing operating conditions cannot however predict the performance of technical equipment to a full extent They represent a boundary value that can be approached but never reached The gasification process on a physical level is a multi‐stage process starting with drying of the feedstock followed by pyrolysis and gasificationcombustion The kinetics of the numerous homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions occurring ndash as well as the residence time and reactor setup ndash ultimately determine the product gas composition resulting from gasification Figure 24 illustrates a simplified reaction network for the conversion from received fuel to product gas The drying and pri-mary pyrolysis (also referred to as devolatilization) steps are similar for all gasifica-tion technologies whereas the extent of gasification reactions occurring as well as the approach to equilibrium are a strong function of the gasification medium and the reactor setup during pyrolysis a considerable amount of tars a complex mixture of 1‐ to 5‐ring aromatic hydrocarbons is formed that will undergo various conversion pathways during gasification In the final product gas tar can still represent a consid-erable amount of energy for example biomass steam gasification at 800 degC can result in more than 33 g tarsnm3 corresponding to about 8 of the total product gas energy content on a lower heating value basis [10]

200400

600800

10001200

0

10

20

30

04

02

0

06

08

1

T [degC]

P [bar]

Am

ount

of

feed

stoc

k ca

rbon

conv

erte

d to

gas

pha

se

fiGure 23 Carbon conversion predicted by equilibrium calculations for steam gasifica-tion (SB = 05 kg H

2okg daf) of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt

CH143

o066

)

12 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

The gas composition from primary pyrolysis represents the starting point for the gasification reactions neves et al [9] conducted an extensive literature review of data on pyrolysis experiments and derived an empirical model for estimating gas species yields as well as tar and char yields and elemental composition as a function of peak pyrolysis temperature Figure 25 illustrates the pyrolysis gas composition and the total gas and char yield based on nevesrsquo model In contrast to the equilibrium calculations for gasification represented in Figure 22 the model predicts consider-able amounts of tars as well as a considerable amount of char produced from pyrol-ysis Even light hydrocarbons are present in the pyrolysis gas Generally speaking the product distribution from pyrolysis as presented in Figure 25 undergoes conversion towards the equilibrium conditions during the final conversion step in Figure 24 ndash the gasification step

The extent of conversion towards the equilibrium state is a function of a large number of parameters such as pressure and temperature reactor design and associated residence time for gas and solids as well as gasndashsolid mixing and the presence of catalytically active materials promoting specific reactions among others

Secondary PyrolysisGasication

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

DehydrationPolymerizationGasication

ReformingCrackingOxidationWater-gas shift

dry fuel

Primary Pyrolysis

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

Drying

As-receivedfuel particle Moisture

Dry fuel

Gasication medium(H2O H2 O2 CO2

)

Productgas

fiGure 24 Conversion process of a fuel particle during gasification (adopted and modi-fied from neves et al [9])

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 13

224 heat management of the Gasification Process

As temperature is the major influencing parameter on the kinetics of the different gasification reactions the thermal management of the gasification reactor is of particular importance The conversion steps from solid fuel to product gas as illus-trated in Figure 24 occur at different temperature levels A qualitative representation

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

Temperature (ordmC)

Tars (C10H8)

CxHy

CH4

CO

CO2

H2O

H2

Mol

ar f

ract

ion

of c

ompo

nent

i

(a)

Temperature (ordmC)

Yie

ld (

kgk

g da

f fu

el)

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1

Char yield

Total yield per kg daf fuelGases tars and pyrolytic water

(b)

fiGure 25 Pyrolysis gas molar composition (a) and overall mass yields (b) as a function of temperature (based on neves [9]) for a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066)

14 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of the temperature profile for a fuel particle over time is illustrated in Figure 26a After particle heat‐up the moisture is evaporated The dry fuel particle is further heated releasing pyrolysis gases and finally the char particle is gasified Heat for gasification needs to be supplied by the hot environment Particle combustion indicated by the dashed line occurs at a particle temperature above environ-ment due to the exothermic nature of the combustion reactions For complete conversion of a biomass fuel with initial moisture content of 20 wt the distribution of the heat demand for conversion on the different processes is illustrated in Figure 26b The gasification heat demand is dominant but even pyrolysis and drying

Dry

ing

Time

(a)

(b)

Tem

pera

ture

Dev

olat

iliza

tion

Pyro

lysi

s Char gasication

Char combustion

Surrounding temperature

a dcb

a ndash Preheating ndash 40b ndash Drying ndash 82

c ndash Pyrolysis ndash 76d ndash Gasication ndash 802

Fraction of total heat demand(6566 kJkg daf fuel)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat demand [kJkg daf fuel]

Gasication temperature (850 degC)

Pyrolysistemperature

(450 degC)

fiGure 26 (a) Qualitative representation of the temperature evolution of a fuel particle during gasification (b) Steam gasification heat demand profile for full conversion of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) at equilibrium (SB ratio = 05

steam supply at 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture)

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 15

represent a considerable share of the specific heat demand for conversion of course in reality pyrolysis and gasification rather occur over a certain temperature range instead of the fixed temperatures used for the calculation (nevesrsquo model for pyrolysis [9] and equilibrium calculations for the gasification) In addition the processes are not strictly sequential but partly occur in parallel within a gasification reactor nevertheless the gasification heat demand will be largest and above all requires the highest temperature level

All heat for the conversion process within the gasification unit needs to be supplied by combustion of part of the fuel or additional external fuel at high temperature Changing the initial moisture content of the biomass will reduce the drying heat demand [b in Figure 26b] and therefore improve the conversion efficiency External drying also allows for using a heat source at lower temperature improving the conversion process from an exergy perspective Even the pyrolysis process can be conducted in a separate reactor with a separate heat source For these considerations in relation to the thermal management of the gasification process temperaturendashheat load graphs can be a useful tool for identifying improvements for the energy efficiency of the gasification process Figure 27 presents such a graph as an example of an indirect gasification process modelled using nevesrsquo pyrolysis model and gasification at equilibrium It is assumed that the amount of char combusted is set to ensure that the combustion heat covers the heat demand for fuel heat‐up drying pyrolysis and gasification The supply of steam to gasification (400 degC) and hot air to combustion (400 degC) is an additional heat demand that needs to be covered The thick curve in Figure 27 represents the aggregation of all the above‐mentioned heat demands whereas the dashed curve is a representation of all heat sources namely the combustion

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat load [kJkg daf fuel]

Preheating biomass air and water (steam)

Moisture evaporationand steam generation

Pyrolysis andpreheating air and steam

Gasific

ation

Tpyrolysis = 450 ordmC

Tgasification = 850 ordmC

Tcombustion = 900 ordmCChar combustion

Gas

coo

ling

(pro

duct

gas

and

com

busti

on fl

ue g

as)Maximum amount

of excess heat3610 kJkg daf

fiGure 27 Temperature heat load curve for indirect steam gasification of a generic bio-mass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) SB ratio = 05 air and steam supply

at 25 degC and heated to 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture

16 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of char and the cooling of hot product gas and combustion flue gases to ambient tem-perature It is obvious that for ideal heat transfer the process has a considerable amount of excess heat allowing for a further increase in conversion to product gas by more efficient use of the heat and reducing the char combustion Converting more solid fuel to product gas will increase the heat demand while at the same time the heat supply will decrease as less char is burnt Even considering the overall SnG process these curves can be used for a holistic analysis of the heat integration of sinks and sources including the operations up‐ and downstream of the gasification step Heat from the methanation reaction might for example be used for biomass drying or for regeneration of an amine solution used for downstream Co

2 removal

The slope of the heat demand curves for pyrolysis and gasification also is dependent on the gas composition that actually is obtained during the different processes A deviation from equilibrium conditions for the gasification will result in considerable changes of the conversion heat demand Two parameters commonly used in thermal conversion processes are used to illustrate the influence of different parameters on the energy performance of the gasification process The first param-eter is the relative air to fuel ratio λ defining the amount of air (oxygen) actually supplied to the reaction in relation to the amount necessary for complete combustion according to stoichiometry

n

nair o actual

air o stoichiometric

2

2

(27)

The second parameter commonly used in gasification is the chemical efficiency ηch

relating the chemical energy content of the product gas to the fuel chemical energy η

ch can be defined on both a lower and a higher heating value basis but in order to

avoid confusion with respect to moisture content the higher heating value is used here

ch HHV

PG

fuel fuel

HHV

HHV

i

i i

n

n (28)

Figure 28 shows λ and ηchHHV

for the base case as illustrated in Figure 27 as well as the influence of changes in different operating parameters Increasing the feed tem-perature for both steam to gasification (Point 1 in Figure 28) and air to combustion (Point 3 in Figure 28) increases the chemical efficiency and reduces λ as less char needs to be burnt reducing the incoming moisture content of the biomass from 20 to 10 wt (Point 4 in Figure 28) results in a remarkable effect reducing the necessary air to fuel ratio and gives a relative increase of the chemical efficiency of 32 Assuming heat losses from the gasification unit (point 6 in Figure 28) corresponding to 2 of the thermal input on a higher heating value basis on the other hand considerably increases the air to fuel ratio and leads to a relative decrease of the chemical efficiency by 3 All changes except for points 5 7 and 8 represent thermal

Page 23: cover thumb - download.e-bookshelf.de · 10.4 PSI’s Catalytic SNG Process 266 10.4.1 Process Description and Layout 266 10.4.2 Mass Balance 268 10.4.3 Energy Balance 269 10.4.4

12 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

The gas composition from primary pyrolysis represents the starting point for the gasification reactions neves et al [9] conducted an extensive literature review of data on pyrolysis experiments and derived an empirical model for estimating gas species yields as well as tar and char yields and elemental composition as a function of peak pyrolysis temperature Figure 25 illustrates the pyrolysis gas composition and the total gas and char yield based on nevesrsquo model In contrast to the equilibrium calculations for gasification represented in Figure 22 the model predicts consider-able amounts of tars as well as a considerable amount of char produced from pyrol-ysis Even light hydrocarbons are present in the pyrolysis gas Generally speaking the product distribution from pyrolysis as presented in Figure 25 undergoes conversion towards the equilibrium conditions during the final conversion step in Figure 24 ndash the gasification step

The extent of conversion towards the equilibrium state is a function of a large number of parameters such as pressure and temperature reactor design and associated residence time for gas and solids as well as gasndashsolid mixing and the presence of catalytically active materials promoting specific reactions among others

Secondary PyrolysisGasication

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

DehydrationPolymerizationGasication

ReformingCrackingOxidationWater-gas shift

dry fuel

Primary Pyrolysis

Water

Char

Permanentgases

Tars

Drying

As-receivedfuel particle Moisture

Dry fuel

Gasication medium(H2O H2 O2 CO2

)

Productgas

fiGure 24 Conversion process of a fuel particle during gasification (adopted and modi-fied from neves et al [9])

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 13

224 heat management of the Gasification Process

As temperature is the major influencing parameter on the kinetics of the different gasification reactions the thermal management of the gasification reactor is of particular importance The conversion steps from solid fuel to product gas as illus-trated in Figure 24 occur at different temperature levels A qualitative representation

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

Temperature (ordmC)

Tars (C10H8)

CxHy

CH4

CO

CO2

H2O

H2

Mol

ar f

ract

ion

of c

ompo

nent

i

(a)

Temperature (ordmC)

Yie

ld (

kgk

g da

f fu

el)

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1

Char yield

Total yield per kg daf fuelGases tars and pyrolytic water

(b)

fiGure 25 Pyrolysis gas molar composition (a) and overall mass yields (b) as a function of temperature (based on neves [9]) for a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066)

14 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of the temperature profile for a fuel particle over time is illustrated in Figure 26a After particle heat‐up the moisture is evaporated The dry fuel particle is further heated releasing pyrolysis gases and finally the char particle is gasified Heat for gasification needs to be supplied by the hot environment Particle combustion indicated by the dashed line occurs at a particle temperature above environ-ment due to the exothermic nature of the combustion reactions For complete conversion of a biomass fuel with initial moisture content of 20 wt the distribution of the heat demand for conversion on the different processes is illustrated in Figure 26b The gasification heat demand is dominant but even pyrolysis and drying

Dry

ing

Time

(a)

(b)

Tem

pera

ture

Dev

olat

iliza

tion

Pyro

lysi

s Char gasication

Char combustion

Surrounding temperature

a dcb

a ndash Preheating ndash 40b ndash Drying ndash 82

c ndash Pyrolysis ndash 76d ndash Gasication ndash 802

Fraction of total heat demand(6566 kJkg daf fuel)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat demand [kJkg daf fuel]

Gasication temperature (850 degC)

Pyrolysistemperature

(450 degC)

fiGure 26 (a) Qualitative representation of the temperature evolution of a fuel particle during gasification (b) Steam gasification heat demand profile for full conversion of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) at equilibrium (SB ratio = 05

steam supply at 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture)

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 15

represent a considerable share of the specific heat demand for conversion of course in reality pyrolysis and gasification rather occur over a certain temperature range instead of the fixed temperatures used for the calculation (nevesrsquo model for pyrolysis [9] and equilibrium calculations for the gasification) In addition the processes are not strictly sequential but partly occur in parallel within a gasification reactor nevertheless the gasification heat demand will be largest and above all requires the highest temperature level

All heat for the conversion process within the gasification unit needs to be supplied by combustion of part of the fuel or additional external fuel at high temperature Changing the initial moisture content of the biomass will reduce the drying heat demand [b in Figure 26b] and therefore improve the conversion efficiency External drying also allows for using a heat source at lower temperature improving the conversion process from an exergy perspective Even the pyrolysis process can be conducted in a separate reactor with a separate heat source For these considerations in relation to the thermal management of the gasification process temperaturendashheat load graphs can be a useful tool for identifying improvements for the energy efficiency of the gasification process Figure 27 presents such a graph as an example of an indirect gasification process modelled using nevesrsquo pyrolysis model and gasification at equilibrium It is assumed that the amount of char combusted is set to ensure that the combustion heat covers the heat demand for fuel heat‐up drying pyrolysis and gasification The supply of steam to gasification (400 degC) and hot air to combustion (400 degC) is an additional heat demand that needs to be covered The thick curve in Figure 27 represents the aggregation of all the above‐mentioned heat demands whereas the dashed curve is a representation of all heat sources namely the combustion

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat load [kJkg daf fuel]

Preheating biomass air and water (steam)

Moisture evaporationand steam generation

Pyrolysis andpreheating air and steam

Gasific

ation

Tpyrolysis = 450 ordmC

Tgasification = 850 ordmC

Tcombustion = 900 ordmCChar combustion

Gas

coo

ling

(pro

duct

gas

and

com

busti

on fl

ue g

as)Maximum amount

of excess heat3610 kJkg daf

fiGure 27 Temperature heat load curve for indirect steam gasification of a generic bio-mass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) SB ratio = 05 air and steam supply

at 25 degC and heated to 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture

16 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of char and the cooling of hot product gas and combustion flue gases to ambient tem-perature It is obvious that for ideal heat transfer the process has a considerable amount of excess heat allowing for a further increase in conversion to product gas by more efficient use of the heat and reducing the char combustion Converting more solid fuel to product gas will increase the heat demand while at the same time the heat supply will decrease as less char is burnt Even considering the overall SnG process these curves can be used for a holistic analysis of the heat integration of sinks and sources including the operations up‐ and downstream of the gasification step Heat from the methanation reaction might for example be used for biomass drying or for regeneration of an amine solution used for downstream Co

2 removal

The slope of the heat demand curves for pyrolysis and gasification also is dependent on the gas composition that actually is obtained during the different processes A deviation from equilibrium conditions for the gasification will result in considerable changes of the conversion heat demand Two parameters commonly used in thermal conversion processes are used to illustrate the influence of different parameters on the energy performance of the gasification process The first param-eter is the relative air to fuel ratio λ defining the amount of air (oxygen) actually supplied to the reaction in relation to the amount necessary for complete combustion according to stoichiometry

n

nair o actual

air o stoichiometric

2

2

(27)

The second parameter commonly used in gasification is the chemical efficiency ηch

relating the chemical energy content of the product gas to the fuel chemical energy η

ch can be defined on both a lower and a higher heating value basis but in order to

avoid confusion with respect to moisture content the higher heating value is used here

ch HHV

PG

fuel fuel

HHV

HHV

i

i i

n

n (28)

Figure 28 shows λ and ηchHHV

for the base case as illustrated in Figure 27 as well as the influence of changes in different operating parameters Increasing the feed tem-perature for both steam to gasification (Point 1 in Figure 28) and air to combustion (Point 3 in Figure 28) increases the chemical efficiency and reduces λ as less char needs to be burnt reducing the incoming moisture content of the biomass from 20 to 10 wt (Point 4 in Figure 28) results in a remarkable effect reducing the necessary air to fuel ratio and gives a relative increase of the chemical efficiency of 32 Assuming heat losses from the gasification unit (point 6 in Figure 28) corresponding to 2 of the thermal input on a higher heating value basis on the other hand considerably increases the air to fuel ratio and leads to a relative decrease of the chemical efficiency by 3 All changes except for points 5 7 and 8 represent thermal

Page 24: cover thumb - download.e-bookshelf.de · 10.4 PSI’s Catalytic SNG Process 266 10.4.1 Process Description and Layout 266 10.4.2 Mass Balance 268 10.4.3 Energy Balance 269 10.4.4

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 13

224 heat management of the Gasification Process

As temperature is the major influencing parameter on the kinetics of the different gasification reactions the thermal management of the gasification reactor is of particular importance The conversion steps from solid fuel to product gas as illus-trated in Figure 24 occur at different temperature levels A qualitative representation

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

Temperature (ordmC)

Tars (C10H8)

CxHy

CH4

CO

CO2

H2O

H2

Mol

ar f

ract

ion

of c

ompo

nent

i

(a)

Temperature (ordmC)

Yie

ld (

kgk

g da

f fu

el)

300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1

Char yield

Total yield per kg daf fuelGases tars and pyrolytic water

(b)

fiGure 25 Pyrolysis gas molar composition (a) and overall mass yields (b) as a function of temperature (based on neves [9]) for a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066)

14 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of the temperature profile for a fuel particle over time is illustrated in Figure 26a After particle heat‐up the moisture is evaporated The dry fuel particle is further heated releasing pyrolysis gases and finally the char particle is gasified Heat for gasification needs to be supplied by the hot environment Particle combustion indicated by the dashed line occurs at a particle temperature above environ-ment due to the exothermic nature of the combustion reactions For complete conversion of a biomass fuel with initial moisture content of 20 wt the distribution of the heat demand for conversion on the different processes is illustrated in Figure 26b The gasification heat demand is dominant but even pyrolysis and drying

Dry

ing

Time

(a)

(b)

Tem

pera

ture

Dev

olat

iliza

tion

Pyro

lysi

s Char gasication

Char combustion

Surrounding temperature

a dcb

a ndash Preheating ndash 40b ndash Drying ndash 82

c ndash Pyrolysis ndash 76d ndash Gasication ndash 802

Fraction of total heat demand(6566 kJkg daf fuel)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat demand [kJkg daf fuel]

Gasication temperature (850 degC)

Pyrolysistemperature

(450 degC)

fiGure 26 (a) Qualitative representation of the temperature evolution of a fuel particle during gasification (b) Steam gasification heat demand profile for full conversion of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) at equilibrium (SB ratio = 05

steam supply at 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture)

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 15

represent a considerable share of the specific heat demand for conversion of course in reality pyrolysis and gasification rather occur over a certain temperature range instead of the fixed temperatures used for the calculation (nevesrsquo model for pyrolysis [9] and equilibrium calculations for the gasification) In addition the processes are not strictly sequential but partly occur in parallel within a gasification reactor nevertheless the gasification heat demand will be largest and above all requires the highest temperature level

All heat for the conversion process within the gasification unit needs to be supplied by combustion of part of the fuel or additional external fuel at high temperature Changing the initial moisture content of the biomass will reduce the drying heat demand [b in Figure 26b] and therefore improve the conversion efficiency External drying also allows for using a heat source at lower temperature improving the conversion process from an exergy perspective Even the pyrolysis process can be conducted in a separate reactor with a separate heat source For these considerations in relation to the thermal management of the gasification process temperaturendashheat load graphs can be a useful tool for identifying improvements for the energy efficiency of the gasification process Figure 27 presents such a graph as an example of an indirect gasification process modelled using nevesrsquo pyrolysis model and gasification at equilibrium It is assumed that the amount of char combusted is set to ensure that the combustion heat covers the heat demand for fuel heat‐up drying pyrolysis and gasification The supply of steam to gasification (400 degC) and hot air to combustion (400 degC) is an additional heat demand that needs to be covered The thick curve in Figure 27 represents the aggregation of all the above‐mentioned heat demands whereas the dashed curve is a representation of all heat sources namely the combustion

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat load [kJkg daf fuel]

Preheating biomass air and water (steam)

Moisture evaporationand steam generation

Pyrolysis andpreheating air and steam

Gasific

ation

Tpyrolysis = 450 ordmC

Tgasification = 850 ordmC

Tcombustion = 900 ordmCChar combustion

Gas

coo

ling

(pro

duct

gas

and

com

busti

on fl

ue g

as)Maximum amount

of excess heat3610 kJkg daf

fiGure 27 Temperature heat load curve for indirect steam gasification of a generic bio-mass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) SB ratio = 05 air and steam supply

at 25 degC and heated to 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture

16 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of char and the cooling of hot product gas and combustion flue gases to ambient tem-perature It is obvious that for ideal heat transfer the process has a considerable amount of excess heat allowing for a further increase in conversion to product gas by more efficient use of the heat and reducing the char combustion Converting more solid fuel to product gas will increase the heat demand while at the same time the heat supply will decrease as less char is burnt Even considering the overall SnG process these curves can be used for a holistic analysis of the heat integration of sinks and sources including the operations up‐ and downstream of the gasification step Heat from the methanation reaction might for example be used for biomass drying or for regeneration of an amine solution used for downstream Co

2 removal

The slope of the heat demand curves for pyrolysis and gasification also is dependent on the gas composition that actually is obtained during the different processes A deviation from equilibrium conditions for the gasification will result in considerable changes of the conversion heat demand Two parameters commonly used in thermal conversion processes are used to illustrate the influence of different parameters on the energy performance of the gasification process The first param-eter is the relative air to fuel ratio λ defining the amount of air (oxygen) actually supplied to the reaction in relation to the amount necessary for complete combustion according to stoichiometry

n

nair o actual

air o stoichiometric

2

2

(27)

The second parameter commonly used in gasification is the chemical efficiency ηch

relating the chemical energy content of the product gas to the fuel chemical energy η

ch can be defined on both a lower and a higher heating value basis but in order to

avoid confusion with respect to moisture content the higher heating value is used here

ch HHV

PG

fuel fuel

HHV

HHV

i

i i

n

n (28)

Figure 28 shows λ and ηchHHV

for the base case as illustrated in Figure 27 as well as the influence of changes in different operating parameters Increasing the feed tem-perature for both steam to gasification (Point 1 in Figure 28) and air to combustion (Point 3 in Figure 28) increases the chemical efficiency and reduces λ as less char needs to be burnt reducing the incoming moisture content of the biomass from 20 to 10 wt (Point 4 in Figure 28) results in a remarkable effect reducing the necessary air to fuel ratio and gives a relative increase of the chemical efficiency of 32 Assuming heat losses from the gasification unit (point 6 in Figure 28) corresponding to 2 of the thermal input on a higher heating value basis on the other hand considerably increases the air to fuel ratio and leads to a relative decrease of the chemical efficiency by 3 All changes except for points 5 7 and 8 represent thermal

Page 25: cover thumb - download.e-bookshelf.de · 10.4 PSI’s Catalytic SNG Process 266 10.4.1 Process Description and Layout 266 10.4.2 Mass Balance 268 10.4.3 Energy Balance 269 10.4.4

14 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of the temperature profile for a fuel particle over time is illustrated in Figure 26a After particle heat‐up the moisture is evaporated The dry fuel particle is further heated releasing pyrolysis gases and finally the char particle is gasified Heat for gasification needs to be supplied by the hot environment Particle combustion indicated by the dashed line occurs at a particle temperature above environ-ment due to the exothermic nature of the combustion reactions For complete conversion of a biomass fuel with initial moisture content of 20 wt the distribution of the heat demand for conversion on the different processes is illustrated in Figure 26b The gasification heat demand is dominant but even pyrolysis and drying

Dry

ing

Time

(a)

(b)

Tem

pera

ture

Dev

olat

iliza

tion

Pyro

lysi

s Char gasication

Char combustion

Surrounding temperature

a dcb

a ndash Preheating ndash 40b ndash Drying ndash 82

c ndash Pyrolysis ndash 76d ndash Gasication ndash 802

Fraction of total heat demand(6566 kJkg daf fuel)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat demand [kJkg daf fuel]

Gasication temperature (850 degC)

Pyrolysistemperature

(450 degC)

fiGure 26 (a) Qualitative representation of the temperature evolution of a fuel particle during gasification (b) Steam gasification heat demand profile for full conversion of a generic biomass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) at equilibrium (SB ratio = 05

steam supply at 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture)

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 15

represent a considerable share of the specific heat demand for conversion of course in reality pyrolysis and gasification rather occur over a certain temperature range instead of the fixed temperatures used for the calculation (nevesrsquo model for pyrolysis [9] and equilibrium calculations for the gasification) In addition the processes are not strictly sequential but partly occur in parallel within a gasification reactor nevertheless the gasification heat demand will be largest and above all requires the highest temperature level

All heat for the conversion process within the gasification unit needs to be supplied by combustion of part of the fuel or additional external fuel at high temperature Changing the initial moisture content of the biomass will reduce the drying heat demand [b in Figure 26b] and therefore improve the conversion efficiency External drying also allows for using a heat source at lower temperature improving the conversion process from an exergy perspective Even the pyrolysis process can be conducted in a separate reactor with a separate heat source For these considerations in relation to the thermal management of the gasification process temperaturendashheat load graphs can be a useful tool for identifying improvements for the energy efficiency of the gasification process Figure 27 presents such a graph as an example of an indirect gasification process modelled using nevesrsquo pyrolysis model and gasification at equilibrium It is assumed that the amount of char combusted is set to ensure that the combustion heat covers the heat demand for fuel heat‐up drying pyrolysis and gasification The supply of steam to gasification (400 degC) and hot air to combustion (400 degC) is an additional heat demand that needs to be covered The thick curve in Figure 27 represents the aggregation of all the above‐mentioned heat demands whereas the dashed curve is a representation of all heat sources namely the combustion

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat load [kJkg daf fuel]

Preheating biomass air and water (steam)

Moisture evaporationand steam generation

Pyrolysis andpreheating air and steam

Gasific

ation

Tpyrolysis = 450 ordmC

Tgasification = 850 ordmC

Tcombustion = 900 ordmCChar combustion

Gas

coo

ling

(pro

duct

gas

and

com

busti

on fl

ue g

as)Maximum amount

of excess heat3610 kJkg daf

fiGure 27 Temperature heat load curve for indirect steam gasification of a generic bio-mass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) SB ratio = 05 air and steam supply

at 25 degC and heated to 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture

16 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of char and the cooling of hot product gas and combustion flue gases to ambient tem-perature It is obvious that for ideal heat transfer the process has a considerable amount of excess heat allowing for a further increase in conversion to product gas by more efficient use of the heat and reducing the char combustion Converting more solid fuel to product gas will increase the heat demand while at the same time the heat supply will decrease as less char is burnt Even considering the overall SnG process these curves can be used for a holistic analysis of the heat integration of sinks and sources including the operations up‐ and downstream of the gasification step Heat from the methanation reaction might for example be used for biomass drying or for regeneration of an amine solution used for downstream Co

2 removal

The slope of the heat demand curves for pyrolysis and gasification also is dependent on the gas composition that actually is obtained during the different processes A deviation from equilibrium conditions for the gasification will result in considerable changes of the conversion heat demand Two parameters commonly used in thermal conversion processes are used to illustrate the influence of different parameters on the energy performance of the gasification process The first param-eter is the relative air to fuel ratio λ defining the amount of air (oxygen) actually supplied to the reaction in relation to the amount necessary for complete combustion according to stoichiometry

n

nair o actual

air o stoichiometric

2

2

(27)

The second parameter commonly used in gasification is the chemical efficiency ηch

relating the chemical energy content of the product gas to the fuel chemical energy η

ch can be defined on both a lower and a higher heating value basis but in order to

avoid confusion with respect to moisture content the higher heating value is used here

ch HHV

PG

fuel fuel

HHV

HHV

i

i i

n

n (28)

Figure 28 shows λ and ηchHHV

for the base case as illustrated in Figure 27 as well as the influence of changes in different operating parameters Increasing the feed tem-perature for both steam to gasification (Point 1 in Figure 28) and air to combustion (Point 3 in Figure 28) increases the chemical efficiency and reduces λ as less char needs to be burnt reducing the incoming moisture content of the biomass from 20 to 10 wt (Point 4 in Figure 28) results in a remarkable effect reducing the necessary air to fuel ratio and gives a relative increase of the chemical efficiency of 32 Assuming heat losses from the gasification unit (point 6 in Figure 28) corresponding to 2 of the thermal input on a higher heating value basis on the other hand considerably increases the air to fuel ratio and leads to a relative decrease of the chemical efficiency by 3 All changes except for points 5 7 and 8 represent thermal

Page 26: cover thumb - download.e-bookshelf.de · 10.4 PSI’s Catalytic SNG Process 266 10.4.1 Process Description and Layout 266 10.4.2 Mass Balance 268 10.4.3 Energy Balance 269 10.4.4

THErModYnAMICS oF GASIFICATIon 15

represent a considerable share of the specific heat demand for conversion of course in reality pyrolysis and gasification rather occur over a certain temperature range instead of the fixed temperatures used for the calculation (nevesrsquo model for pyrolysis [9] and equilibrium calculations for the gasification) In addition the processes are not strictly sequential but partly occur in parallel within a gasification reactor nevertheless the gasification heat demand will be largest and above all requires the highest temperature level

All heat for the conversion process within the gasification unit needs to be supplied by combustion of part of the fuel or additional external fuel at high temperature Changing the initial moisture content of the biomass will reduce the drying heat demand [b in Figure 26b] and therefore improve the conversion efficiency External drying also allows for using a heat source at lower temperature improving the conversion process from an exergy perspective Even the pyrolysis process can be conducted in a separate reactor with a separate heat source For these considerations in relation to the thermal management of the gasification process temperaturendashheat load graphs can be a useful tool for identifying improvements for the energy efficiency of the gasification process Figure 27 presents such a graph as an example of an indirect gasification process modelled using nevesrsquo pyrolysis model and gasification at equilibrium It is assumed that the amount of char combusted is set to ensure that the combustion heat covers the heat demand for fuel heat‐up drying pyrolysis and gasification The supply of steam to gasification (400 degC) and hot air to combustion (400 degC) is an additional heat demand that needs to be covered The thick curve in Figure 27 represents the aggregation of all the above‐mentioned heat demands whereas the dashed curve is a representation of all heat sources namely the combustion

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Tem

pera

ture

[ordmC

]

Heat load [kJkg daf fuel]

Preheating biomass air and water (steam)

Moisture evaporationand steam generation

Pyrolysis andpreheating air and steam

Gasific

ation

Tpyrolysis = 450 ordmC

Tgasification = 850 ordmC

Tcombustion = 900 ordmCChar combustion

Gas

coo

ling

(pro

duct

gas

and

com

busti

on fl

ue g

as)Maximum amount

of excess heat3610 kJkg daf

fiGure 27 Temperature heat load curve for indirect steam gasification of a generic bio-mass (C ndash 50 wt H ndash 6 wt o ndash 44 wt CH

143o

066) SB ratio = 05 air and steam supply

at 25 degC and heated to 400 degC 20 wt initial biomass moisture

16 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of char and the cooling of hot product gas and combustion flue gases to ambient tem-perature It is obvious that for ideal heat transfer the process has a considerable amount of excess heat allowing for a further increase in conversion to product gas by more efficient use of the heat and reducing the char combustion Converting more solid fuel to product gas will increase the heat demand while at the same time the heat supply will decrease as less char is burnt Even considering the overall SnG process these curves can be used for a holistic analysis of the heat integration of sinks and sources including the operations up‐ and downstream of the gasification step Heat from the methanation reaction might for example be used for biomass drying or for regeneration of an amine solution used for downstream Co

2 removal

The slope of the heat demand curves for pyrolysis and gasification also is dependent on the gas composition that actually is obtained during the different processes A deviation from equilibrium conditions for the gasification will result in considerable changes of the conversion heat demand Two parameters commonly used in thermal conversion processes are used to illustrate the influence of different parameters on the energy performance of the gasification process The first param-eter is the relative air to fuel ratio λ defining the amount of air (oxygen) actually supplied to the reaction in relation to the amount necessary for complete combustion according to stoichiometry

n

nair o actual

air o stoichiometric

2

2

(27)

The second parameter commonly used in gasification is the chemical efficiency ηch

relating the chemical energy content of the product gas to the fuel chemical energy η

ch can be defined on both a lower and a higher heating value basis but in order to

avoid confusion with respect to moisture content the higher heating value is used here

ch HHV

PG

fuel fuel

HHV

HHV

i

i i

n

n (28)

Figure 28 shows λ and ηchHHV

for the base case as illustrated in Figure 27 as well as the influence of changes in different operating parameters Increasing the feed tem-perature for both steam to gasification (Point 1 in Figure 28) and air to combustion (Point 3 in Figure 28) increases the chemical efficiency and reduces λ as less char needs to be burnt reducing the incoming moisture content of the biomass from 20 to 10 wt (Point 4 in Figure 28) results in a remarkable effect reducing the necessary air to fuel ratio and gives a relative increase of the chemical efficiency of 32 Assuming heat losses from the gasification unit (point 6 in Figure 28) corresponding to 2 of the thermal input on a higher heating value basis on the other hand considerably increases the air to fuel ratio and leads to a relative decrease of the chemical efficiency by 3 All changes except for points 5 7 and 8 represent thermal

Page 27: cover thumb - download.e-bookshelf.de · 10.4 PSI’s Catalytic SNG Process 266 10.4.1 Process Description and Layout 266 10.4.2 Mass Balance 268 10.4.3 Energy Balance 269 10.4.4

16 CoAl And BIoMASS GASIFICATIon For SnG ProduCTIon

of char and the cooling of hot product gas and combustion flue gases to ambient tem-perature It is obvious that for ideal heat transfer the process has a considerable amount of excess heat allowing for a further increase in conversion to product gas by more efficient use of the heat and reducing the char combustion Converting more solid fuel to product gas will increase the heat demand while at the same time the heat supply will decrease as less char is burnt Even considering the overall SnG process these curves can be used for a holistic analysis of the heat integration of sinks and sources including the operations up‐ and downstream of the gasification step Heat from the methanation reaction might for example be used for biomass drying or for regeneration of an amine solution used for downstream Co

2 removal

The slope of the heat demand curves for pyrolysis and gasification also is dependent on the gas composition that actually is obtained during the different processes A deviation from equilibrium conditions for the gasification will result in considerable changes of the conversion heat demand Two parameters commonly used in thermal conversion processes are used to illustrate the influence of different parameters on the energy performance of the gasification process The first param-eter is the relative air to fuel ratio λ defining the amount of air (oxygen) actually supplied to the reaction in relation to the amount necessary for complete combustion according to stoichiometry

n

nair o actual

air o stoichiometric

2

2

(27)

The second parameter commonly used in gasification is the chemical efficiency ηch

relating the chemical energy content of the product gas to the fuel chemical energy η

ch can be defined on both a lower and a higher heating value basis but in order to

avoid confusion with respect to moisture content the higher heating value is used here

ch HHV

PG

fuel fuel

HHV

HHV

i

i i

n

n (28)

Figure 28 shows λ and ηchHHV

for the base case as illustrated in Figure 27 as well as the influence of changes in different operating parameters Increasing the feed tem-perature for both steam to gasification (Point 1 in Figure 28) and air to combustion (Point 3 in Figure 28) increases the chemical efficiency and reduces λ as less char needs to be burnt reducing the incoming moisture content of the biomass from 20 to 10 wt (Point 4 in Figure 28) results in a remarkable effect reducing the necessary air to fuel ratio and gives a relative increase of the chemical efficiency of 32 Assuming heat losses from the gasification unit (point 6 in Figure 28) corresponding to 2 of the thermal input on a higher heating value basis on the other hand considerably increases the air to fuel ratio and leads to a relative decrease of the chemical efficiency by 3 All changes except for points 5 7 and 8 represent thermal