Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Figures
Introduction
Conclusions
References
All Topics
Environmental Science
Waste Management and Disposal

Recent Trends in Gasification Based Waste-to-Energy.pdf

Profile image of Dr. Abdul-Sattar NizamiDr. Abdul-Sattar NizamiProfile image of Mohammad RehanMohammad Rehan
https://doi.org/10.5772/INTECHOPEN.74487
visibility

…

description

19 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Addressing the contemporary waste management is seeing a shift towards energy production while managing waste sustainably. Consequently, waste treatment through gasification is slowly taking over the waste incineration with multiple benefits, including simultaneous waste management and energy production while reducing landfill volumes and displacing conventional fossil fuels. Only in the UK, there are around 14 commercial plants built to operate on gasification technology. These include fixed bed and fluidized bed gasification reactors. Ultra-clean tar free gasification of waste is now the best available technique and has experienced a significant shift from two-stage gasification and combustion towards a one-stage system for gasification and syngas cleaning. Nowadays in gasification sector, more companies are developing commercial plants with tar cracking and syngas cleaning. Moreover, gasification can be a practical scheme when applying ultra-clean syngas for a gas turbine with heat recovery by steam cycle for district heating and cooling (DHC) systems. This chapter aims to examine the recent trends in gasification-based waste-to-energy technologies. Furthermore, types of gasification technologies, their challenges and future perspectives in various applications are highlighted in detail.

Figures (2)
Table 1. Types and sources of waste [2]. As shown in Table 1, the diversity of materials in the waste and complexity of separation leads to a variety of waste treatment options. Since no single waste treatment option can address all types of waste, hence different waste types attract different treatments. Source segregation has made it possible to separate waste streams that can be destined for a waste treatment facility. For example, in an MRF or waste-based biorefinery, most of the readily separable waste streams are separated for reuse and recycling such as metals, plastics, glass, aggregates,
Table 1. Types and sources of waste [2]. As shown in Table 1, the diversity of materials in the waste and complexity of separation leads to a variety of waste treatment options. Since no single waste treatment option can address all types of waste, hence different waste types attract different treatments. Source segregation has made it possible to separate waste streams that can be destined for a waste treatment facility. For example, in an MRF or waste-based biorefinery, most of the readily separable waste streams are separated for reuse and recycling such as metals, plastics, glass, aggregates,
“Negative sign indicates an exothermic reaction, and the positive sign indicates an endothermic reaction. ®nr = Not reported. There is a significant rise in urbanization that is commensurate with waste generation, thus waste energy through gasification became an obvious trend. Waste is attractive for energy recovery due to huge volumes produced in urban areas. However, waste is not uniform in quality, and its moisture content varies from season to season and between geographic locations. Waste gasification can also be integrated with biomass blending to deliver low carbon energy and chemicals. Gasification processes are extensively studied where researc- hers have tried to optimize the gasification conditions using thermal and catalytic treatments in order to enhance the gas quality by reducing the tar content in the syngas [26, 27], along with increasing the hydrogen content and reducing the processing steps to name a few. Furthermore, various studies have focused on the effect of gasifier types [28], effect of proce- ssing temperatures [29-31], effect of feedstock types and their particle sizes [31], effect of gasifying (oxidant) agents [30, 31], effect of the bed materials [32, 33], and combining gasifi- cation with other processes to enhance the process economics and efficiency. During gasifi- cation, various complex homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions take place; some of these are shown in Table 2.
“Negative sign indicates an exothermic reaction, and the positive sign indicates an endothermic reaction. ®nr = Not reported. There is a significant rise in urbanization that is commensurate with waste generation, thus waste energy through gasification became an obvious trend. Waste is attractive for energy recovery due to huge volumes produced in urban areas. However, waste is not uniform in quality, and its moisture content varies from season to season and between geographic locations. Waste gasification can also be integrated with biomass blending to deliver low carbon energy and chemicals. Gasification processes are extensively studied where researc- hers have tried to optimize the gasification conditions using thermal and catalytic treatments in order to enhance the gas quality by reducing the tar content in the syngas [26, 27], along with increasing the hydrogen content and reducing the processing steps to name a few. Furthermore, various studies have focused on the effect of gasifier types [28], effect of proce- ssing temperatures [29-31], effect of feedstock types and their particle sizes [31], effect of gasifying (oxidant) agents [30, 31], effect of the bed materials [32, 33], and combining gasifi- cation with other processes to enhance the process economics and efficiency. During gasifi- cation, various complex homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions take place; some of these are shown in Table 2.

Related papers

Energy from gasification of solid wastes
Rodolfo M. A. Napoli

Waste Management, 2003

Gasification technology is by no means new: in the 1850s, most of the city of London was illuminated by ''town gas'' produced from the gasification of coal. Nowadays, gasification is the main technology for biomass conversion to energy and an attractive alternative for the thermal treatment of solid waste. The number of different uses of gas shows the flexibility of gasification and therefore allows it to be integrated with several industrial processes, as well as power generation systems. The use of a waste-biomass energy production system in a rural community is very interesting too. This paper describes the current state of gasification technology, energy recovery systems, pre-treatments and prospective in syngas use with particular attention to the different process cycles and environmental impacts of solid wastes gasification. #

View PDFchevron_right
Advanced Gasification Technologies for Large Scale Energy Production
Markus Bolhar-Nordenkampf

Combining gasification and large scale combustion provides an opportunity to increase the share of biomass and recycled combustible material in power production gradually. Gasification enables utilization of biomass in existing high-efficiency power boilers, which do not tolerate direct biomass feed in large scale. The use of external gasifiers also supports boiler low load operations and fuel flexibility gives also some advantages to capability to control boiler operations by more efficient way. Burning low calorific gas also enables to reduce the emission level of the main boiler. This solution can extend the life expectations of old boilers. Vaskiluodon Voima Oy, a Finnish utility company, made an investment by 2011 to build a 140MWfuel biomass gasification plant. The gasification plant is integrated to their existing 240MWe coal fired power plant. Product gas from the gasifier is co-fired in the boiler. The gasifier is the largest CFB-gasifier in the world designed for biomass. ...

View PDFchevron_right
Assessment study of an advanced gasification strategy at low temperature for syngas generation
Carlos Afonso Teixeira

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2018

Low temperature gasification for solid residues is herein presented, its environmental impacts evaluated through life cycle assessment (LCA) and further compared with those from other techniques, including incineration. One tonne of municipal solid waste (MSW) was established as functional unit and investigated within defined boundaries. The environmental assessment of low temperature gasification revealed poor results for some of the evaluated impact categories, causes for the higher incineration performance being stated. Also, future perspectives on the combination of plasma and gasification were highlighted as a way to overcome the encountered weaknesses.

View PDFchevron_right
Waste gasification in an up-draft fixed-bed gasifier: experimental study and model validation
P. Filippis

Waste Management and the Environment VI, 2012

Gasification has been identified as a key technology to enhance the environmental tolerability of low quality fuels such as waste and biomass. In this work the performances of a laboratory scale gasification process fed with waste are reported. Among the several technical choices, we selected the up-draft fixed-bed gasifier as an interesting solution for heat generation in small-scale applications, due to the characteristics of simple geometry and low cost. The experimental setup is composed by an up-draft gasifier followed by a reactor used as filter to remove the particulate and as second thermal and catalytic stage to convert the produced tar in lighter species. A literature model has been adapted to the case under study to analyse the influence of operative parameters such as oxidant flow rate (equivalent and air/steam ratio values) and gasification temperature of the process. The original literature model considers the species gas evolution along the axial coordinate only, and does not include time dependency. To make the model time dependent, the consumption time of the gasification fuel bed estimated from experimental tests was introduced. Since the oxidation zone is below the gasification one, the initial species concentrations were set as the species concentrations produced at the end of the oxidation zone, calculated with an atom mass balance considering a complete char combustion. Since the model concerns only the gasification, the up-draft process was split into two consecutive steps to allow direct comparison between experimental and simulated data: first the drying and pyrolysis processes and then the fixed bed gasification. The model was successfully validated with experimental data and then it was used to predict the operative parameters that determine the optimal syngas composition. The best syngas composition (35%

View PDFchevron_right
Fluidized bed gasification of waste-derived fuels
Maria Laura Mastellone

Waste Management, 2010

Five alternative waste-derived fuels obtained from municipal solid waste and different post-consumer packaging were fed in a pilot-scale bubbling fluidized bed gasifier, having a maximum feeding capacity of 100 kg/h. The experimental runs utilized beds of natural olivine, quartz sand or dolomite, fluidized by air, and were carried out under various values of equivalence ratio. The process resulted technically feasible with all the materials tested. The olivine, a neo-silicate of Fe and Mg with an olive-green colour, has proven to be a good candidate to act as a bed catalyst for tar removal during gasification of polyolefin plastic wastes. Thanks to its catalytic activity it is possible to obtain very high fractions of hydrogen in the syngas (between 20% and 30%), even using air as the gasifying agent, i.e. in the most favourable economical conditions and with the simplest plant and reactor configuration. The catalytic activity of olivine was instead reduced or completely inhibited when waste-derived fuels from municipal solid wastes and aggregates of different post-consumer plastic packagings were fed. Anyhow, these materials have given acceptable performance, yielding a syngas of sufficient quality for energy applications after an adequate downstream cleaning.

View PDFchevron_right
Batch waste gasification technology: characteristics and perspectives
P. Filippis

Waste Management and the Environment V, 2010

The problem of municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal is expanding rapidly in all the countries as a consequence of the habits and lifestyles of modern consumers that cause a continuous increasing volume of waste. To date, landfills are still the primary destination of waste. However, with landfill tipping fees rising and their proven negative environmental impacts, cleaner and less costly alternatives for municipal waste disposal should be identified and implemented. The energy recovery from MSW, known as "waste-to-energy" (WTE), is one of such alternatives. Waste-to-energy reduces the amount of materials sent to landfills, prevents air/water contamination, improves recycling rates and lessens the dependence on fossil fuels for power generation. The centrality of thermal processes in the WTE practice, makes strongly necessary the evaluation of the problems associated with both the release and formation of contaminants and the degree of pre-processing required in conversion of MSW into a suitable feed material. Among the currently WTE technologies, one that is finding some interest in Italy is the so called "Molecular Dissociation". This technology developed by Energo is claimed for some advantages, the main of which are the possibility to use as feed material unsorted MSW, the low emission level, and particularly the high flexibility due to its modular design that makes the process well adaptable to the seasonal changes and population growth. An experimentation conducted in a pilot plant greatly contributed to understand the behaviour of the process. On the basis of the obtained experimental results, the paper illustrates advantages and disadvantages of this technology.

View PDFchevron_right
Gasification Processes Old and New: A Basic Review of the Major Technologies
Muhammad Tayyab

This paper has been put together to provide a single source document that not only reviews the historical development of gasification but also compares the process to combustion. It also provides a short discussion on integrated gasification and combined cycle processes. The major focus of the paper is to describe the twelve major gasifiers being marketed today. Some of these are already fully developed while others are in various stages of development. The hydrodynamics and kinetics of each are reviewed along with the most likely gas composition from each of the technologies when using a variety of fuels under different conditions from air blown to oxygen blown and atmospheric pressure to several atmospheres.

View PDFchevron_right
Sustainable off-grid gasification: co-production of electricity, heat, and activated carbon
Energy Materials, Jakub Čespiva, Agata Mlonka-Mędrala

Energy Materials, 2025

The process of gasification is well-known; however, to this day, the applications of such facilities, especially off-grid small-scale units for direct electricity and char production, are scarce. In this study, an off-grid fixed bed downdraft gasification unit is studied from the gaseous/solid product character perspective. This unit represents a possible solution for the emerging call for sustainable decentralised energy sources. Softwood chips were utilised in this study, and their conversion into synthetic gas (direct electricity supply) and solid biochar was observed and analysed. The results show promising values of synthetic gas for potential utilisation in different applications outside the direct combustion process, such as microbial syngas fermentation, with a lower heating value equal to 6.31 MJ·m-3. It appears that during the steam activation process of biochar, both high-quality off-gas of more than 70%vol. H2 (excluding N2) and activated carbon of a specific surface area of 565.87 m2·g-1 can be collected. Further investigations have revealed specific degradation of chemical bonds and material morphology changes during steam gasification. The microporous structure and high specific surface area of the material make it an attractive material for further development as an adsorbent in sorption cooling devices. Therefore, the waste generated within the gasification process is minimised, and the potential of the obtained products will be valued in favour of the sustainability of the remote locations.

View PDFchevron_right
Energy recovery potential and environmental impact of gasification for municipal solid waste
Vaibhav srivastava

Biofuels, 2019

Currently the world is facing numerous environmental problems associated with waste management, climate change and global warming. Therefore, research and development has shifted towards utilising solid waste as an alternative to diminishing fossil fuels. The availability of large amounts of waste and its potential to supply a substantial amount of energy have been widely recognised by the scientific community. Municipal solid waste can be transformed into usable forms of energy through either biological or thermochemical processes (viz. combustion, pyrolysis and gasification). Gasification is considered one of the most efficient routes to convert waste into energy, and is a widely accepted technology that harnesses energy stored in waste. Moreover, for any process to be feasible overall its environmental performance has to be taken into consideration. Recent reports have supported the fact that the gasification process can be carried out with no threat to the environment or human health. The coming decades will reveal the environmental performance of various commercial waste gasifiers currently in operation as strong competitors of other thermochemical conversion processes. Therefore, this review aims to understand the process of gasification, energy recovery potential, environmental impact and technical challenges to tackle the problem of climate change and ultimately reach the goal of sustainability.

View PDFchevron_right
Development of Intensive Hot Syngas Clean- up System for Biomass Gasification
Bülent Keskinler

2020

Gasification is one of the most efficient ways to generate energy from biomass and carbon containing solid waste. Gasification of biomass produces syngas usually consisting of CO, H2, CH4, CO2, N2, H2O gases. However, besides these gases, syngas also includes pollutants such as particulates and tar. In order to utilize product syngas in an internal combustion engines and turbines, the final produced gas must be purified from these unwanted pollutants. In this study, an intensified and integrated syngas cleanup system, which consists of a sintered metal filter resistant to high temperatures to remove particulates and catalyst bed in order to remove tar, was designed and developed. Metal filters have diameters of 10μm and made of 316 L stainless steel properties. On the other hand, honeycomb-shaped nickel-based catalyst is used for tar cracking. This system was placed in the gas outlet of the fixed bed gasification reactor operated under hot gas conditions and at a fuel supply flow ra...

View PDFchevron_right

References (84)

  1. Rehan M et al. Waste to biodiesel: A preliminary assessment for Saudi Arabia. Bioresource Technology. 2018;250:17-25
  2. Hoornweg D, Bhada-Tata P. What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management. Urban Development Series Knowledge Papers. World Bank. Report no. 15. March 2012
  3. ISWA: International Solid Waste Association. Austria: ISWA Report 2015; 2015. p. 37
  4. Jambeck JR et al. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science. 2015;347(6223): 768-771
  5. Nizami AS et al. Developing waste biorefinery in Makkah: A way forward to convert urban waste into renewable energy. Applied Energy. 2017;186(2):189-196
  6. Miandad M et al. Effect of plastic waste types on pyrolysis liquid oil. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation. 2017;119:239-252
  7. Shahzad K et al. Biodiesel production potential from fat fraction of municipal waste in Makkah. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0171297
  8. Rehan M et al. Effect of zeolite catalysts on pyrolysis liquid oil. International Biodeterio- ration & Biodegradation. 2017;119:162-175
  9. Nizami AS et al. The potential of Saudi Arabian natural zeolites in energy recovery technologies. Energy. 2016;108:162-171
  10. Ouda OKM et al. Waste to energy potential: A case study of Saudi Arabia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2016;61:328-340
  11. Khan MD et al. Effect of co-substrates on biogas production and anaerobic decomposition of pentachlorophenol. Bioresource Technology. 2017;238:492-501
  12. Waqas M et al. Resource recovery of food waste through continuous thermophilic in- vessel composting. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2017. DOI: 10.1007/ s11356-017-9358-x
  13. Sadef Y et al. Waste-to-energy and recycling value for developing integrated solid waste management plan in Lahore. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy. 2015;11(7):571-581
  14. Eghtedaei R et al. Co-gasification of biomass and municipal solid waste for hydrogen-rich gas production. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects. 2017;39:1-6
  15. Materazzi M, Lettieri P, Taylor R, Chapman C. Performance analysis of RDF gasification in a two stage fluidized bed-plasma process. Waste Management. 2016;1:256-266
  16. Miandad R et al. Influence of temperature and reaction time on the conversion of poly- styrene waste to pyrolysis liquid oil. Waste Management. 2016;58:250-259
  17. Miandad R et al. Catalytic pyrolysis of plastic waste: A review. Process Safety and Environ- mental Protection. 2016;102:822-838
  18. Malakahmad A et al. Assessment of carbon footprint emissions and environmental con- cerns of solid waste treatment and disposal techniques; case study of Malaysia. Waste Management. 2017
  19. Morin NA et al. The presence and partitioning behavior of flame retardants in waste, leachate, and air particles from Norwegian waste-handling facilities. Journal of Environ- mental Sciences. 2017
  20. Akele ES, Tarekegn MM. Assessment of dioxin and furan emission levels and management practices in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Journal of Health and Pollution. 2017;7(15):85-94
  21. Gatti MG et al. Human biomonitoring of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbonsand metals in the general population residing near the municipal solid waste incinerator of Modena, Italy. Chemosphere. 2017;186:546-557
  22. Miandad M et al. Plastic waste to liquid oil through catalytic pyrolysis using natural and synthetic zeolite catalysts. Waste Management. 2017;69:66-78
  23. Nizami AS et al. Waste biorefineries: Enabling circular economies in developing coun- tries. Bioresource Technology. 2017;241:1101-1117
  24. Prins MJ, Ptasinski KJ, Janssen FJ. From coal to biomass gasification: Comparison of thermodynamic efficiency. Energy. 2007;32(7):1248-1259
  25. Rauch R et al. Biokerosene production from bio-chemical and thermo-chemical biomass conversion and subsequent Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. In: Biokerosene. Springer; 2018. pp. 497-542
  26. Erakhrumen AA. Biomass gasification: Documented information for adoption/adaptation and further improvements toward sustainable utilisation of renewable natural resources. ISRN Renewable Energy. 2012;2012:8. Article ID 536417
  27. Wongsiriamnuay T, Kannang N, Tippayawong N. Effect of operating conditions on cata- lytic gasification of bamboo in a fluidized bed. International Journal of Chemical Engineer- ing. 2013;2013:9. Article ID 297941
  28. Gómez-Barea A, Leckner B. Modeling of biomass gasification in fluidized bed. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science. 2010;36(4):444-509
  29. Ciferno JP, Marano JJ. Benchmarking Biomass Gasification Technologies for Fuels, Chemicals and Hydrogen Production. US Department of Energy. National Energy Technol- ogy Laboratory; 2002
  30. Rapagna S, Latif A. Steam gasification of almond shells in a fluidised bed reactor: The influence of temperature and particle size on product yield and distribution. Biomass and Bioenergy. 1997;12(4):281-288
  31. Mohammed M et al. Air gasification of empty fruit bunch for hydrogen-rich gas production in a fluidized-bed reactor. Energy Conversion and Management. 2011;52(2):1555-1561
  32. Mahishi MR, Goswami D. An experimental study of hydrogen production by gasification of biomass in the presence of a CO 2 sorbent. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 2007;32(14):2803-2808
  33. Hanaoka T et al. Hydrogen production from woody biomass by steam gasification using a CO 2 sorbent. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2005;28(1):63-68
  34. Ahmad AA et al. Assessing the gasification performance of biomass: A review on bio- mass gasification process conditions, optimization and economic evaluation. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2016;53:1333-1347
  35. Doherty W, Reynolds A, Kennedy D. The effect of air preheating in a biomass CFB gasifier using ASPEN Plus simulation. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2009;33(9):1158-1167
  36. Demirbas A. Biomass gasification for power generation in Turkey. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects. 2006;28(5):433-445
  37. Bridgwater AV. Renewable fuels and chemicals by thermal processing of biomass. Chem- ical Engineering Journal. 2003;91(2):87-102
  38. Maschio G, Lucchesi A, Stoppato G. Production of syngas from biomass. Bioresource Technology. 1994;48(2):119-126
  39. André RN et al. Fluidised bed co-gasification of coal and olive oil industry wastes. Fuel. 2005;84(12):1635-1644
  40. Gañan J et al. Energy production by means of gasification process of residuals sourced in Extremadura (Spain). Renewable Energy. 2005;30(11):1759-1769
  41. McKendry P. Energy production from biomass (part 3): Gasification technologies. Bioresource Technology. 2002;83(1):55-63
  42. Couto N et al. Influence of the biomass gasification processes on the final composition of syngas. Energy Procedia. 2013;36:596-606
  43. Bridgwater AV, Evans G, Teknik D. An Assessment of Thermochemical Conversion Sys- tems for Processing Biomass and Refuse. Harwell: Energy Technology Support Unit; 1993
  44. Rampling T, Gill P. Fundamental Research on the Thermal Treatment of Wastes and Biomass: Thermal Treatment Characteristics of Biomass. Vol. 208. Harwell Laboratory, Energy Technology Support Unit; 1993
  45. Hossain A, Davies P. Pyrolysis liquids and gases as alternative fuels in internal combus- tion engines -A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2013;21:165-189
  46. Zhang Q et al. Review of biomass pyrolysis oil properties and upgrading research. Energy Conversion and Management. 2007;48(1):87-92
  47. Veses A et al. Production of upgraded bio-oils by biomass catalytic pyrolysis in an auger reactor using low cost materials. Fuel. 2015;141:17-22
  48. Bridgwater A. Principles and practice of biomass fast pyrolysis processes for liquids. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis. 1999;51(1):3-22
  49. Bridgwater AV. Review of fast pyrolysis of biomass and product upgrading. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2012;38:68-94
  50. Lam SS et al. Progress in waste oil to sustainable energy, with emphasis on pyrolysis techniques. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2016;53:741-753
  51. Center, B.E. Biomassenergycentre.org.uk. Retrieved on, 2012. pp. 02-28
  52. Unknown. Residual Waste Infrastructure Review; 2017. p. 22
  53. Climate Change Act 2008. Chapter 27 of 2008. United Kingdom. 2016. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/pdfs/ukpga_20080027_en.pdf Recent Trends in Gasification Based Waste-to-Energy http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74487
  54. Milne TA, Abatzoglou N, Evans RJ. Biomass Gasifier "Tars": Their Nature, Formation, and Conversion. Vol. 570. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 1998
  55. Maniatis K, Beenackers A. Tar protocols. IEA bioenergy gasification task. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2000;18(1):1-4
  56. Suzuki T, Ohme H, Watanabe Y. Alkali metal catalyzed carbon dioxide gasification of carbon. Energy & Fuels. 1992;6(4):343-351
  57. Devi L, Ptasinski KJ, Janssen FJ. Pretreated olivine as tar removal catalyst for biomass gasifiers: Investigation using naphthalene as model biomass tar. Fuel Processing Technol- ogy. 2005;86(6):707-730
  58. Brage C, Yu Q, Sjöström K. Characteristics of evolution of tar from wood pyrolysis in a fixed-bed reactor. Fuel. 1996;75(2):213-219
  59. Al-Rahbi AS, Onwudili JA, Williams PT. Thermal decomposition and gasification of biomass pyrolysis gases using a hot bed of waste derived pyrolysis char. Bioresource Technology. 2016;204:71-79
  60. Lu Q, Li W-Z, Zhu X-F. Overview of fuel properties of biomass fast pyrolysis oils. Energy Conversion and Management. 2009;50(5):1376-1383
  61. Gassner M, Maréchal F. Thermodynamic comparison of the FICFB and Viking gasifica- tion concepts. Energy. 2009;34(10):1744-1753
  62. Henriksen U et al. The design, construction and operation of a 75kW two-stage gasifier. Energy. 2006;31(10):1542-1553
  63. Neumann J et al. Production and characterization of a new quality pyrolysis oil, char and syngas from digestate -Introducing the thermo-catalytic reforming process. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis. 2015;113:137-142
  64. Brandt P, Larsen E, Henriksen U. High tar reduction in a two-stage gasifier. Energy & Fuels. 2000;14(4):816-819
  65. Wu C, Williams PT. Hydrogen production by steam gasification of polypropylene with various nickel catalysts. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental. 2009;87(3):152-161
  66. Milhé M et al. Autothermal and allothermal pyrolysis in a continuous fixed bed reactor. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis. 2013;103:102-111
  67. Tumiatti V. A flexible three-stage thermochemical conversion process; 2015
  68. Malkow T. Novel and innovative pyrolysis and gasification technologies for energy efficient and environmentally sound MSW disposal. Waste Management. 2004;24(1):53-79
  69. Dahlman. Gasification. 2017 [29/09/2017]
  70. Kraft S, Kirnbauer F, Hofbauer H. CPFD simulations of an industrial-sized dual fluidized bed steam gasification system of biomass with 8MW fuel input. Applied Energy. 2017; 190:408-420
  71. Energos. [29/09/2017]. Available from: http://www.energos.com/energos-technology/the- process/
  72. Energia, L. Kymijarvi II Power Plant. [cited 2017]. Available from: https://www.lahtigasi- fication.com/
  73. Evans G. Targeting New and Cleaner Uses of Wastes and Biomass Using Gasification. Loughborough: Energy Technologies Institute; 2017
  74. Fabry F et al. Waste gasification by thermal plasma: A review. Waste and Biomass Valori- zation. 2013;4(3):421-439
  75. Yoon SJ et al. Hydrogen and syngas production from glycerol through microwave plasma gasification. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 2013;38(34):14559-14567
  76. Power, A.P. Our Technology; 2017 [29/09/2017]
  77. Rokni M. Thermodynamic analyses of municipal solid waste gasification plant integrated with solid oxide fuel cell and Stirling hybrid system. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 2015;40(24):7855-7869
  78. Nagel FP, Schildhauer TJ, Biollaz SM. Biomass-integrated gasification fuel cell systems- part 1: Definition of systems and technical analysis. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 2009;34(16):6809-6825
  79. Lobachyov KV, Richter HJ. An advanced integrated biomass gasification and molten fuel cell power system. Energy Conversion and Management. 1998;39(16):1931-1943
  80. Panopoulos K et al. High temperature solid oxide fuel cell integrated with novel allothermal biomass gasification: Part I: Modelling and feasibility study. Journal of Power Sources. 2006;159(1):570-585
  81. Badwal SP, Ciacchi FT. Ceramic membrane technologies for oxygen separation. Advanced Materials. 2001;13(12-13):993-996
  82. Liu S, Gavalas GR. Oxygen selective ceramic hollow fiber membranes. Journal of Mem- brane Science. 2005;246(1):103-108
  83. Hashim S, Mohamed A, Bhatia S. Oxygen separation from air using ceramic-based membrane technology for sustainable fuel production and power generation. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2011;15(2):1284-1293
  84. Breeze P. Power Generation Technologies. Newnes; 2014 Recent Trends in Gasification Based Waste-to-Energy http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74487

Related papers

Recent Trends in Gasification Based Waste-to-Energy
Muhammad Saghir

Gasification for Low-grade Feedstock, 2018

Addressing the contemporary waste management is seeing a shift towards energy production while managing waste sustainably. Consequently, waste treatment through gasification is slowly taking over the waste incineration with multiple benefits, including simultaneous waste management and energy production while reducing landfill volumes and displacing conventional fossil fuels. Only in the UK, there are around 14 commercial plants built to operate on gasification technology. These include fixed bed and fluidized bed gasification reactors. Ultra-clean tar free gasification of waste is now the best available technique and has experienced a significant shift from two-stage gasification and combustion towards a one-stage system for gasification and syngas cleaning. Nowadays in gasification sector, more companies are developing commercial plants with tar cracking and syngas cleaning. Moreover, gasification can be a practical scheme when applying ultraclean syngas for a gas turbine with heat recovery by steam cycle for district heating and cooling (DHC) systems. This chapter aims to examine the recent trends in gasificationbased waste-to-energy technologies. Furthermore, types of gasification technologies, their challenges and future perspectives in various applications are highlighted in detail.

View PDFchevron_right
Waste Gasification Technologies: A Brief Overview
Catarina Nobre

Waste

This paper aims to briefly overview gasification technologies of biomass and heterogeneous wastes as a means for syngas production. For this purpose, an overview of the existing technologies, their main advantages, limitations, and costs, as well as commercial plants and projects (lower TRL) operating with these technologies and syngas applications is presented. The type of technology and operating parameters should be selected considering the quality of the syngas as it will dictate its end use. Syngas quality is determined by the combination of feedstock properties, type of technology and process operating conditions, and the scale of operation. For smaller projects with a capacity of up to 10 MWth, fixed-bed technologies have been a recurring choice, while fluidized bed reactors can have an installed capacity above 100 MWth and are, therefore, more suitable for medium- and large-scale projects. Fluidized bed gasification technology supports feedstock flexibility, has scale-up pot...

View PDFchevron_right
An Experimental Investigation of Solid Waste Gasification Using a Large Pilot Scale Waste to Energyplant
Sharmina Begum

Procedia Engineering, 2014

Management and treatment of solid waste can mitigate adverse impacts on environment and human health, and also can support economic development and quality of life. A number of thermo-chemical waste treatment methods (i.e. waste-to-energy conversion pathways such as, Pyrolysis, Gasification and Incineration) can transfer solid waste into energy, while gasification technology provides an efficient and environmental friendly solution to produce energy in the form of syngas. This paper presents an experimental investigation of syngas production using a pilot scale fluidised bed gasification process for energy recovery from solid waste. As feedstock preparation plays an important role to increase performance of gasification, steps of feedstock preparation (sorting, shredding and dying) are explained in detailed. Syngas production and clean-up and burning process is explained. The composition of syngas produced at different stages of the experiment is presented. Heat balance of heat engines, emission control and mass and energy balances of gasification plant used for energy recovery in this study is presented and discussed. This study found that about 65% of the original energy of solid waste is converted to syngas and 23% is converted to char with remaining 12% as residue loss. The primary energy conversion is done by burning syngas in a 0.5 MWe gas engine through an otto cycle power generation.

View PDFchevron_right
Advances in Gasification Technology: A Basic Review
suresh grandhi

Energy and the environment are two of the most important issues this century. More than 80% of our energy comes from the combustion of fossil fuels, which will still remain the dominant energy source for years to come. It is agreed that carbon dioxide produced from the combustion process to be the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas leading to global warming. It is well accepted fact that the gasification technology is the only solution for both these issues. The technology is yet to mature for large scale commercialization. Main issues hindering full exploitation of this technology are higher capital costs, limitations on feed stock flexibility, limited range of operating conditions, energy penalty of syngas cleaning, and limited conversion efficiency. Researchers from across the world are focusing on developing technology. In this paper we present the significant developments took place during the past decade.

View PDFchevron_right
An Overview of Waste Gasification and Syngas Upgrading Processes
valentina segneri

Energies, 2022

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Environmental Engineering
  • Chemical Engineering
  • Environmental Science
  • Chemistry
  • Analytical Chemistry
  • Organic Chemistry
  • Physical Chemistry
  • Energy Economics
  • Environmental Economics
  • Chemical Education
  • Environmental Education
  • Environmental Law
  • Environmental microbiology
  • Chemistry Education
  • Renewable Energy
  • Environmental Studies
  • Environmental History
  • Water and wastewater treatment
  • Microbial Fuel Cells
  • Municipal Solid Waste Management
  • Sustainable Urban Environments
  • Waste-to-Energy
  • E-waste
  • Energy and Environment
  • Environmental Chemistry
  • Bioenergy (Biology)
  • Renewable energy resources
  • Environmental Sustainability
  • Environmental Security
  • Solid Waste Management
  • Solid waste management and treat...
  • Biomass to fuel conversion
  • Industrial wastewater Treatment
  • Bioremediation of wastewater
  • Earth and Environmental Sciences
  • Alternative Fuels
  • Waste water treatment
  • Algal Biofuels
  • Waste to Energy
  • Environmental Biotechnology and ...
  • Adsorption and wastewater treatment
  • Ethanol Production from Lignocel...
  • Biofuels Production
  • Bio Fuels
  • Biofuel, bioenergy, biomass
  • Alternative Fuel
  • Fuel Cell Vehicles
  • Plasma Gasification
  • Biomass gasification
  • Biofuels from algae
  • biomass gasification, Alternativ...
  • Bioenergy and Biofuels
  • Biofuel cells
  • Alternative fuels for I.C. Engines
  • Civil & Environmental Engineering
  • Biomass combustion and gasification
  • Advanced Wastewater Treatment
  • Coal Gasification
  • Bioenergy from Biomass
  • Bioenergy and bioproducts
  • Alternate Fuels
  • Biomass, Bioenergy and Biofuels
  • Civil and Environmental Engineering
  • Energy and Fuels
  • Chemical and Process Systems Eng...
  • Lignocellulosic Biorefineries
  • Chemical Enggineering
  • Bioenergy Systems
  • Dispose of Waste
  • Supercritical water gasification...
  • Bioenergy and biorefinery

    • Cited by

    Pyrolysis of Solid Waste and Its Components in a Lab Scale Induction-Heating Reactor
    Oscar S.Sosa

    Detritus, 2021

    The present study investigates the thermochemical conversion of Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF), represented by selected “model materials”. A laboratory-scale induction heated device was specifically developed to achieve fast pyrolysis conditions close to those encountered in a fluidized bed reactor. The novel device can handle up to 5 grams of solid, allowing fast heating rates (near 70°C/s) and a homogeneous distribution of temperature all along the reactor. Pyrolysis tests of a SRF sample and four model materials (Polyethylene, Polyethylene Terephthalate, beech wood, cardboard) were performed at 800°C. The yield and composition of the produced gas for each sample were determined. Experimental results will help to elucidate the relation between the initial components of waste derived fuels and the obtained reaction products.

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved