EU-GCC Clean Energy Technology Network - Coping with the … · 2016-11-15 · EU-GCC Clean Energy...

Coping with the surging waste problem: Zero landfilling is reality or

mission impossible!EU-GCC Clean Energy Network II

Dr. Isam Janajreh, Associate Professor - Mechanical Engineering, Masdar Institute

[email protected]

Q1. Is waste to energy (Waste2Energy)?

a) Only slogan

b) Sustainable business

c) True to some extent

Q2. Is waste management?

a) Individual responsibility and privately driven business

b) Authorities/governments responsibility

c) Equal share responsibilities

Q3. How do you deal with it? Average is 1kg/day per capita and 5kg in some

developing countries!

a) Landfilling with i.e. sporadic scavenging/recycling model no additional cost

b) Regulated & compulsory recycling, costly advanced technologies & zero landfill

c) Optional recycling and incinerate the rest, fixed quota and additional penalty

Masdar’s Mission is clear

Mission

To make Abu Dhabi the

international hub for

alternative/sustainable energy

To create an entirely new

economic sector in Abu

Dhabi to lead this industry

To be a catalyst for change on

a global scale

Advocating zero waste

3

Overview :

Country * MSW Country MSW

(Kg/person/day) (Kg/person/day)

Bahrain 1.3 Austria 0.89

EU-7 1.4 Belgium 0.93

India 0.45 Egypt 0.81

Italy 0.95 France 0.89

Japan 1.12 Jordan 0.6

Kuwait 1.4 Oman 0.7

Qatar 1.3 Portugal 0.7

Spain 0.88 Tunisia 0.41

UAE 1.2-5kg Turkey 0.95

US 2 UK 0.95

Year

Type of Waste (Thousands tons/year)

TotalOrganics Fiber Wood Plastic Paper Glass Metal Others

1995 422 41 41 109 178 29 23 11 854

2000 492 47 47 124 203 32 26 13 984

2005 558 53 53 141 231 37 29 15 1,117

2010 662 63 63 167 273 44 35 17 1,324

2015 736 71 71 185 303 49 38 19 1, 472

2020 830 80 80 209 342 55 43 22 1,661*Al-Salem and Lettiere, European Journal of Scientific ResearchISSN 1450-216X Vol.34 No.3 (2009), pp.395-405

Managing the surging waste problem• Group Leader: Waste to Energy Lab (http://waste2energy.labs.masdar.ac.ae/index.html)

• Editor in Chief: International Journal of Enhanced Research in Science Technology and Engineering (http://www.erpublications.com/)

• Associate editor: International Journal of Thermal and Environmental Engineering (http://www.iasks.org/journals/ijtee)

• Editor: The Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management (http://www.solid-waste.org)

• Editor: Journal of Energy and Power Engineering (http://www.davidpublisher.org/index.php/home/journal/detail?journalid=28&jx=JEPE)

Material Characterization:• Proximate (TGA)

• Ultimate (CHNSO-Flash)

• Chemical Kinetics (TGA)

• Thermal properties: Bomb Cal/Cp(STA)

• Impurities (GCMS, ICP, FTIR)

• Species determination (Drop. Tube)

0.1 0.25 0.38 0.52 0.66 0.8

Min=0.149 Max=0.788

40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Min=35.0Mpa Max=165.5Mpa

von Mises Strain

von Mises Stress

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

20 120 220 320 420 520 620 720 820

Weig

ht (

%)

Temperature (C)

5 C/min

10 C/min

15 C/min

20 C/min

High Temperature Pathways:• Incinerations/Combustion

• Gasification (GEK)

• Pyrolysis (Buchi Reactor)

Low Temperature Pathways:• Digestion : Hydrolysis, acido, Aceto &

Methanogenises

• Transesterification

• Plastic recycling/remoulding

http://waste2energy.labs.masdar.ac.ae/index.html

http://www.erpublications.com/

http://www.iasks.org/journals/ijtee

OVERVIEWProvide sustainable routes to maximize resource utilization by converting waste to energy, reduce

MENA‘s emission footprint (CO2, NOX, SOX, CH4, etc.), fulfill the emerging stringent environmental

regulations, and reduce landfill deposits.

Waste

Classific

ation

Gasification

Pyrolysis

Trans/esterification

Digestion

Distillation/Oil

Phase-change Material

Compost/Soil

P

o

w

e

r

Waste

Water

Industry Waste Water Treatment

Algae Culture

Sludge

Gray Water

Clean Water

MSW (Dry)

Homog. Ind.

Organic Waste

Waste

Oil/ Lipid

MSW (Wet)

Hea

t

Biogas

Bio-diesel

Glycerol

Oil

Syngas

CombustionSensible

heat

Gas

MSW (mixed)

Biomass

Use high temp. conversion: Incineration, gasification and pyrolysis of waste stream into synga

Promote IGCC as the cleanest and most efficient (50%) power generation technology amenable to CO2

capturing and co-firing of MSW

Use trans-esterification of waste cooking and algae oil into biodiesel (2nd and 3rd Generation)

Use digestion (bioreactor) processes to convert organic waste into bio-fuel/landfill gas and compost

What does the feedstock/Waste compose of? Organic waste is a complex collection of polymers

Infer the moisture, volatiles, fixed carbon and ash present in the sample

Heating value: 6-14 MJ/kg that is 1 ton waste = 2 MWh district heating or 0,67 MWh electricity

MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION

The processes in a burning refuse

bed include:

Drying

Ignition

Pyrolysis

Gasification

Solid-phase combustion

Gas-phase combustion

Material Characterization: Proximate Analysis and Ultimate Analysis

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Simultaneous DSC/TGA Q600 Parr 6100 Bomb calorimeterFlash 2000 CHNSO analyzer (TCD)

Break away Analyses in Percentile PHC (%) MSW(%)

WWTS (%)

Organic material weight 48 78 10

Moisture content 10 20 90

Volatile Solid (VS) of total organic solids 85 83.5 100

Biodegradable Volatile Solid (BVS) 95 75 90 [1]

BVS to be converted to biogas 95 90 95 [1]

Whereas the entire formula will be converted into Syngas in

thermochemical conv., nearly 50% is converted to CH4 and

CO2 in Anaerobic Digestion.

𝐻𝐻𝑉 𝑀𝐽

𝐾𝑔 = −0.03 𝐴𝑠ℎ − 0.11 𝑀𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 + 0.33 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑠 + 0.35 𝐹𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑑 𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛

𝐻𝐻𝑉 𝑀𝐽

𝐾𝑔 = 0.3491 𝐶 + 1.1783 𝐻 + 0.1005 𝑆 − 0.1034 𝑂 − 0.0151 𝑁 − 0.0211 𝐴

Waste

Stream

Molecular formula

PHC CH1.138O0.477N0.004+Moisture +Ash

MSW CH1.58 O0.63N0.016+Moisture +Ash

WWTS CH2.071O0.565N0.0621+Moisture +Ash

Advantages- Control over produced energy

- Capability for carbon capture and storage.

- Flexibility in feedstock and products.

- Alternative to “bury or burn” policy.

- Hydrogen-based energy systems (near zero-CO2 emissions).

- Small scale gasifiers for distributed generation.

O2

CnHmOx

Slag

CO2

H2

CO

Stage 2:

2 -4 burners

1200 1600

Syngas

AshStage 1:

2 -4 burners

CO2,H2O

Temperature, oC

Lower: Stoichiometric O2

upper: Lean O2

Gasification

vs

Combustion

CO C CO2

H2 H H2O

N2 N Nox

H2S S SOx

Gasifier

T=1,000-1,500 C

P=20-40bar

Air Separation

UnitO2

Steam

Air

Gas cleaningCO shift and

CO2 removal CO2 for

storage

Sulfur H2

Combustor

Heat recovery steam

generator

Flue gas

GeneratorSyngas Gas turbine

Steam

turbine Generator

Electric

Power

Electric

Power

CondenserPump

N2

Ash

Gas cooler

Coal

Definition: To convert carbonaceous solid material (CHxOyNzSm) into a mixture of CO and H2 in an O2 deprived environment.

Cycle Fuel Temp low (oC) Temp High (oC) Carnot (h) Actual (h) Car(h)/Act(h)%

Conventional Steam Power Plant Coal 27 540 63 40 63

Ditto Ultra Super Critical Coal 27 650 67 45 67

IGCC Coal 27 1350 82 46 56

Open Gas Turbine Cycle Gas 27 1210 80 43 54

Combined Cycle Gas 27 1350 82 58 71

Low Speed Marine Diesel (LSMD) Heavy Fuel Oil 27 2000 87 48 55

LSMD with Super Charger Heavy Fuel Oil 27 2000 87 53 61

Thermochemical overview: To Gasify, or not to Gasify

MSW

Equilibrium constant approach


Global Gasification reaction

•Elemental balance

•Carbon balance

•Hydrogen balance

•Oxygen balance

•Nitrogen balance

•Equilibrium constant equation

•For Bouduard reaction:

•For CO shift reaction:

•For Methanation reaction:

•Energy balance between reactant and product

•Conversion Metrics

𝐶𝐺𝐸 =𝑥1 283800 + x2 283237.12 + x5 889000

𝐻𝐻𝑉𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑐𝑘

)()(1_1_

so

N

reacti

iso

N

prodi

i hhnQhhn

𝐶𝐻𝑥𝑂𝑦𝑁𝑧 +𝑚 𝑂2 + 3.76𝑁2 + 𝑛𝐻2𝑂 + 𝑝𝐶𝑂2 → 𝑥1𝐻2 + 𝑥2𝐶𝑂 + 𝑥3𝐶𝑂2 + 𝑥4𝐻2𝑂 + 𝑥5𝐶 +𝑧

2+ 3.76𝑚 𝑁2

)76.32

(

).(

).(

).(

54321

2

1

5

3

42

31

2

3

2

21

mz

xxxxxx

reactionnMethanatioforconstmEquilibriux

xxK

reactionshiftCOforconstmEquilibriuxx

xxK

reactionBoudouardforconstmEquilibriuxx

xK

total

total

total

1) Combustion reactions

2) Reduction reactions

Gasification analysis:


H2O Gasification CO2 Gasification

Gasification analysis:

HIGH FIDELITY SIMULATION

Reaction kinetics via Arrhenius equation


Arrhenius Equation

•Integral method:

•Direct Arrhenius plot method:

•Method of approximate temperature integral:

A and E can be used in high Fidelity simulation

Heating Rate Events E (KJ/mol) A (sec-1) E (KJ/mol) A (sec-1) E (KJ/mol) A (sec-1)

Drying 15.9 2.22E-01 8.3 3.26E-02 17.0 3.97E-01

Devolatization 64.5 2.19E+02 60.7 1.51E+02 66.7 3.02E+02

Boudouard 152.0 4.71E+05 172.0 7.98E+06 155.8 5.59E+05

Drying 5.9 4.70E-03 8.0 1.96E-02 6.9 1.16E-02


Boudouard 173.8 8.03E+06 182.2 2.76E+07 177.8 9.18E+06

Drying 5.6 2.30E-03 4.7 3.90E-03 6.6 5.80E-03


Boudouard 171.2 3.25E+06 145.3 1.16E+05 175.3 3.76E+06

Drying 10.9 5.80E-03 5.0 1.60E-03 11.9 1.18E-02


Boudouard 168.1 1.61E+06 122.2 4.19E+03 172.2 1.87E+06

5 K/min

20 K/min

15 K/min

INTEGRAL METHODDIRECT ARRHENIUS

PLOT METHOD

APPROX. TEMP.

INTEGRAL METHODMETHODS:

10 K/min

;)1( nXKdt

dX

E

RA

TR

E

T

X

ln

)1ln(ln

2

A

TR

E

TT

XX

x

TTln

1

1

1ln

12

12

u

cb

du

uPd

)(ln

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

20 220 420 620 820

Heat

flow

(W)

Wei

ght (

%)

Temperature (C)

5 C/min

10 C/min

15 C/min

20 C/min

Heat flow-10 C/min (W)

Event 1 (drying/Moisture release) Event 2 (devolatization)

Event 3 (Boudouard reaction/fixed carbon)

)/( RTEeAK

Coupled CFD and reaction kinetics

) )

sourcediffusionadvectiverateTime

Sxx

uxt ii

i

i

) ) ) ii

i

ittmi

i

ii

i

i SRx

mScD

xmu

xm

t

/,

1) Continuity, Momentum, Energy, TKE (k) & TDR (e):

2) Transportation equation for mi species:

;1

,

1

,

,

,

i

N

i

ri

k

ki

N

i

ri SvSvrf

rb

)/(

1

,,,,,

*,)(

RTE

N

j

rjriririri

eAk

CkvvMR rj

h

Mathematical System:

3) Reaction kinetics:

) ) pP

PPPDP u

dt

xdguuF

dt

ud

;

4) Discrete Lagrangian particle:

The procedure for the calculation of pulverized feedstock conversion:(a) Solve the continuous phase

(b) Introduce and solve for the discrete phase

(c) Recalculate the continuous phase flow, using the inter-phase exchange of

momentum, heat, and mass determined during the previous particle

calculation;

(d) Recalculate the discrete phase trajectories in the modified continuous phase

flow field;

(e) Repeat the previous two steps until a convergence solution

])1([ 00)/(

pvp

RTEpmfmAe

dt

dm

)()( 44

pRppfg

p

pp

p

pp TTAhdt

dmTThA

dt

dTcm e

HIGH FIDELITY SIMULATION CONT’D

Geometry & Mesh Generation

200t/d two-stage air blown gasifier and nozzle geometry showing blocking topology

and the resulted 3D mesh same geometry of Chen et al. and Bockelie et al.

13D

D

D/3D/4

1.6D

Combustor

Throat

Diffuser

Reductor

Top view

Inputs

Top view

The 3D mesh consists of 1,500,000 finite volumes.

Fitted within 30 volumes of surface sweep Boundary

layer (i.e. y+<20).

Captures the exact gasifier topography.

HIGH FIDELITY VALIDATION CONT’D

Parametric study for the input velocity of oxidizer:

Assembled biomas Gasifier At MIVelocity distribution (m/s)Temp. distribution (K)

Geometry and mesh

Reaction Kinetic Parameters Aj , Ej [kJ/mol]

R1 2 𝐶𝑂 + 𝑂2 → 2 𝐶𝑂2

𝐴 = 1017.6[(m3mol-1)-0.75s-1], 𝐸 = 166.28

R2 2 𝐻2 + 𝑂2 → 2 𝐻2𝑂 𝐴 = 1𝑒11 [m3mol-1s-1], 𝐸 = 42

R3 𝐶𝑂 + 𝐻2𝑂 ↔ 𝐶𝑂2 + 𝐻2 𝐴 = 0.0265, E= 65.8

R4 𝐶 𝑠 + 𝑂2 → 𝐶𝑂2 𝐴 = 5.67𝑒9 [s-1], 𝐸 = 160

R5 𝐶 𝑠 + 𝐶𝑂2 → 2 𝐶𝑂 𝐴 = 7.92𝑒4 [m3mol-1 s-1], 𝐸 = 218

R6 𝐶 𝑠 + 2 𝐻2 → 𝐶𝐻4 𝐴 = 79.2 [m3mol-1 s-1]𝐸 = 218

R7 𝐶 𝑆 + 𝐻2𝑂 → 𝐶𝑂 + 𝐻2 𝐴 = 7.92𝑒4 [m3mol-1 s-1], 𝐸 = 218

R8 𝑣𝑜𝑙 + 0.4 𝑂2 → 1.317 𝐶𝑂 + 2.09 𝐻2

+ 0.064 𝑁2 𝐴 = 1𝐸15 [m3mol-1 s-1], 𝐸 = 1𝐸8

Coping with the surging waste problem: zero landfilling is reality or

mission impossible!


[email protected]


a) Only slogan




a) Individual responsibility and privately driven business



Q3. How do you deal with it? Average is 1kg/day per capita and 5kg in some






Abu Dhabi : Current Waste Management Practices

Abu Dhabi : Current Waste Management Practices

Avg. HHV:

12HH MJ/kg

Foreign Incineration Technology in Steady Development About 2100 waste incineration plants in 2006, daily capacity of 620kt/d, treating 165 million tons

of waste every year, currently is close to 3000 and treating over 225 million tones

Waste incineration plants are mostly located in developed regions, about 35 countries own waste

incineration plants, EU 38%, Japan 24%, US 19%, East Asia 15%

ZDWT

Chen Zefeng , Chairman of ZDWT (middle), Petra Roth, the Frankfurt Mayor (left), and RetoFrancioni, Deutsche Boerse CEO (right) Celebtate the listing

• Founded in 1996, 19 years in

environmental protection

industry, subsidiary Fengquan

Environmental Protection

Holdings Co.Ltd.

• In 2007.7.6, ZDWT listed in

German stock market

• Managed over 100 projects, one

of the top performing companies

• Address：Listed company:

Frankfurt ,Germany

Operation headquarter:

Beijing, China

Production base:

Fuzhou, China

Waste Incineration and Water Cogeneration

中国印尼越南印度

Reverse Osmosis

(RO)

Desalination

Steam Heat/

Exchanger

Multi Effect

Destillation (MED)

Waste Treatment

Plant

Turbine/

Generator

Business Case:

Waste to Energy with RO & MED (Thermal) based only on selling

fresh water

Electricity

Steam

Process Flow

Flash evaporation (MED)

Reverse Osmosis (RO)

Waste-to-Energy_ proces explanation (2007)_(360p).mp4

Waste-to-Energy_ proces explanation (2007)_(360p).mp4

Device Configuration

1000t/d x 10,000kJ/kg Over all efficiency near 28%

Avg. 30MW

1000 t/d 1000 t/d

500 t/d

500 t/d

30MW

• 1000 t/d plant throughput

• Waste Incineration based

• Dual Incinerator

• Steam turbine

Main Equipment

Hydraulic Bridge Crane

Origin: Germany ( DEMAG )

Reverse-acting Grate

Origin: Germany (MARTIN)

Burner

Origin: Germany ( SAACKE )

Flue gas purification system

Origin: Belgium ( SEGHRS )

Bagfilter

Origin: United States ( GORE)

Instrument Control System

Origin: Belgium ( SEGHS )

DCS system

Origin: Germany ( SIEMENS )

Summary:Parameters of system

project parameter

Incineration processing capacity

1000t/d

Waste low heating value ( design value )

10,000kJ/kg

System working time 24h/d（8000h/y）

System Configuration 2x500t/d（Incineration System）+30MW

（Power generation systems）

Incineration System German Martin incinerator

Flue gas purification system technology

Belgium Seghers

Investment in equipment 150 million US dollars

Electric Power generation 22450kwh/h

Flue gas emission standards EU standards

What you need to know

• Thermochemical conversions is making a strong comeback as sustainable energy source and efficiency enhancement.

• This technology can be deployed as renewable source for million of tons of waste streams disposed of at landfill and risking our ecological system.

• High fidelity analyses and simulations are needed at the conceptual level to increase the process efficiency and throughput.

• This can open wide collaboration door on multiple feedstock gasification technology, conventional, plasma and plastic, biomass etc.


Thank you


CFD: Improved modeling resultsParticle temperature pathlines showing

the effect of swirl.


Kinetics of the Gasification Process

Reaction Activation Energy

(𝑬𝒂)

Pre-Exponential

Factor (A)

N

𝐶 +1

2𝑂2 → 𝐶𝑂

9.23 × 107 2.3 1

𝐶 + 𝐶𝑂2 → 2𝐶𝑂 1.62 × 108 4.4 1

𝐶 + 𝐻2𝑂 → 𝐶𝑂 + 𝐻2 1.47 × 108 1.33 1

Reaction Activation Energy

(𝑬𝒂)

Pre-Exponential

Factor (A)

N

𝐶𝐻4 +1

2𝑂2

→ 𝐶𝑂 + 2𝐻2

1.25 × 108 4.4 × 1011 0

𝐻2 +1

2𝑂2 → 𝐻2𝑂

1.67 × 108 6.8 × 1015 -1

𝐶𝑂 +1

2𝑂2 → 𝐶𝑂2

1.67 × 108 2.24 × 1012 0

𝐶𝐻4 + 𝐻2𝑂

→ 𝐶𝑂 + 3𝐻2

1.25 × 108 3 × 108 0

𝐶𝑂 + 𝐻2𝑂 → 𝐶𝑂2 + 𝐻2 8.37 × 107 2.75 × 109 0

Heterogeneous Reactions

Homogeneous Reactions


MethodologyTheory of anaerobic digestion

• The operations of a bioreactor landfill is comparable to modern municipal waste water treatment plants in pursuing a controlled decomposition of organic waste

• It differs from classical dry landfill with moist addition and faster biodegradation

• Bioreactor landfill can fully degrade waste in several years instead of decades as in the classical dry tomb landfill.

• It generates faster Landfill gas (LFG) for fuel utilization.


Landfill, or not to landfill?

(C6H10O5)n + n H2O → n C6H12O6

C6H12O6→ CH3 (CH2)2 COOH + 2H2 + 2 CO2

C6H12O6 + 2H2→ 2 CH3CH2COOH + 2H2O

C6H12O6 + 2 H2O → 2CH3COOH + 4H2 + CO2

CH3(CH2)2COOH + 2H2O → 2 CH3COOH + 2 H2

CH3CH2COOH + 2H2O → CH3COOH + 3 H2 + CO2

CH3COOH → CH4 + CO2

4H2 + CO2→ CH4 + 2 H2O2


• The first stage of the anaerobic biodegradation is

hydrolysis. In the hydrolysis step, the complex organic

compounds are solubilized and converted into smaller

sized organic compounds by extracellular enzymes.

• The acidogenic process begins and the end products of

hydrolysis are oxidized to organic acids. The organic

acids are then broken into acetic acid.

• The formation of acetic acid in the acidogenic process

marks the beginning of the acetogenesis stage. In this

stage, conversion of propionic and butyric acids into

acetic acid occurs as described in the following

reactions

• The final stage, methanogenesis, involves the

formation of methane either from acetate or carbon

dioxide reduction with hydrogen, as shown in the

following reactions

Anaerobic digestion protocol?

• Numerous samples solid samples analyzed in our lab subjected to homogenization, ball mill and sieving, TGA, Elemental and bomb clorimetery.

• The estimated theoretical yield follows the biodegradation stoichiometric:

CaHbOcNd + (4a-b-2c-3d)/4 H2O → (4a+b-2c-3d)/8 CH4+ (4a-b+2c-3d)/8 CO2 + dNH3 [1]

Anaerobic Gas Yield PHC MSW WWTSWeight of the methane (kg) per 100 kg of waste 16.45 20.09 0.356Weight of carbon dioxide (kg) per 100 kg of waste 41.4 48.14 0.669Volume of the methane (m3) 10.39 12.64 0.225Volume of carbon dioxide (m3) 9.512 11.03 0.153Percentage of the methane % 52.21 53.39 59.49Percentage of carbon dioxide % 46.65 46.60 56.56Process efficiency % 34% 26% 3.5%

As Received Dried Dried &Sieved

CH1.13O0.477N0.004 + 0.474H2O → 0.5215 CH4+ 0.4785 CO2 + 0.004NH3

Process effeciency?


Coping with the surging waste problem: zero landfilling is reality or

mission impossible!


[email protected]


a) Only slogan




a) Individual responsibility and should be privately driven business



Q3. How you deal with it? Average is 1kg/day per capita and 5kg in some





LOW FIDELITY SIMULATION

Gibbs energy minimization approach

Δ𝐺𝑓𝑖𝑜 + 𝑅𝑇 ln

𝑛𝑖

𝑛𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 + 𝜆𝑘𝑎𝑖𝑘

𝑘

= 0, 𝑖 = 1,2, … , 𝑛

Gibbs Energy minimization using Lagrange :

multiplier

C(g) CH CH2 CH3 CH4 C2H2 C2H4 C2H6 C3H8 H H2

O O2 CO CO2 OH H2O H2O2 HCO HO2 N N2

NCO NH NH2 NH3 N2O NO NO2 CN HCN HCNO S(g)

S2(g) SO SO2 SO3 COS CS CS2 HS H2S C(s) S(s)

Species

List of species considered in the model

),....,,( 21, N

t

PT nnngG

Ultimate AnalysisUltimate Analysis

(DAF wt. %)

Utah Bituminous

Coal

El-Lajjun Jordanian

Oil Shale

Tires

Carbon 81.810 49.373 80.06

Hydrogen 5.610 4.976 7.57

Nitrogen 2.490 1.001 0.29

Oxygen 8.960 36.438 10.72

Sulfur 1.130 8.212 1.36

Proximate Analysis

(wt. %)

Utah Bituminous

Coal

El-Lajjun Jordanian

Oil Shale

Tires

Moisture 2.304 1.82 1.02

Volatile 30.19 21.21 67.31

Fixed Carbon 57.20 13.70 22.93

Ash 10.306 63.27 8.74

Utah Bituminous

Coal

El-Lajjun Jordanian

Oil Shale

Tires

Heating Value

(MJ/kg)

34.38 7.66 29.52

Proximate Analysis

Bomb Calorimetry


Predictive Modeling of the Gasification of Oil Shale in an O2-Blown BYU Atmospheric Gasifier

Schematic Diagram of the O2-

Blown BYU Atmospheric Gasifier

Boundary Conditions


Predictive Modeling of the Gasification of Oil Shale in an O2-Blown BYU Atmospheric Gasifier

1010

700

400

0.05

0.02

0.00

0.0166

0.0083

0.0000

0.0007030

0.0000352

0.0000000

Temperature (oC) Mole Fraction of CO Mole Fraction of CO2

Mole Fraction of H2


2800

1600

400

Temperature (oC)

0.3523

0.1761

0.0000

Mole Fraction of CO

0.4913

0.2456

0.0000

Mole Fraction of CO2

Mole Fraction of H2

0.32

0.16

0.00

Predictive Modeling of the Gasification of Utah Bituminous Coal in an O2-Blown BYU

Atmospheric Gasifier

Mole Fraction of H2


Predictive Modeling of the Gasification of Tire Crumbs in an Air-Blown Drop Tube Reactor

0.1870

0.0934

0.0000

0.1680

0.0925

0.0000

0.2300

0.0104

0.0000

6.11e-3

3.05e-3

0.0000

Mole Fraction of CO Mole Fraction of CO2

Mole Fraction of O2Mole Fraction of H2

Schematic Diagram of the DTR at

Masdar Institute


Mole Fraction\Fuel Coal Oil Shale Tire

Hydrogen 0.2832 8.62e-6 4.28e-3

Carbon Monoxide 0.3516 0.0461 0.1523

Carbon dioxide 0.2249 0.0154 0.0836

Cold Gasification Efficiency

69.6 18.5 43.2

Comparative Mole Composition of the Product Gases at the

Exit and the Cold Gasification Efficiency


Model Boundary and Operating

Conditions

Feedstock Composition Taiheiyo Bituminous Coal

Ultimate (wt%)

C 77.6

O 13.9

H 6.5

N 1.13

S 0.22

Proximate (wt%)

FC 35.8

V 46.7

M 5.3

A 12.1

HHV (MJ/kg) 27.4

Gas flow rate (kg/s)

Combustor burners 1 4.708

Combustor burners 2 4.708

Diffuser burners 1.832

Particle loading (kg/s)

Combustor burner 1 0.472

Combustor burner 2 1.112

Diffuser burner 1.832

Wall Temperature (K)

Combustor 1897

Diffuser 1073

Reductor 873

Pressure (MPa) 2.7

Turbulence Model K-e Standard

Selected Model Parameters & Operating Conditions:

Modeled Reactions:


Can a zero dimensional model predict the gasifier performance?

MODELING:

Simplest level of modeling.

No dimension nor time is variable.

Entrained flow gasifiers are amenable to equilibrium.

Category Entrained-FlowAsh condition Dry Ash Slagging Dry Ash Agglomerating Slagging

Typical processes Lurgi BGL Winnkler, HTW, CFB KRW, U-Gas Shell, Texaco, E-Gas, Noell, KT

Feed characteristics

Size 6-50mm 6-50mm 6-10mm 6-10mm <100 m

Acceptability of fines Limitted Better than dry ash good better unlimitted

Acceptability of caking coal yes (with stirrer) yes possibly yes yes

Prefered coal rank any high low any any

Operating characteristics l

Outlet Gas Temperature low (425-650C) low (425-650C) moderate (900-1050C) moderate (900-1050C) high (1250-1600C)

Oxidant demand low low moderate moderate high

Steam demand high low moderate moderate low

Other characteristics hydrocarbone in gas hydrocarbone in gas lower carbon lower carbon pure gas, high c conversion

Moving Bed Fluid Bed

Source: Adapted from Simbeck et al. 1993

Advocating zero waste

43

Overview :

Country * MSW Country MSW

(Kg/person/day) (Kg/person/day)

Bahrain 1.3 Austria 0.89

EU-7 1.4 Belgium 0.93

India 0.45 Egypt 0.81

Italy 0.95 France 0.89

Japan 1.12 Jordan 0.6

Kuwait 1.4 Oman 0.7

Qatar 1.3 Portugal 0.7

Spain 0.88 Tunisia 0.41

UAE 1.2 Turkey 0.95

US 2 UK 0.95

Year

Type of Waste (Thousands tons/year)

TotalOrganics Fiber Wood Plastic Paper Glass Metal Others

1995 422 41 41 109 178 29 23 11 854

2000 492 47 47 124 203 32 26 13 984

2005 558 53 53 141 231 37 29 15 1,117

2010 662 63 63 167 273 44 35 17 1,324

2015 736 71 71 185 303 49 38 19 1, 472

2020 830 80 80 209 342 55 43 22 1,661*Al-Salem and Lettiere, European Journal of Scientific ResearchISSN 1450-216X Vol.34 No.3 (2009), pp.395-405

To Gasify, or Not to Gasify?

Accurately model flow and

conversion

•Particle dispersion

•Turbulence-chemistry-radiation interactions

Space efficiency


temperature distribution

•Turbulence-chemistry-radiation interactionsInjector failure

Accurately model wall

interactions, thermal stresses,

pressure effects and abrasion

•Particle dispersion and inhomogeneous heat distribution


•Slag wall build up

Wall/refractory

failure

Accurately flow modeling,

conversion, ash distribution and

pollutant formation

•Particle dispersion and inhomogeneous distribution

•Agglomeration, swelling and fragmentation particle

mechanisms

•Nitrogen and sulfur production

Downstream fouling

and poisoning

Accurately models slag flow,

composition and temperature

distribution and turbulence


•Accurate Slag characterization

Slag

blockage/removal

Accurately models fuel switching

and associated reactions

•Dynamic and intrinsic behavior

•Feedstock and char characterization –proximate&ultimate

analysis

Feedstock flexibility

Modeling implementationPhysical aspectCurrent needs

& technology

challenges


conversion

•Particle dispersion


Space efficiency


temperature distribution

•Turbulence-chemistry-radiation interactionsInjector failure

Accurately model wall

interactions, thermal stresses,

pressure effects and abrasion

•Particle dispersion and inhomogeneous heat distribution


•Slag wall build up

Wall/refractory

failure

Accurately flow modeling,

conversion, ash distribution and

pollutant formation

•Particle dispersion and inhomogeneous distribution

•Agglomeration, swelling and fragmentation particle

mechanisms

•Nitrogen and sulfur production

Downstream fouling

and poisoning

Accurately models slag flow,

composition and temperature

distribution and turbulence


•Accurate Slag characterization

Slag

blockage/removal

Accurately models fuel switching

and associated reactions

•Dynamic and intrinsic behavior

•Feedstock and char characterization –proximate&ultimate

analysis

Feedstock flexibility

Modeling implementationPhysical aspectCurrent needs

& technology

challenges

Cycle Fuel Temp low (oC) Temp High (oC) Carnot (h) Actual (h) Car(h)/Act(h)%

Conventional Steam Power Plant Coal 27 540 63 40 63

Ditto Ultra Super Critical Coal 27 650 67 45 67

IGCC Coal 27 1350 82 46 56

Open Gas Turbine Cycle Gas 27 1210 80 43 54

Combined Cycle Gas 27 1350 82 58 71

Low Speed Marine Diesel (LSMD) Heavy Fuel Oil 27 2000 87 48 55

LSMD with Super Charger Heavy Fuel Oil 27 2000 87 53 61

Challenges

Model Sample Results

Temperature field distribution. (A)

Showing complete geometry. (B, C)

Closer look at the combustor and diffuser.

Average gasifier temperature = 1493 K

A B C

b:CO2 wt fraction c:H2O wt fraction

d:CO wt fraction e:H2 wt fraction

Model Sample Resultsa:T (K)

f: Oxygen wt fraction

g: Volatiles wt fraction h: Char concentration (kg/s)

Velocity (m/s*100)

Date post:	31-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

EU-GCC Clean Energy Technology Network - Coping with the … · 2016-11-15 · EU-GCC Clean Energy...

Documents