CanmetENERGY Bioenergy Group- Biocarbon R&D Activities
Canadian Carbonization Research Association First Working Meeting on Bio-based Carbon for the Iron and
Steel Industries
June 12-13 2012 Presented by
Andrew McFarlan
Introduction This initial working meeting was organized in order to bring researchers together to discuss R&D and current understanding on the potential to replace coal and coke used in the iron and steel industries with bio-based carbon.
Specific questions to be discussed include:
How should biomass materials be prepared for steel and coke?
Determining the appropriate conversion process of raw biomass to
char in order to increase its carbon content in the char to 80% or
greater
Technologies aimed at removing residuals and chemical
characterization of residuals such as CaO, Na2O, K2O in the char
Which biomass sources are best suited to steel and coke operations?
Identifying potential sources of biomass given availability, as well as
required physical and chemical properties of the resultant char.
Char Production
How can we sustainably produce bio-based carbon for the iron and steel industries?
Pyrolysis Stages
Temperature Process (Overlap) Major Products Heat
<200ºC Drying H20 IN
230ºC-250ºC Depolymerization Acetic acid, Methanol, CO2, CO IN
250ºC-280ºC Torrefaction Extractives, CO2, CO IN
280ºC-500ºC Devolatilization Organics, Tars, CO2,CO OUT
500ºC-700ºC Dissociation/Carbonization CO, H2 IN
>700ºC Gasification H2, CO IN
Pyrolysis Product Distribution
A.V.Bridgwater
Mode Conditions Liquid Char Gas
Fast pyrolysis Moderate temperature,
short residence time 75% 12% 13%
Slow Pyrolysis Low temperature, very long residence time
30% 35% 35%
Gasification High temperature, long residence time.
5% 10% 85%
Optimal Conditions For Charcoal Production vs. Fast Pyrolysis Biochar
• Low pyrolysis temperature (<400ºC) (but also lower fixed carbon content) • High process pressure (1 MPa) (higher concentration of pyrolysis vapor increases
rate of secondary reactions) • Long vapor residence time (extended vapor/solid contact promotes secondary
coke forming reactions) • Low heating rate (slower formation and escape of organic vapors) • Large biomass particle size – large charcoal particles (low thermal conductivity of biomass results in slow
heat and mass transfer rate within particles)
ABRI Tech Mobile Fast Pyrolysis Unit
CanmetENERGY Fast Pyrolysis R&D 2011/13
Focus on developing in-house research-scale fluidized
bed and ablative designs
10 kg/h feed, < 1 s residence time
Recycle pyrolysis NCG as fluidizing medium
two reactors with identical ancillary equipment
Fluidized Bed
Ablative
Torrefaction
As is the case for charcoal Torrefied wood pulverizes easily
Heating value is 19-24 MJ/kg (vs 18-20 for wood)
Energy density is 15-18 GJ/m3 (vs 8-10 for wood)
Torrefaction yield > 80%
Dry fuel
Does not absorb water
Water-proof high energy pellets?
Current State of Torrefaction
At this point only results
from pilot plants using
woody biomass are
available. Demonstration
plants are starting to come
on-line and they will have to
be optimized for product
consistency, quality, energy
yield, and production costs.
Current CanmetENERGY R&D Activities in Biomass Torrefaction: CEATI PROJECT No. SOIG-11-03: SCOPE
Process conditions to torrefy agricultural based biomass feedstock.
Develop a technically acceptable and economic source of fuel while
accounting for variables such as feedstock, particle size, temperature
and residence time, etc.
Effect of raw feedstock preparation (e.g. chemistry improvement, fuel
washing, size reduction, additives, binders, etc.) on the resulting fuel
quality Issues with post-torrefaction densification (e.g. pelletizing,
briquette-making, handling, dusting, storage, etc).
Establishment of fuel characteristics (e.g. durability, ash fusion
temperatures, hydrophobic properties, etc).
Costs of processing and torrefying agricultural biomass feedstock into
a fuel product.
Identification of locally and regionally available sustainable biomass resources
Assessment of raw biomass conversion technologies
Process modelling and integration of biomass components into oil-sands operations.
Project objectives
Integration of Renewable Biomass Products
into Oil-sands Processing to Reduce Emissions
“Greening the Oil Sands”
Proposed biomass co-utilizations in oil sands operations
Raw
Biomass Torrefaction
Pyrolysis
Blending /
primary
upgrading
Combustion
Gasification/ syngas
Reforming
/ WSTC*
F-T
process
Bio-oil upgrading
(secondary)
Char
Haul &
Densification
District level
collection
Pelletization
Process
heat
H2
O < 5-7%
Activated carbon for
waste water treatment
Bitumen upgrader
Bio-oil
*water splitting thermo-chemical cycle
3-stage Biomass Haul & Densification
D D D D D
D D D D D
D D B D D
D D D D D
D D D D D
A sample district composed of square fields
D: Biomass Densification through pyrolysis or torrefaction
B: Bio-oil Blending or primary upgrading at district level
stage 1: Raw biomass
stage 2: Bio-oil or torrefied biomass
stage 3 : Blended / upgraded bio-oil or
Pellets to bitumen upgrader
Bitumen upgrader
upgradergridsquare rrrHaulTotal.
PRO II Thermodynamic model of Torrefaction
• Successful mass balance of C, H, O.
• Close agreement between predicted & experimental
values of torrefied biomass properties.
10
15
20
25
HH
V (
MJ
/kg
)
Willow Wheat
Straw
Switch
Grass
Loblolly
Pine*
Reported vs calculated
Calculated
Reported
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Willow Wheat Straw Switch
Grass
Loblolly Pine
Predicted Torrefaction yield
Mass Yield
Energy Yield
* Unlike Willow, Wheat Straw and Switch Grass, reported data for
Loblolly Pine was taken for wet torrefaction
LHV of bio oil is on a wet basis
0
5
10
15
20
Ace
tic A
cid
Pro
pion
ic A
cid
Met
hoxy
phen
ol
Eth
ylph
enol
Form
ic A
cid
Pro
pyl-B
enzo
ate
Phe
nol
Toluen
e
Furfu
ral
Ben
zene
Wat
er
Component
Co
mp
os
itio
n (
wt%
dry
ba
sis
)
Reference case
Case 1 (Predicted)
Case 2 (Predicted)
Reference case Predicted
Case 1 Case 2
Bio-oil yield (wt%, dry biomass) 60 55 48
LHV, MJ/kg 17.5 17.7 18.1
PRO II Thermodynamic model of Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis Oil Combustion Pilot Facility
Combustion Test Py-oil Combustion Test June 23, 2011
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
9:3
4:5
2
9:3
9:3
8
9:4
4:2
4
9:4
9:1
0
9:5
3:5
6
9:5
8:4
2
10
:03
:28
10
:08
:14
10
:13
:00
10
:17
:46
10
:22
:32
10
:27
:18
10
:32
:04
10
:36
:50
10
:41
:36
10
:46
:22
10
:51
:08
10
:55
:54
11
:00
:40
11
:05
:26
11
:10
:12
11
:14
:58
11
:19
:44
11
:24
:30
11
:29
:16
11
:34
:02
11
:38
:48
11
:43
:34
11
:48
:20
11
:53
:06
11
:57
:52
12
:02
:38
12
:07
:24
12
:12
:10
12
:16
:56
12
:21
:42
12
:26
:28
12
:31
:14
12
:36
:00
Time
Fuel flow rate (kg/hr)
Chamber temperature (°C)
Fuel density (kg/m3)
Further Development
Nozzle design / Flame Stability
Controls incl. flame sensor
Ignition Control
Emissions (VOC, D/F)
Cold Start
Corrosion vs quality/upgrading
Acknowledgements
Fernando Preto
René-Pierre Allard
Guy Tourigny
Ben Bronson
Murlidhar Gupta
René Pigeon
Sebnem Madrali
Ed Hogan
Thank You