DOCSLIB.ORG

Gas Analysis in Gasification of Biomass and Waste

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gas Analysis in Gasification of Biomass and Waste Gas analysis in gasification of biomass and waste Guideline report Document 1 IEA Bioenergy Task 33 Gas analysis in gasification of biomass and waste Guideline report Document 1 Coordination G. Aranda Almansa, C. Mourao Vilela, B.J. Vreugdenhil (ECN part of TNO) Contributions S. Biollaz, A. Calbry-Muzyka, S. Rodriguez (PSI) Z. Sárossy , G. Ravenni, A. Fateev (DTU) R. Seiser (UCSD) M. Eberhard, T. Kolb (KIT) N. Heikkinen, M. Reinikainen (VTT) R.C. Brown, P.A. Johnston (Iowa State University) P. Nau, K.P. Geigle, P. Kutne (DLR) I. Işık-Gülsaç, P. Aksoy, Y. Çetin, A. Sarıoğlan (TÜBİTAK Mam) C. Tsekos, W. de Jong (TU Delft) F. Benedikt, H. Hofbauer (TU Wien) L. Waldheim (SFC) K. Engvall (KTH) Y. Neubauer (TU Berlin) I. Funcia, J. Gil, I. del Campo (CENER) I. Wilson, Z. Khan (U. Glasgow) D. Gall (Gothenburg University) A. Gómez-Barea (University of Seville) F. Schmidt (Umeå University) L. Lin, M. Strand (Linnaeus University) A. Anca-Couce, L. von Berg (TU Graz) A. Larsson (GoBiGas) J.M. Sánchez Hervás (CIEMAT) B.F. van Egmond, M. Geusebroek, A. Toonen, J. Kuipers, M. Cieplik. E.H. Boymans, A.J. Grootjes (ECN part of TNO) F. Fischer (TUM) M. Schmid (University of Stuttgart) J. Maric (Chalmers University of Technology) F. Defoort, S. Ravel, S. Thiery, M. Balland (CEA) N. Kienzl, S. Martini, J. Loipersböck (Bioenergy 2020+) E. Basset, A. Barba (ENGIE Lab CRIGEN) W. Willeboer (RWE-Essent) R. Venderbosch (BTG) D. Carpenter (NREL) F. Pinto (LNEG) D. Barisano (ENEA) M. Baratieri (UNIBZ) R. Ballesteros (UCLM) Copyright © 2018 IEA Bioenergy. All rights Reserved ISBN 978-1-910154-47-2 Published by IEA BioenergyIEA Bioenergy, also known as the Technology Collaboration Programme (TCP) for a Programme of Research, Development and Demonstration on Bioenergy, functions within a Framework created by the International Energy Agency (IEA). Views, findings and publications of IEA Bioenergy do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the IEA Secretariat or of its individual Member countries. Acknowledgment The work collected in this report has been the result of the joint effort and kind collaboration of a group of experts in the field of gas analysis and biomass gasification. The coordinators would like to warmly thank all the contributing partners for their generous support in sharing their material and experience for this report. It has been the sum of the experiences of this large group of experts that has added the value to this report. The collaborative effort would have been impossible without the use of existing networks. Serge Biollaz and York Neubauer, coordinators of the Gas Analysis group, are gratefully acknowledged for their kind cooperation, valuable advice and active support throughout the elaboration of this report. The members of the IEA Bioenergy Task 33 working group (Steering Group of this project) are gratefully acknowledged for the commitment and feedback throughout the project. Lastly, we would like to express our sincere thanks to the IEA Bioenergy Task 33 “Gasification of biomass and waste” for the funding of this special report. Abstract Gasification is generally acknowledged as one of the technologies that will enable the large-scale production of biofuels and chemicals from biomass and waste. One of the main technical challenges associated to the deployment of biomass gasification as a commercial technology is the cleaning and upgrading of the product gas. The contaminants of product gas from biomass/waste gasification include dust, tars, alkali metals, BTX, sulphur-, nitrogen- and chlorine compounds, and heavy metals. Proper measurement of the components and contaminants of the product gas is essential for the monitoring of gasification-based plants (efficiency, product quality, by-products), as well as for the proper design of the downstream gas cleaning train (for example, scrubbers, sorbents, etc.). In practice, a trade-off between reliability, accuracy and cost has to be reached when selecting the proper analysis technique for a specific application. The deployment and implementation of inexpensive yet accurate gas analysis techniques to monitor the fate of gas contaminants might play an important role in the commercialization of biomass and waste gasification processes. This special report commissioned by the IEA Bioenergy Task 33 group compiles a representative part of the extensive work developed in the last years by relevant actors in the field of gas analysis applied to (biomass and waste) gasification. The approach of this report has been based on the creation of a team of contributing partners who have supplied material to the report. This networking approach has been complemented with a literature review. The report is composed of a set of 2 documents. Document 1 (the present report) describes the available analysis techniques (both commercial and under development) for the measurement of different compounds of interest present in gasification gas. The objective is to help the reader to properly select the analysis technique most suitable to the target compounds and the intended application. Document 1 also describes some examples of application of gas analysis at commercial-, pilot- and research gasification plants, as well as examples of recent and current joint research activities in the field. The information contained in Document 1 is complemented with a book of factsheets on gas analysis techniques in Document 2, and a collection of video blogs which illustrate some of the analysis techniques described in Documents 1 and 2. This guideline report would like to become a platform for the reinforcement of the network of partners working on the development and application of gas analysis, thus fostering collaboration and exchange of knowledge. As such, this report should become a living document which incorporates in future coming progress and developments in the field. Table of contents Acknowledgment ................................................................................................................... iii Abstract ............................................................................................................................... iv Table of contents ................................................................................................................... 5 Contributing partners .............................................................................................................. 9 Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... 10 List of figures ...................................................................................................................... 12 List of tables ....................................................................................................................... 18 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 20 1.1 Motivation of this work ............................................................................................. 20 1.2 Scope of this report ................................................................................................. 22 2. Measurement of target compounds of gasification product gas.............................................. 24 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 24 2.2 Measurement of permanent gases .................................................................................. 24 2.2.1 General considerations ...................................................................................... 24 2.2.2 Main gas compounds – CO, CO2, H2, CH4 .............................................................. 24 2.2.3 C1-C5 hydrocarbons ........................................................................................... 28 2.2.4 Gas conditioning for analysis .............................................................................. 29 2.3 Measurement of water content ...................................................................................... 32 2.4 BTX (Benzene, toluene and xylenes) .............................................................................. 34 2.4.1 General considerations ...................................................................................... 34 2.4.2 Measurement of BTX ......................................................................................... 35 2.5 Tar compounds ........................................................................................................... 37 2.5.1 General considerations ...................................................................................... 37 2.5.2 Offline tar analysis methods ............................................................................... 38 2.5.3 Online tar analysis methods................................................................................ 41 2.6 Sulphur compounds ..................................................................................................... 45 2.6.1 General considerations ...................................................................................... 45 2.6.2 Analysis of sulphur compounds ........................................................................... 45 2.6.3 Sampling of sulphur compounds .......................................................................... 50 2.6.4 Organic sulphur compounds ..............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Biomass-Derived Hydrogen from a Thermally Ballasted Gasifier
    Proceedings of the 2002 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review NREL/CP-610-32405 Biomass-Derived Hydrogen from a Thermally Ballasted Gasifier Robert C. Brown, Glenn Norton, Andy Suby, Jerod Smeenk, Keith Cummer, and Josh Nunez Center for Sustainable Environmental Technologies Iowa State University Ames, IA 50011-3020 INTRODUCTION The goal of this project is to optimize performance of an indirectly heated gasification system that converts switchgrass into hydrogen-rich gas suitable for powering fuel cells. We have developed a thermally ballasted gasifier that uses a single reactor for both combustion and pyrolysis. Instead of spatially separating these processes, they are temporally isolated. The producer gas is neither diluted with nitrogen or the products of combustion. The heat released during combustion at 850°C is stored as latent heat in the form of molten salt sealed in tubes immersed in the fluidized bed. During the pyrolysis phase, which occurs at temperatures between 600 and 850°C, the reactor is fluidized with steam or recycled producer gas rather than air. Heat stored in the phase change material is released during this phase of the cycle to support the endothermic reactions of the pyrolysis stage. Because air is not used during the gas-producing phase of the cycle, nitrogen does not dilute the product gas, resulting in relatively high concentrations of hydrogen and carbon monoxide in the producer gas compared to conventional gasifiers. The carbon monoxide, along with steam used to fluidize the reactor, can be shifted to additional hydrogen by the water-gas shift reaction. Objectives in the first year include: • Determine whether switchgrass is a suitable fuel for the ballasted gasifier.
    [Show full text]
  • Lng Flow Calibration Facilities
    LNG FLOW CALIBRATION FACILITIES Oswin Kerkhof, VSL Mijndert van der Beek, VSL Peter Lucas, VSL Maria Mirzaei, VSL Gerard Blom, VSL Gertjan Kok, VSL Keywords: calibration, flow, flowmeter, custody transfer, measurement, uncertainty, accuracy, transport fuel, quality measurement, 1. Introduction Reliable, accurate and commonly agreed measurement methods are a first requirement for the trade of goods. For the large scale LNG distribution chain there is a commonly agreed measurement practice as described in various ISO standards and in the GIIGNL “Custody transfer handbook”. In comparison with other commodities like natural gas or gasoline the total uncertainty on measured energy is very high for LNG. The LNG industry is therefore committed to improve their measurement accuracies to reduce their financial risks and to optimize their mass and energy balances. As an extension of the traditional distribution chain for LNG a new market of professional consumers is developing with LNG as transport fuel. In this case there is no commonly agreed measurement practice and the metrological framework is not yet in place. This will be a showstopper for the roll-out of the LNG as transport fuel because laws will be enforcing protection of (professional) consumers. For small scale LNG the legal metrology framework will lay down requirements on traceability to national standards and will define maximum permissible measurement errors. This is not the case for large scale LNG where the industrial players are assumed to take care of their own business interests. For this reason the development of an LNG calibration facility is a crucial step and urgently required for the development of the small scale LNG distribution chain.
    [Show 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 .........................................................................................................
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Field Reference Manual, 2015
    CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE DIVISION OF MEASUREMENT STANDARDS FIELD REFERENCE MANUAL 2015 California Code of Regulation Title 4, Division 9 Chapter 1 Tolerances and Specifications for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices NIST Handbook 44 Sections 3.30. Liquid-Measuring Devices through 3.39 Hydrogen Gas-Measuring Devices DISCLAIMER This document represents the Division of Measurement Standards’ field manual for enforcing regulations pertaining to weights and measures in California. This field manual is not to be considered as the official Code of Regulations, as published by Barclays Law Publishers. NOTE: Language in Handbook 44 that is not adopted is annotated “[NOT ADOPTED]” in this document. NOTE: Requirements are different than, or in addition to, the requirements of Handbook 44 are included in the appropriate section this document. They are shaded, bordered, and numbered in the 4002 series to differentiate them from the Handbook 44 requirements. To find the latest online version of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 4, Division 9, visit the California Office of Administration Law (OAL) at: http://ccr.oal.ca.gov/linkedslice/default.asp?SP=CCR-1000&Action=Welcome The CCR may also be accessed at http://oal.ca.gov/ by selecting the link Titled “California Code of Regulations” under the list of “Sponsored Links” in the left column on the OAL Home page. For information concerning the contents of this document, please contact the Division of Measurement Standards by e-mail at [email protected]. NIST Handbook 44 (2015 Edition) - Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices as adopted by the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures July 2014 is available at: www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/pubs/hb44.cfm 3.30.
    [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]