DOCSLIB.ORG

Review of Technologies for Gasification of Biomass and Wastes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Review of Technologies for Gasification of Biomass and Wastes Review of Technologies for Gasification of Biomass and Wastes Final report NNFCC project 09/008 A project funded by DECC, project managed by NNFCC and conducted by E4Tech June 2009 Review of technology for the gasification of biomass and wastes E4tech, June 2009 Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Approach ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Introduction to gasification and fuel production ...................................................................... 1 1.4 Introduction to gasifier types .................................................................................................... 3 2 Syngas conversion to liquid fuels .................................................................................... 6 2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 6 2.2 Fischer-Tropsch synthesis ......................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Methanol synthesis ................................................................................................................... 7 2.4 Mixed alcohols synthesis .......................................................................................................... 8 2.5 Syngas fermentation ................................................................................................................. 8 2.6 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 9 3 Gasifiers available and in development ......................................................................... 13 3.1 Entrained flow gasifiers ........................................................................................................... 14 3.2 Bubbling fluidised bed gasifiers .............................................................................................. 16 3.3 Circulating fluidised bed gasifiers ........................................................................................... 18 3.4 Dual fluidised bed gasifiers ..................................................................................................... 20 3.5 Plasma gasifiers ....................................................................................................................... 21 4 Comparison of gasification technologies ....................................................................... 23 4.1 Feedstock requirements ......................................................................................................... 23 4.2 Ability and potential to achieve syngas quality requirements ............................................... 30 4.3 Development status and operating experience ...................................................................... 33 4.4 Current and future plant scale ................................................................................................ 41 4.5 Costs ........................................................................................................................................ 44 5 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 49 5.1 Suitable gasifier technologies for liquid fuels production ...................................................... 49 5.2 Gasifiers for the UK ................................................................................................................. 51 6 Annex........................................................................................................................... 54 6.1 Entrained flow gasifiers ........................................................................................................... 54 6.2 Bubbling fluidised bed gasifiers .............................................................................................. 67 6.3 Circulating fluidised bed gasifiers ........................................................................................... 84 6.4 Dual fluidised bed gasifiers ................................................................................................... 100 6.5 Plasma gasifiers ..................................................................................................................... 109 7 References ................................................................................................................. 125 Review of technology for the gasification of biomass and wastes E4tech, June 2009 List of Figures Figure 1: Gasifier technology capacity range .............................................................................................. 12 Figure 2: Milling power consumption vs. required particle size ................................................................. 25 Figure 3: Biomass gasification plant size and year of first operation ......................................................... 42 List of Tables Table 1: Gasifier types ................................................................................................................................... 4 Table 2: Syngas to liquids efficiency ............................................................................................................. 9 Table 3: Syngas requirements for FT, methanol, mixed alcohol syntheses and syngas fermentation ...... 10 Table 4: Entrained flow gasifier technologies ............................................................................................. 14 Table 5: Bubbling fluidised bed technology developers ............................................................................. 16 Table 6: Circulating fluidised bed technology developers .......................................................................... 18 Table 7: Dual fluidised bed technology developers .................................................................................... 20 Table 8: Plasma gasifier technology developers ......................................................................................... 21 Table 9: Dual fluidised bed gasifier designs ................................................................................................ 28 Table 10: Summary of feedstock requirements ......................................................................................... 29 Table 11: Syngas composition of gasification technologies........................................................................ 31 Table 12: Stage of development of gasifier technology types .................................................................... 41 Table 13: Costs of offsite feedstock pre-treatment .................................................................................... 47 Table 14: Gasifier type comparison, with each type ranked from ⚫ (poor) to ⚫⚫⚫⚫ (good) ............... 49 Review of technology for the gasification of biomass and wastes E4tech, June 2009 Glossary Main terms: Chemical key: BTL Biomass-To-Liquids H2 hydrogen FT Fischer-Tropsch CO carbon monoxide HAS Higher Alcohol Synthesis CO2 carbon dioxide WGS Water Gas Shift H2O water MSW Municipal Solid Waste CH4 methane WTE Waste To Energy C2H2 acetylene RDF Refuse Derived Fuel C2+ higher hydrocarbons CHP Combined Heat and Power CH3OH methanol IGCC Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle N2 nitrogen BIG-GT Biomass Integrated Gasifier-Gas Turbine HCN hydrogen cyanide NH3 ammonia Gasifier types: NOx nitrous oxides EF Entrained Flow COS carbonyl sulphide BFB Bubbling Fluidised Bed H2S hydrogen sulphide CFB Circulating Fluidised Bed CS2 carbon bisulphide Dual Dual Fluidised Bed HCl hydrogen chloride Br bromine Units: F fluorine ppm parts per million, by mass Na sodium ppmv parts per million, by volume K potassium ppb parts per billion, by volume SiO2 silica odt oven dried tonnes Co cobalt t wet tonnes Cu copper kW kilowatt Fe iron MW megawatt Ni nickel MWth megawatts thermal As arsenic MWe megawatts electric P phosphorous LHV Lower Heating Value Pb lead HHV Higher Heating Value Zn zinc ZnO zinc oxide Al2O3 aluminium oxide Cr chromium Cr2O3 chromium oxide MoS2 molybdenum sulphide Review of technology for the gasification of biomass and wastes E4tech, June 2009 1 Introduction 1.1 Background Recognising the limitations of many current biofuel production technologies, in terms of resource potential, greenhouse gas savings and economic viability, there is considerable interest in second generation routes. These offer the potential for a wider range of feedstocks to be used, lower greenhouse gas impacts, and lower costs. Gasification is an important component of several of the proposed second generation routes, such as catalytic routes to diesel, gasoline, naphtha, methanol, ethanol and other alcohols, and syngas fermentation routes to ethanol. Many of the component technologies for some of these routes, such as feedstock preparation, gasification, and Fischer-Tropsch or methanol synthesis are commercially viable or technically mature for other applications. However, the systems as a whole are at the early demonstration stage worldwide, with further development and learning needed to achieve commercially
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hydrocarbon Processing®
    HYDROCARBON PROCESSING® 2012 Gas Processes Handbook HOME PROCESSES INDEX COMPANY INDEX Sponsors: SRTTA HYDROCARBON PROCESSING® 2012 Gas Processes Handbook HOME PROCESSES INDEX COMPANY INDEX Sponsors: Hydrocarbon Processing’s Gas Processes 2012 handbook showcases recent advances in licensed technologies for gas processing, particularly in the area of liquefied natural gas (LNG). The LNG industry is poised to expand worldwide as new natural gas discoveries and production technologies compliment increasing demand for gas as a low-emissions fuel. With the discovery of new reserves come new challenges, such as how to treat gas produced from shale rock—a topic of particular interest for the growing shale gas industry in the US. The Gas Processes 2012 handbook addresses this technology topic and updates many others. The handbook includes new technologies for shale gas treating, synthesis gas production and treating, LNG and NGL production, hydrogen generation, and others. Additional technology topics covered include drying, gas treating, liquid treating, effluent cleanup and sulfur removal. To maintain as complete a listing as possible, the Gas Processes 2012 handbook is available on CD-ROM and at our website for paid subscribers. Additional copies may be ordered from our website. Photo: Lurgi’s synthesis gas complex in Malaysia. Photo courtesy of Air Liquide Global E&C Solutions. Please read the TERMS AND CONDITIONS carefully before using this interactive CD-ROM. Using the CD-ROM or the enclosed files indicates your acceptance of the terms and conditions. www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com HYDROCARBON PROCESSING® 2012 Gas Processes Handbook HOME PROCESSES INDEX COMPANY INDEX Sponsors: Terms and Conditions Gulf Publishing Company provides this program and licenses its use throughout the Some states do not allow the exclusion of implied warranties, so the above exclu- world.
    [Show full text]
  • Process Technologies and Projects for Biolpg
    energies Review Process Technologies and Projects for BioLPG Eric Johnson Atlantic Consulting, 8136 Gattikon, Switzerland; [email protected]; Tel.: +41-44-772-1079 Received: 8 December 2018; Accepted: 9 January 2019; Published: 15 January 2019 Abstract: Liquified petroleum gas (LPG)—currently consumed at some 300 million tonnes per year—consists of propane, butane, or a mixture of the two. Most of the world’s LPG is fossil, but recently, BioLPG has been commercialized as well. This paper reviews all possible synthesis routes to BioLPG: conventional chemical processes, biological processes, advanced chemical processes, and other. Processes are described, and projects are documented as of early 2018. The paper was compiled through an extensive literature review and a series of interviews with participants and stakeholders. Only one process is already commercial: hydrotreatment of bio-oils. Another, fermentation of sugars, has reached demonstration scale. The process with the largest potential for volume is gaseous conversion and synthesis of two feedstocks, cellulosics or organic wastes. In most cases, BioLPG is produced as a byproduct, i.e., a minor output of a multi-product process. BioLPG’s proportion of output varies according to detailed process design: for example, the advanced chemical processes can produce BioLPG at anywhere from 0–10% of output. All these processes and projects will be of interest to researchers, developers and LPG producers/marketers. Keywords: Liquified petroleum gas (LPG); BioLPG; biofuels; process technologies; alternative fuels 1. Introduction Liquified petroleum gas (LPG) is a major fuel for heating and transport, with a current global market of around 300 million tonnes per year.
    [Show full text]
  • Gasification of Woody Biomasses and Forestry Residues
    fermentation Article Gasification of Woody Biomasses and Forestry Residues: Simulation, Performance Analysis, and Environmental Impact Sahar Safarian 1,*, Seyed Mohammad Ebrahimi Saryazdi 2, Runar Unnthorsson 1 and Christiaan Richter 1 1 Mechanical Engineering and Computer Science, Faculty of Industrial Engineering, University of Iceland, Hjardarhagi 6, 107 Reykjavik, Iceland; [email protected] (R.U.); [email protected] (C.R.) 2 Department of Energy Systems Engineering, Sharif University of Technologies, Tehran P.O. Box 14597-77611, Iran; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Wood and forestry residues are usually processed as wastes, but they can be recovered to produce electrical and thermal energy through processes of thermochemical conversion of gasification. This study proposes an equilibrium simulation model developed by ASPEN Plus to investigate the performance of 28 woody biomass and forestry residues’ (WB&FR) gasification in a downdraft gasifier linked with a power generation unit. The case study assesses power generation in Iceland from one ton of each feedstock. The results for the WB&FR alternatives show that the net power generated from one ton of input feedstock to the system is in intervals of 0 to 400 kW/ton, that more that 50% of the systems are located in the range of 100 to 200 kW/ton, and that, among them, the gasification system derived by tamarack bark significantly outranks all other systems by producing 363 kW/ton. Moreover, the environmental impact of these systems is assessed based on the impact categories of global warming (GWP), acidification (AP), and eutrophication (EP) potentials and Citation: Safarian, S.; Ebrahimi normalizes the environmental impact.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposal for Development of Dry Coking/Coal
    Development of Coking/Coal Gasification Concept to Use Indiana Coal for the Production of Metallurgical Coke, Liquid Transportation Fuels, Fertilizer, and Bulk Electric Power Phase II Final Report September 30, 2007 Submitted by Robert Kramer, Ph.D. Director, Energy Efficiency and Reliability Center Purdue University Calumet Table of Contents Page Executive Summary ………………………………………………..…………… 3 List of Figures …………………………………………………………………… 5 List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………. 6 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………… 7 Process Description ……………………………………………………………. 11 Importance to Indiana Coal Use ……………………………………………… 36 Relevance to Previous Studies ………………………………………………. 40 Policy, Scientific and Technical Barriers …………………………………….. 49 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………. 50 Appendix ………………………………………………………………………… 52 2 Executive Summary Coke is a solid carbon fuel and carbon source produced from coal that is used to melt and reduce iron ore. Although coke is an absolutely essential part of iron making and foundry processes, currently there is a shortfall of 5.5 million tons of coke per year in the United States. The shortfall has resulted in increased imports and drastic increases in coke prices and market volatility. For example, coke delivered FOB to a Chinese port in January 2004 was priced at $60/ton, but rose to $420/ton in March 2004 and in September 2004 was $220/ton. This makes clear the likelihood that prices will remain high. This effort that is the subject of this report has considered the suitability of and potential processes for using Indiana coal for the production of coke in a mine mouth or local coking/gasification-liquefaction process. Such processes involve multiple value streams that reduce technical and economic risk. Initial results indicate that it is possible to use blended coal with up to 40% Indiana coal in a non recovery coke oven to produce pyrolysis gas that can be selectively extracted and used for various purposes including the production of electricity and liquid transportation fuels and possibly fertilizer and hydrogen.
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Objective Optimization of a Rectisol Process
    Jiří Jaromír Klemeš, Petar Sabev Varbanov and Peng Yen Liew (Editors) Proceedings of the 24th European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering – ESCAPE 24 June 15-18, 2014, Budapest, Hungary. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Multi-objective Optimization of a Rectisol® Process Manuele Gatti a,*, Emanuele Martelli a, Franҫois Maréchal b, Stefano Consonni a a Politecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Energia, Via Lambruschini 4, Milano, Italy b Industrial Process Energy Systems Engineering (IPESE), Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland [email protected] Abstract This work focuses on the design, simulation and optimization of a Rectisol®-based process tailored for the selective removal of H2S and CO2 from gasification derived synthesis gas. Such task is quite challenging due to the need of addressing simultaneously the process design, energy integration and utility design. The paper, starting from a Rectisol® configuration recently proposed by the authors, describes the models and the solution strategy used to carry out the multi-objective optimization with respect to exergy consumption, CO2 capture level and capital cost. Keywords: Rectisol, CO2 Capture, Numerical Optimization, PGS-COM, Pareto frontier 1. Introduction Coal to Liquids (CTL) as well as Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plants take advantage from the conversion of a cheap, fossil fuel like coal into a clean synthetic gas, mainly composed of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and other minor species, either to produce Liquid Fuels or Electricity as output. In such plants, sulfur-containing compounds are among the most critical contaminants, and they should be separated from the raw syngas not only to cope with emissions regulations but, in the specific case of CTL, also to avoid any potential detrimental impact on the catalyst of the downstream chemical synthesis process.
    [Show full text]
  • Renewable Propane
    Renewable propane Pathways to the prize Eric Johnson Western Propane Gas Association 4 November 2020 A bit of background Headed to Carbon Neutral: 2/3rds of World Economy By 2050 By 2045+ By 2060 By 2050 Facing decarbonisation: you’re not alone! Refiners Gas suppliers Oil majors A new supply chain for refiners Some go completely bio, others partially Today’s r-propane: from vegetable/animal oils/fats Neste’s HVO plant in Rotterdam HVO biopropane (r-propane) capacity in the USA PROJECT OPERATOR kilotonnes Million gal /year /year EXISTING BP Cherry Point BP ? Diamond Green Louisiana Valero: Diamond Green Diesel 10 5.2 Kern Bakersfield Kern ? Marathon N Dakota Tesoro, Marathon (was Andeavor) 2 1 REG Geismar Renewable Energy 1.3 0.7 World Energy California AltAir Fuels, World Energy 7 3.6 PLANNED Diamond Green Texas Valero: Diamond Green Diesel, Darling 90 46.9 HollyFrontier Artesia/Navajo HollyFrontier, Haldor-Topsoe 25 13 Marathon ? Next Renewables Oregon Next Renewable Fuels 80 41.7 Phillips 66 ? Biggest trend: co-processing • Conventional refinery • Modified hydrotreater • Infrastructure exists already Fossil petroleum BP, Kern, Marathon, PREEM, ENI and others…… But there is not enough HVO to meet longer-term demand. LPG production Bio-oil potential What about the NGL industry? Many pathways to renewables…. The seven candidate pathways Gasification-syngas, from biomass Gasification-syngas, from waste Plus ammonia, Pyrolysis from DME, biomass hydrogen etc Glycerine-to-propane Biogas oligomerisation Power-to-X Alcohol to jet/LPG Gasification to syngas, from biomass Cellulose Criterium Finding Process Blast biomass (cellulose/lignin) into CO and H2 (syngas).
    [Show full text]
  • Process Intensification with Integrated Water-Gas-Shift Membrane Reactor Reactor Concept (Left)
    INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM Process Intensification with Integrated Water-Gas-Shift Membrane Reactor Reactor concept (left). Flow diagram (middle): Hydrogen (H2) permeates the membrane where nitrogen (N2) sweeps the gas to Hydrogen-Selective Membranes for High- produce a high-pressure H2/N2 gas stream. Membrane diagram Pressure Hydrogen Separation (right): The H2-selective membrane allows the continuous removal of the H2 produced in the water-gas-shift (WGS) reaction. This allows for the near-complete conversion of carbon monoxide (CO) This project will develop hydrogen-selective membranes for an innovative water-gas-shift reactor that improves gas separation to carbon dioxide (CO2) and for the separation of H2 from CO2. efficiency, enabling reduced energy use and greenhouse gas Image Courtesy of General Electric Company, Western Research Institute, emissions. and Idaho National Laboratory. Benefits for Our Industry and Our Nation Introduction The development of an integrated WGS-MR for hydrogen The goal of process intensification is to reduce the equipment purification and carbon capture will result in fuel flexibility footprint, energy consumption, and environmental impact of as well as environmental, energy, and economic benefits. manufacturing processes. Commercialization of this technology has the potential to achieve the following: One candidate for process intensification is gasification, a common method by which hydrocarbon feedstocks such as coal, • A reduction in energy use during the separation process by biomass, and organic waste are reacted with a controlled amount replacing a conventional WGS reactor and CO2 removal system of oxygen and steam to produce synthesis gas (syngas), which with a WGS-MR and downsized CO2 removal unit is composed primarily of hydrogen (H2) and carbon monoxide (CO).
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogen Sulfide Capture: from Absorption in Polar Liquids to Oxide
    Review pubs.acs.org/CR Hydrogen Sulfide Capture: From Absorption in Polar Liquids to Oxide, Zeolite, and Metal−Organic Framework Adsorbents and Membranes Mansi S. Shah,† Michael Tsapatsis,† and J. Ilja Siepmann*,†,‡ † Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Minnesota, 421 Washington Avenue SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455-0132, United States ‡ Department of Chemistry and Chemical Theory Center, University of Minnesota, 207 Pleasant Street SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455-0431, United States ABSTRACT: Hydrogen sulfide removal is a long-standing economic and environ- mental challenge faced by the oil and gas industries. H2S separation processes using reactive and non-reactive absorption and adsorption, membranes, and cryogenic distillation are reviewed. A detailed discussion is presented on new developments in adsorbents, such as ionic liquids, metal oxides, metals, metal−organic frameworks, zeolites, carbon-based materials, and composite materials; and membrane technologies for H2S removal. This Review attempts to exhaustively compile the existing literature on sour gas sweetening and to identify promising areas for future developments in the field. CONTENTS 4.1. Polymeric Membranes 9785 4.2. Membranes for Gas−Liquid Contact 9786 1. Introduction 9755 4.3. Ceramic Membranes 9789 2. Absorption 9758 4.4. Carbon-Based Membranes 9789 2.1. Alkanolamines 9758 4.5. Composite Membranes 9790 2.2. Methanol 9758 N 5. Cryogenic Distillation 9790 2.3. -Methyl-2-pyrrolidone 9758 6. Outlook and Perspectives 9791 2.4. Poly(ethylene glycol) Dimethyl Ether 9759 Author Information 9792 2.5. Sulfolane and Diisopropanolamine 9759 Corresponding Author 9792 2.6. Ionic Liquids 9759 ORCID 9792 3. Adsorption 9762 Notes 9792 3.1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Gasification
    STRATEGIC ANALYSIS The Future of Gasification By DeLome Fair coal gasification projects in the U.S. then slowed significantly, President and Chief Executive Officer, with the exception of a few that were far enough along in Synthesis Energy Systems, Inc. development to avoid being cancelled. However, during this time period and on into the early 2010s, China continued to build a large number of coal-to-chemicals projects, beginning first with ammonia, and then moving on to methanol, olefins, asification technology has experienced periods of both and a variety of other products. China’s use of coal gasification high and low growth, driven by energy and chemical technology today is by far the largest of any country. China markets and geopolitical forces, since introduced into G rapidly grew its use of coal gasification technology to feed its commercial-scale operation several decades ago. The first industrialization-driven demand for chemicals. However, as large-scale commercial application of coal gasification was China’s GDP growth has slowed, the world’s largest and most in South Africa in 1955 for the production of coal-to-liquids. consistent market for coal gasification technology has begun During the 1970s development of coal gasification was pro- to slow new builds. pelled in the U.S. by the energy crisis, which created a political climate for the country to be less reliant on foreign oil by converting domestic coal into alternative energy options. Further growth of commercial-scale coal gasification began in “Market forces in high-growth the early 1980s in the U.S., Europe, Japan, and China in the coal-to-chemicals market.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogen-Rich Syngas Production Through Synergistic Methane
    Research Article Cite This: ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX pubs.acs.org/journal/ascecg Hydrogen-Rich Syngas Production through Synergistic Methane- Activated Catalytic Biomass Gasification † † † ‡ † Amoolya Lalsare, Yuxin Wang, Qingyuan Li, Ali Sivri, Roman J. Vukmanovich, ‡ † Cosmin E. Dumitrescu, and Jianli Hu*, † ‡ Department of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering and Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, West Virginia University, 395 Evansdale Drive, Morgantown, West Virginia 26505, United States *S Supporting Information ABSTRACT: The abundance of natural gas and biomass in the U.S. was the motivation to investigate the effect of adding methane to catalytic nonoxidative high-temperature biomass gasification. The catalyst used in this study was Fe− Mo/ZSM-5. Methane concentration was varied from 5 to 15 vol %, and the reaction was performed at 850 and 950 °C. While biomass gasification without methane on the same catalysts produced ∼60 mol % methane in the total gas yield, methane addition had a strong effect on the biomass gasification, with more than 80 mol % hydrogen in the product gas. This indicates that the reverse steam methane reformation (SMR) reaction is favored in the absence of additional methane in the gas feed as the formation of H2 and CO shifts the equilibrium to the left. Results showed that 5 mol % additional methane in the feed gas allowed for SMR due to formation of steam adsorbates from oxygen in the functional groups of aromatic lignin being liberated on the oxophilic transition metals like Mo and Fe. This oxygen was then available for the SMR reaction with methane to form H2, CO, and CO2.
    [Show full text]
  • Techno-Economic Analysis of Biofuels Production Based on Gasification Ryan M
    Techno-Economic Analysis of Biofuels Production Based on Gasification Ryan M. Swanson, Justinus A. Satrio, and Robert C. Brown Iowa State University Alexandru Platon ConocoPhillips Company David D. Hsu National Renewable Energy Laboratory NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20-46587 November 2010 Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 Techno-Economic Analysis of Biofuels Production Based on Gasification Ryan M. Swanson, Justinus A. Satrio, and Robert C. Brown Iowa State University Alexandru Platon ConocoPhillips Company David D. Hsu National Renewable Energy Laboratory Prepared under Task No. BB07.7510 NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Report 1617 Cole Boulevard NREL/TP-6A20-46587 Golden, Colorado 80401 November 2010 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof.
    [Show full text]
  • Anaerobic Digestion, Gasification, and Pyrolysis - Lee G.A
    WASTE MANAGEMENT AND MINIMIZATION – Anaerobic Digestion, Gasification, and Pyrolysis - Lee G.A. Potts, Duncan J. Martin ANAEROBIC DIGESTION, GASIFICATION, AND PYROLYSIS Lee G.A. Potts Biwater Treatment, Lancashire, UK Duncan J. Martin University of Nottingham, UK Keywords: anaerobic, biogas, char, combustible, digestate, digestion, gasification, methane, municipal solid waste, pyrolysis Contents 1. Conversion of Municipal Solid Waste to Gaseous Fuels 2. Anaerobic Digestion 2.1. Background 2.2. Principles 2.3. Conditions 2.3.1. Moisture Content 2.3.2. Temperature 2.3.3. pH 2.3.4. Waste Composition 2.3.5. Gas Phase Composition 2.3.6. Retention Time 2.3.7. Seeding 2.3.8. Nutrients 2.3.9. Inhibitors 2.3.10. Mixing 2.4. Feedstock Preparation 2.4.1. Waste Collection and Separation 2.4.2. Feedstock Preparation 2.5. Processes 2.5.1. Dry Batch Digestion 2.5.2. Dry Continuous Digestion 2.5.3. Wet Continuous Digestion 2.5.4. Wet Multistage Digestion 2.6. ProductsUNESCO – EOLSS 2.6.1. Biogas 2.6.2. Digestate SAMPLE CHAPTERS 2.7. Conclusions 3. Pyrolysis and Gasification 3.1. Background 3.2. Pyrolysis 3.2.1. Processes 3.2.2. Gas Products 3.2.3. Liquid Products 3.2.4. Solid Products 3.3. Gasification ©Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS) WASTE MANAGEMENT AND MINIMIZATION – Anaerobic Digestion, Gasification, and Pyrolysis - Lee G.A. Potts, Duncan J. Martin 3.3.1. Processes 3.3.2. Products 3.4. Combined Processes 3.5. Conclusions Acknowledgements Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketches Summary Incinerators for municipal solid waste can be used for electricity generation or space heating.
    [Show full text]