Michaelpurdon-Title Page
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SOFTWOOD GASIFICATION IN A SMALL SCALE DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER HUMBOLDT STATE UNIVERSITY By Michael Joseph Purdon A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of The Department of Environmental Resources Engineering In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science In Environmental Systems: Environmental Resources Engineering Option August, 2010 SOFTWOOD GASIFICATION IN A SMALL SCALE DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER By Michael Joseph Purdon Approved by the Master's Thesis Committee: Dr. Arne Jacobson, Major Professor Date Dr. Charles Chamberlin, Committee Member Date Dr. Christopher Dugaw, Graduate Coordinator Date Dr. Jená Burges, Vice Provost Date ABSTRACT SOFTWOOD GASIFICATION IN A SMALL SCALE DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER Michael Joseph Purdon This thesis is a performance evaluation of a small scale, 11 kilowatt electric, kWe, downdraft gasifier made by Ankur Scientific. According to the US Department of Energy, the potential exists to displace 30% of the United States’ petroleum use by gasifying sustainably harvested biomass which includes forest residues and biomass from forest thinning operations. Transportation costs for this biomass is high, however. One way to minimize these costs is to use small scale, decentralized gasifiers near the harvest sites. Furthermore, the preferred type of gasifier for the small scale is the downdraft gasifier type. A majority of US forests are softwood, and most of the forest derived biomass resource that would be used for gasification is softwood. Historically, however, hardwood has been the preferred fuel for downdraft gasifiers. Therefore, the need exists to evaluate the efficacy of using softwood fuel for downdraft gasification. The softwood fuel used in this evaluation was Douglas Fir wood chips. Moisture content, MC, of the fuel is critical to performance, so in this study, the MC of the fuel was varied from 6% to 22%. The survey consisted of three experiments at 6% MC, four at 13% MC, and three at 22% MC. The experimental run times were relatively short; they averaged 2.9 hrs per experiment. The cold gas efficiency of the gasifier was reasonably stable across the three MCs, with an average of 65.7%. Most performance parameters matched those in the literature for various hardwood studies, but the amount of hydrogen produced was lower iii than all reported values in the literature. The filtration system produced hazardous waste from the sawdust and bag filters. Also, a number of maintenance issues were encountered during the survey which included initial carbon monoxide leaks and mechanical failure of various components of the gasifier. This study showed that softwood gasification is possible, and performance is comparable to hardwood fuel. However, the short run times and maintenance issues encountered reveal that much more research and development are needed if decentralized gasification is to become a feasible option for converting the potential stock of sustainably harvestable US biomass into energy. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, if it weren’t for funding, no research would be conducted anywhere. I would like to thank the Indonesian Sugar Group for sponsoring this research, which provided the Schatz Energy Research Center with their first gasifier and gas chromatograph. The work was carried out through a collaboration with a team from the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL) at UC Berkeley, led by Dr. Daniel Kammen. This is the first experimental thesis conducted on this gasifier; may many more theses be conducted in the future with it. Based on my results, there’s a lot of work left to do. Second, if it weren’t for the amazing and diverse staff at SERC, this work would have never been completed. Project manager Greg Chapman helped run the experiments and installed all of the tubing and fittings for both the gasifier and the gas chromatograph, among many other things. He also watched over me and made sure I didn’t kill myself from the 200,000 ppm of carbon monoxide in the gasifier’s product gas. Marc Marshall and Scott Rommel handled all of the electronic connections and instrumentation, including writing the Labview program to handle the bulk of the data collection. Mark Rocheleau and Ray Glover fabricated all of the custom parts needed to keep the gasifier safe and running, which even included a steel reinforced broom that I used to push the woodchips around when I was drying them. James Apple was a great asset as he helped me perform the experiments, dry the woodchips, and analyze the data. Ranjit Deshmukh was key in the purchase of the gasifier from India, which came complete with wood v eating beetles in the crates. I’m really glad they didn’t survive the climate and eat the Redwood Forest. Third, I would like to thank Tom Miles for his comments and insights on the results of this study. Tom is a leading expert on the subject of small scale downdraft gasification, and his comments made the results much more clear. Finally, I’d like to thank Arne Jacobson and Charles Chamberlin for their assistance throughout the thesis process. Charles didn’t let anything slip through the cracks, and was always there for a good heated argument when discussing the results. Arne has been there for me the entire time, even responding to frantic emails at midnight. If it weren’t for Arne, I never would have finished. I thank Arne most for helping me only after I helped myself. In all of my years in academia, I’ve never had a teacher as compassionate and caring as Arne. Humboldt State is a much better place with him on their team. Thank you for everything. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................ v LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................. x LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xv CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE...................................................................... 3 Gasification- A Brief History ......................................................................................... 6 The Gasification Process ................................................................................................ 7 The Gasification Process - Critical Variables............................................................... 11 The Gasification Process – Performance Indicators..................................................... 13 CHAPTER 3. METHODS AND OPERATION............................................................... 22 Variables ....................................................................................................................... 22 Experimental Setup – Gasifier Operation..................................................................... 23 Experimental Setup – Gasifier Instrumentation............................................................ 30 Methods – Fuel Preparation and Data Collection......................................................... 37 Methods – Calculating the Cold Gas Efficiency .......................................................... 42 Methods – Performance Evaluation.............................................................................. 47 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS................................................................................................. 49 Efficiency Interval and Its Determination .................................................................... 50 Equivalence Ratio......................................................................................................... 51 vii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Gas Composition........................................................................................................... 52 Energy Content ............................................................................................................. 58 Cold Gas Efficiency...................................................................................................... 59 Tars and Particulates..................................................................................................... 61 Fuel Consumption......................................................................................................... 63 Thermal Output Power.................................................................................................. 64 Char-Ash....................................................................................................................... 65 Gasifier Maintenance.................................................................................................... 66 CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION........................................................................................... 73 Experimental Run Time................................................................................................ 73 Equivalence Ratio......................................................................................................... 75 Gas Composition........................................................................................................... 75 Energy Content of Product Gas. ................................................................................... 77 Fuel Consumption Rate