You are on page 1of 10

international journal of hydrogen energy 35 (2010) 4981–4990

Available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

Exergy analysis of hydrogen production from biomass


gasification

A. Abuadala*, I. Dincer, G.F. Naterer


Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT), 2000 Simcoe Street North,
Oshawa, ON, Canada L1H 7K4

article info abstract

Article history: For a given set of operating conditions, the hydrogen production from biomass gasification
Received 20 June 2009 can be improved through optimization of the operating parameters and efficiencies. The
Received in revised form present approach can predict hydrogen production via biomass gasification in a range of
8 August 2009 10–32 kg/s from biomass (sawdust wood). The biomass is introduced to a gasifier at an
Accepted 9 August 2009 operating temperature range of 1000–1500 K. Also, 4.5 kg/s of steam at 500 K is used as
Available online 3 September 2009 gasification medium. Results indicate that improvement in hydrogen production from
biomass steam gasification depending on the amount of steam and quantity of biomass
Keywords: feeding to the gasifier as well the operating temperature. Over the range of feeding
Biomass biomass, the hydrogen yield reaches 80–130 g H2/kg biomass while in the operating
Hydrogen temperature examined, the hydrogen yield reaches 80 g H2/kg biomass. On mole basis it is
Thermodynamics found that, in the first range of H2 varies from 51 to 63% in the studied range of feeding
Energy biomass in existing 4.5 kg/s from steam while H2 gets to 51–53% in existing of 6.3 kg/s from
Exergy steam.
Efficiency ª 2009 Professor T. Nejat Veziroglu. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Hydrogen production by gasification is a complex process


and is influenced by a number of factors, such as: feedstock
Gasification is a process that converts carbon-containing composition, moisture content, gasifier temperature, gasifier
feedstock into a synthetic gas comprising hydrogen, carbon pressure, geometry, amount of oxidant present, and the mode of
monoxide etc. By this approach biomass can be broken down gas–solid contact. Walawender et al. [29] considered the gasifier
to H2, CH4, CO, CO2 in the presence of gasification agents. The temperature as the most important parameter. Different
agent may be oxygen, air, steam or combination. Steam gasifiers are employed in the gasification process: fixed bed,
gasification gives a medium heating value gas of w15– moveable bed and fluidized bed [2]. The choice of the type of
20 MJ m3 which is higher than that from air gasification and gasifier or reactor for gasification depends also on the capacity of
less cost comparing to oxygen gasification [2]. Gasification the unit. The gasifier specifications have to suit the end-use or
adds value to low or negative-value feed stocks by converting down-stream gasifier utilization systems. The end-use includes
them to marketable fuels and products. Typical feedstock co-firing, firing, stirling engines, gas engines, gas turbines, fuel
materials used in gasification are biomass, coal, and agricul- cells, hydrogen, Fischer–Tropsch synthesis [18] etc. Mahishi
tural and industrial residuals. et al. [21] predicted hydrogen production from biomass

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Abdussalam.Abuadala@uoit.ca (A. Abuadala), Ibrahim.Dincer@uoit.ca (I. Dincer), Greg.Naterer@uoit.ca (G.F.
Naterer).
0360-3199/$ – see front matter ª 2009 Professor T. Nejat Veziroglu. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.08.025
4982 international journal of hydrogen energy 35 (2010) 4981–4990

Nomenclature hoCO standard enthalpy of formation of carbon


monoxide, kJ/kmol
a hydrogen moles, kmol
hoCO2 standard enthalpy of formation of carbon dioxide,
a1,a6 are coefficients in entropy equation
kJ/kmol
b carbon monoxide moles, kmol
U0 wind velocity, m/s
c carbon dioxide moles, kmol
Uwa overall heat transfer coefficient between gasifier
C carbon content in biomass, w%
wall and ambient
CP specific heat at constant pressure, kJ/kg K or
XCO2 mole fraction of carbon dioxide, –
kJ/kmol K
XH2 O mole fraction of steam, –
d methane moles, kmol
xins insulation thickness, m
e char product, kmol
Ex exergy, kJ/kg or kJ/kmol Greek letters
f tar yield, kmol b coefficient, 
H hydrogen content in biomass, w% 3 gasifier wall emissivity, 
I irreversibility, kJ g supplied steam, kg/s
LHV lower heating value, kJ/kg a quantity of biomass, kg/s
O oxygen content in biomass, w%
Subscript
P0 ambient pressure, atm
biomass biomass
Q heat transferred to ambient, kJ
o at reference or ambient
T gasifier temperature, K
ch chemical
T0 ambient temperature, K
ph physical
Tw wall temperature, K
gen generation
k thermal conductivity, W/m K
gas related to gas
R universal gas constant, 8.314 kJ kmol1 K1
lost lost from gasifier
s specific entropy, kJ/kmol K
char related to char
h enthalpy, kJ/kg K
tar related to tar
sotar tar standard specific entropy, kJ/kmol K or kJ/kg K
H2 related to hydrogen
hotar standard enthalpy of formation of tar, kJ/kmol
H2O related to steam
hoH2 O standard enthalpy of formation of steam, kJ/kmol
lostwa lost from receiver wall

gasification in existing of air–steam agent and in view of 1st law pyrolysis, char-gasification, char-oxidation and ash forma-
of thermodynamics. They observed that an increasing of the tion. The gasification steps are theoretically modeled in series
gasifier pressure reduces the hydrogen yield and the highest but there is no sharp boundary between them and they often
hydrogen yield occurred at atmospheric pressure. Hanaoka et al. overlap. The gasification reaction in principle involves carbon,
[12] gasified wood to produce hydrogen in existing of CO2 carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen and methane.
sorbent. The conducted experiments showed that the results Hydrogen is expected to be the most important energy carrier
were affected by the pressure. However, they reported super in a sustainable energy system. Turn et al. [28] reported there
atmospheric pressure results a low H2 yield. Therefore, the was no emphasis on hydrogen production by past experi-
present study will be performed on biomass gasification at the mental work done on steam gasification of biomass but this
atmospheric pressure, in view of the two laws of thermody- work is theoretical and will emphasize hydrogen production.
namics and in an existing of pure steam medium. To model an approach for the gasification process of
Gasification is an endothermic process. Therefore heat is biomass, it is important to know biomass properties, specifi-
needed to sustain the gasification process. The process could cally, the proximate and the ultimate analysis and its heating
be either auto-thermal or all-thermal depending on how this value. The biomass has higher carbon–hydrogen ratio and
heat is provided. In case of auto-thermal gasification, the significantly lower sulfur and nitrogen contents. The lower
necessary heat is generated directly by partial oxidation in the sulfur and nitrogen contents make potentials to pollutants are
gasifier itself [25]. neutral or very low. The biomass is considered neutral
World wide increasing in energy consumption will leave resource regarding CO2 life cycle. Modeling approach for
impact on carbon emission and depletion of fossil fuel. Efforts a hydrogen production from biomass gasification through
were directed to use substantial resources and one of them is a parametric study aims to calculate hydrogen from gas-
renewable energy as a feasible solution. Biomass classified as ificating amount of biomass in existing amount of gasification
the third energy source after coal and oil [30]. It is renewable agent conduct the gasification reaction and heat required. The
and neutral concerning to carbon dioxide emission issue. The later parameter is taken in consideration by assuming the
level of utilization of biomass to produce hydrogen depends gasifier is self-heated.
on economics and availability of the necessary technology. A good approach can find the optimum conditions which
Gasification of biomass to produce hydrogen as energy carrier lead to appreciable hydrogen product from the gasified
is a part of the effort to combat this threat. The gasification biomass. A performed parametric study in the used biomass
process consists of following steps: pre-heating, drying, and steam range will help in identifying the more sensitive
international journal of hydrogen energy 35 (2010) 4981–4990 4983

parameters to the hydrogen yield and feasibility of hydrogen gasified at high temperatures where its particles undergo
production via biomass gasification from 1st and 2nd laws of partial oxidation resulting in gas, tar and char products.
thermodynamics views. This study applies to a self-heated Finally it is reduced to form H2, CO, CO2 and CH4. This
gasifier to study the characteristics of hydrogen production conversion process can be expressed in a global reaction. The
from biomass gasification. global reaction is given by the following reaction:
The gasifier considers a heart of the gasification process.
Recently and beside to what mentioned above, Mahishi et al. aCl Hm On þ gH2 O þ heat/aH2 þ bCO þ cCO2 þ dCH4 þ eC
[21] reported that until their research, no study had address- þ f Tar (1)
ing a hydrogen production by theoretical analysis of the
ClHmOnis the chemical representation of biomass. l, m and n
gasifier. In this study, scheme utilizes equilibrium reactions to
are the number of atoms of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen in
describe the gasification process is proposed. It is used to
the feedstock respectively determined from the ultimate
simulate hydrogen from biomass steam gasification.
analysis of biomass; a is the amount of biomass; and g is the
The study enables the designers to predict the effects of
amount of supplied steam. a, b, c, d, e and f are the number of
many parameters with partial or without any experimental
moles of H2, CO, CO2, CH4, C and tar respectively. The numbers
data. The validity of results can be confirmed only through
of mole are found from the following atomic balance equa-
experimental verification. This study mainly explored the
tions and proposed models for tar and char.
influence of different parameters on hydrogen production
from biomass steam gasification in a self-heated gasifier. C : al ¼ b þ c þ d þ e þ 6f (2)

H : am þ 2g ¼ 2a þ 4d þ 6f (3)
2. Modeling of biomass gasification process
O : an þ g ¼ b þ 2c (4)
2.1. Assumptions
N¼ aþbþcþdþeþf (5)
The assumptions used in simulating the biomass gasification
The gasification process is applicable to biomass having
process are:
moisture content less than 35% [5]. In case of higher moisture
content, the biomass undergoes drying or pre-heating
 Steady flow.
process, this; however, increases the energy required for
 Potential and kinetic energies are negligible.
gasification process as well as decreases the gasification effi-
 Environment and reference state at T0 ¼ 298 K and
ciency. Ni et al. [23] reported to gasify biomass in a supercrit-
P0 ¼ 1 atm.
ical water condition for biomass has a higher moisture
 Gases except H2, CO, CO2 and CH4 are considered dilute.
content and reaching 100% gasification ratio.
 Ash residue behind gasification process is negligible.
The assumption made by Fryda et al. [9] to treat un-reacted
 The gases obey the ideal gas relations.
char will be applied, such that un-reacted char is 5% of the
 The gasifier is isothermal and at equilibrium condition.
biomass carbon content or;
 The product gases are at the gasifier temperature.
 Assume residence time is sufficient to reach the gasifier the e ¼ 0:05al (6)
equilibrium mode.
Here, Tar is undesirable product from biomass gasification
 Use the schematic diagram shown in Fig. 1 to represent
due to the various problems of fouling and slugging in the
a gasifier.
process equipment. Although there are hundreds of species in
the tar sample in order to simplify the analysis all the species
2.2. Reaction mechanism are treated as a single one lump [20]. Currently, three methods
are available to minimize tar formation [23]: (i) proper design
Carbon, hydrogen and oxygen are the major components in of gasifier, (ii) proper control and operation and (iii) additives/
biomass. These and negligible elements like sulfur and catalysts. Tar is modeled as benzene compound [14] with the
nitrogen represented as ultimate analysis. The chemical chemical formula C6H6 and its yield is assumed obeying the
formula of biomass is represented by ClHmOn. Biomass is empirical relation developed by Corella et al. (1989) [4] as
follows:
Gas+Char+Tar
Tar ¼ 35:98 expð0:0029TÞ (7)

where T is used as gasifier temperature in K.


Biomass In addition to the above global reaction the following side
Heat Lost
Steam reaction (methanation reaction) is assumed at equilibrium;

CH4 42H2 þ C (8)

The equilibrium constant for the reaction is

a2 N
K¼ (9)
Fig. 1 – Schematic diagram used to represent a gasifier. d
4984 international journal of hydrogen energy 35 (2010) 4981–4990

Also in the equilibrium state and for the ideal gas, the 2.4. Energetic efficiencies
equilibrium constant can be found in terms of free Gibbs
function, G from the following equation; Also it is known as first law efficiency. The gasification process
is similar to any process and it has to satisfy the first law of
 
DG thermodynamics which describes energy conservation and it
K ¼ exp (10)
RT is given by:
X X
where R is the universal gas constant (8.314 kJ kmol1 K1). H H ¼ Qlost (14)
The system of equations is solved simultaneously to find the R P

unknowns, a, b, c and d. where H is the enthalpy, Qlost is the energy lost during the
Jarungthammachote et al. [17] pointed to minimize the gasification process and sub-symbols R and P refer to reac-
Gibbs free energy constrained optimization methods are tants and products respectively. In this paper, two forms of
generally used which requires an understanding of complex energetic efficiencies, hEn1 and hEn2, are applied as follows:
mathematical theories. Thus to simplify the analysis, instead
equilibrium relations were used in modeled approach. EnH2
hEn1 ¼ (15)
Enbiomass þ Ensteam

2.3. Biomass equations Engas þ Entar þ Enchar


hEn2 ¼ (16)
Enbiomass þ Ensteam
In this work, exergy of used biomass was calculated using the where EnH2 is the energy content in the hydrogen product,
method of Szargut et al. (1988) [27] as follows: Entar is the energy flow-out with tar, Enchar is the energy flow-
out with char, Ensteam is the energy flow in with injected
Exbiomass ¼ bLHVbiomass (11) steam, and Enbiomass is the energy flow in with gasified
biomass.
where the coefficient b is given in terms of oxygen–carbon and
hydrogen–carbon ratios and according to the following
equation: 2.5. Exergetic efficiencies

1:0414 þ 0:0177½H=C  0:3328½O=Cf1 þ 0:0537½H=Cg


b¼ (12) Performing exergy analysis is an effective method using
1  0:4021½O=C
conservation of both mass and energy with the second law of
and the biomass lower heating value is given by: thermodynamics for design and analyse conversion of
biomass by gasification. The exergetic efficiency is defined as
LHVbiomass ¼ 0:0041868ð1 þ 0:15½OÞ ð7837:667½C þ 33888:889½H the ratio between useful exergy outputs from the gasifier to
 ½O=8Þ the necessary exergy input to the gasifier. In this study three
(13) forms of rational exergetic efficiencies, hEx1, hEx2 and hEx3 were
applied as follows:
Prins et al. [24] developed an equation to find the coefficient
b, but contains nitrogen and the used biomass has a negligible ExH2
hEx1 ¼ (17)
nitrogen content so for this reason will not be used in this Exbiomass þ Exsteam
work. C, H and O are respectively carbon, oxygen and
hydrogen elements in saw dust wood and are obtained from Exgas
hEx2 ¼ (18)
wood ultimate analysis. The ultimate and proximate analysis Exbiomass þ Exsteam
of the used wood is given in Table 1.
Exgas þ Exloss þ Extar þ Exchar
hEx3 ¼ (19)
Exbiomass þ Exsteam
where ExH2 is the exergy flow rate of the product hydrogen,
Exlost is the thermal exergy out, Extar is the exergy flow with
Table 1 – Ultimate and proximate analysis of saw dust
tar, Exchar is the exergy flow with char, Exsteam is the exergy
wood.
flow with steam and Exbiomass is the exergy flow with biomass.
Element Weight on dry basis (%) Prins et al. [24] reported there is a loss of equality of
C 48.01 materials due to entropy production, heat and mass transfer
H 6.04 and chemical reactions and that represented by irreversibility.
O 45.43 From thermodynamics point of view, the gasification process
N 0.15 has to satisfy both the first and the second laws of thermo-
S 0.05
dynamics. The second law of thermodynamics leads to the
Ash 0.32
HHV (MJ/kg) 18.4
following equation:
Volatile matter 76.78 X X
Fixed carbon 18.7 Ex  Ex ¼ I (20)
R P
Ash 0.32
where Ex is exergy, I is irreversibility and represents the
Data from (Turn et al., 1998).
internal exergy lost as the loss of quality of material and
international journal of hydrogen energy 35 (2010) 4981–4990 4985

Table 2 – Standard chemical exergy for different Table 3 – The coefficients used in constant specific heat
components. empirical equation.
Component Standard chemical Enthalpy of Gas a0 b0 c0 d0
exergy (kJ/kmol) formation (kJ/kmol)
CO 28.16 0.1675  102 0.5372  105 2.222  109
CH4 831,650 74,850 CO2 22.26 5.981  102 3.501  105 7.469  109
CO 275,100 110,530 H2O 32.24 0.1923  102 1.055  105 3.595  109
H 2O 9,500 241,820 H2 29.11 0.1916  102 0.4003  105 0.8704  109
H2 236,100 0.0 CH4 19.89 5.2040  102 1.269  105 11.01  109
C 410,260 0.0
C6H6 3,303,600 82,930

Data from Moran et al. [22].


CP ¼ 0:00422T (27)

Eisermann et al. [7] proposed the following equation to


energy due to dissipation. It is calculated in terms of the calculate the enthalpy and the entropy of tar. The term related
generated entropy during the gasification process as a result to sulfur is omitted where the used biomass has negligible
of flow of substances, heat and mass transfer and chemical sulfur content:
reactions. It is given by the following equation: Z T
htar ¼ hotar þ CP dT (28)
I ¼ To Sgen (21) To

The exergy depends on matter composition which known


hotar ¼ 30:980 þ XCO2 hoCO2 þ XH2 O hoH2 O
as chemical exergy, Exch and for a mixture is given by:
X X where Xi is the mole fraction and hoi is the standard enthalpy
Exch ¼ Xi ExO;i þ RTO Xi ln Xi (22) of formation for specie i. Entropy of tar is given by:
i i
Z T
where Xi is the mole fraction of component i and Exo is stan- CP
s ¼ sotar þ dT (29)
dard exergy and for different compounds is summarized in To T
Table 2. The other part of exergy depends on the matter The standard tar entropy, Sotar in kJ/(kmol K) is given by:
temperature and matter pressure. It is known as physical
      
exergy, Exph and is given by: H O N
sotar ¼ a1 þ a2 exp  a3 þ N þ a4 þ a5
C CþN CþN
Exph ¼ ðh  hO Þ  TO ðs  sO Þ (23)  
S
þ a6
where h and s are enthalpy and entropy of a specie when CþN
gasifier operates at T and P and ho and so are enthalpy and The coefficients a1–a6 are: a1 ¼ 37.1635, a2 ¼ 31.4767,
entropy at standard operating state (T0 ¼ 289 K and a3 ¼ 0.564682, a4 ¼ 20.1145, a5 ¼ 54.3111 and a6 ¼ 44.6712. C, H,
P0 ¼ 1 atm). N, O and S are respectively carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen
The total exergy, Ex is: and sulfur weight fractions in the used biomass.
The system consists of a set of equations for all chemical
Ex ¼ Exch þ Exph (24)
species involved in the analysis including the equation of
The enthalpy and entropy values are necessary to perform atomic balance for each element, the equation of the total
analysis of first and second laws of thermodynamics. Gases number of moles, the equations of variation of the standard
are assumed to obey the ideal gas behavior and their respec- Gibbs free energy of formation of the species and the energy
tive enthalpies and entropies are as follows: balance around the gasifier.

h ¼ hOf þ Dh (25)
2.6. External gasifier losses
The enthalpy rise and the entropy rise due to temperature
are function of temperature and they obey the ideal gas laws. Frequently, losses from gasifier to the ambient are negligible
The enthalpy of formation, hOf for the product gases is given in comparing to the energy entering or leaving the gasifier. De
Table 2. Specific heat, CP is constant pressure specific heat in Souza-Santos [6] reported these losses are around 1–2% of the
kJ/(kmol k) and for gases is function of gasifier temperature power input due to the biomass. However to maintain more
and is given by the following empirical equation: accurate results from this study, these losses are taken in
consideration. The energy lost due to transferred heat to the
CP ¼ a0 þ b0 T þ c0 T2 þ d0 T3 (26)
environment, Qlostwa is calculated from:
The coefficients, a0 , b0 , c0 and d0 of different gases are
Qlostwa ¼ Uwa ðTw  To Þ (30)
summarized in Table 3 [3].
The specific heat of tar in coal gasification was developed The overall heat transfer coefficient, Uwa between the
by Hyman et al. [15] and modified by Lowry [19]. Same equa- external gasifier wall at a temperature Tw and the ambient at
tion will be used for derived tar from biomass gasification and a temperature To estimated by the following empirical relation
in kJ/kgtar K: given by Isachenko et al. [16]:
4986 international journal of hydrogen energy 35 (2010) 4981–4990

Uwa ¼ 1:9468ðTw  To Þ1=4 ð2:8633Uo þ 1Þ1=2


T4  T4o
þ5:75  108 3ins w (31)
Tw  To
where Uo is the average wind velocity and a value of 2 m/s is used
in this study. Tw is estimated from energy balance made around
the gasifier wall by assuming the wall insulated with material
has thickness, xins and thermal conductivity, kins as follows:

kins
Uwa ðTw  To Þ ¼ ðT  Tw Þ (32)
xins
The exergy destruction due to the energy lost from the
gasifier wall is:
  Fig. 3 – Produced hydrogen and gasification ratio from
T0 different quantities of sawdust wood.
Exdeswa ¼ Qlostwa 1  (33)
Tw

The study done for a black box simulates atmospheric


3. Results and discussion gasifier. Its temperature in a range of 1000–1500 K and the fed
biomass was in a range of 10–32 kg/s. The gasification medium
In the following case studies, the following data are used in is 4.5 kg/s of steam at a temperature of 500 K. The performed
the formulation. parametric study simulates steam gasification of biomass
process in two ways. One by varying the amount of biomass in
 Ambient condition To ¼ 298 K and Po ¼ 1 atm. the gasifier at fixed amount of steam and gasifier temperature,
 The approach analysis the gasifier regarding to black box while the second by varying the gasifier operating tempera-
gasifier i.e. assumes change happen at inlet and exit. ture and kept both amounts of biomass and steam constants.
 Gasifier operates in a temperature range of 1000–1500 K and
the atmospheric pressure.
3.1. Effect of biomass quantity on hydrogen product
 Gasifier dimensions are 0.08 m outside diameter and 0.50 m
height.
The results of the parametric biomass amount are shown in
 Gasifier has wall with insulation thickness, xins ¼ 5 mm,
Fig. 2. Biomass quantity, a was increased from 10 to 32 kg/s
thermal conductivity, kins ¼ 0.06 W/m K and emissivity,
holding all other conditions constant: steam quantity,
3ins ¼ 0.01.
g ¼ 4.5 kg/s and gasifier temperature 1000 K. Hydrogen
 The average wind velocity, Uo ¼ 2 m/s.
concentration flow decreased from 59 to 54% (mol). Carbon
 The feeding biomass, a in a range of 10–32 kg/s.
monoxide levels in the gases are also increased. Methane
concentration in gas production shows a little variation over
Two sets of analysis were performed. In the first set, 4.5 kg/
the biomass range. Carbon dioxide concentration shows
s of steam is used while in the second set 6.3 kg/s is used. Both
decrease over the same biomass range and behaves opposite
sets are at a temperature of 500 K.
to carbon monoxide concentration. Tar is assumed to have
The mathematical approach and EES (Engineering Equation
benzene model and its yield is function of gasifier temperature
Solver) code for Microsoft windows operating system were
and thus its mole fraction is constant at the specific temper-
written in order to solve the modeled approach developed for
ature. Char concentration is given in terms of biomass carbon
the gasification process and perform a parametric study. The
content and thus increases with increase in the biomass
code is able to calculate the gas fraction content, the energy,
quantity. Hydrogen content decreases from 62% to 50% in the
exergy and exergy destruction at different amounts of steam
and biomass as well at different gasifier temperatures.

Fig. 2 – Produced hydrogen from different quantities of Fig. 4 – Produced hydrogen from 20 kg/s of sawdust wood
sawdust wood. exists in varying amount of steam.
international journal of hydrogen energy 35 (2010) 4981–4990 4987

Fig. 5 – Effect of gasifier temperature on gas concentration Fig. 7 – Exergy efficiency versus gasified wood gasifier at
for 32 kg/s from sawdust wood and 4.5 kg/s from steam. a gasifier temperature of 1500 K.

feeding biomass range. This was also observed experimen-


from wood gasification plotted in Fig. 5. Hydrogen concen-
tally by Lv et al. [20]. They found the highly excessive feeding
tration was in appreciable amount. The rise in temperature
rate was unbeneficial for biomass gasification cracking and
was found to decrease hydrogen from 53 to 51%.
reforming reactions because it leads to a reduction of
hydrogen content in gases. On the weight basis the graph
(Fig. 3) shows that 7–11% of wood is converted to hydrogen 3.4. Effect of operating parameters on process
under the same conditions. irreversibility

3.2. Effect of supplied steam Fig. 6 shows process irreversibility or destructed exergy from
exergy flow in with wood when gasifier temperature is 1000 K
The results of the parametric steam amount are shown in and 4.5 kg/s of steam is supplied. As can be seen there is an
Fig. 4. Steam was increased from 4.5 to 6.3 kg/s in increment of increase in exergy destruction and this is due to an increase in
w0.18 while holding fuel quantity in the gasifier and gasifier the internal entropy generation. In the studied biomass range,
temperature constant, 20 kg/s and 1000 K respectively. exergy destruction due to thermal losses was unchanged
Hydrogen in the product gases increased from 54 to 57% and because thermal losses from the gasifier were same; therefore
carbon monoxide concentrations decreased from 25 to 16%. the only reason for the increase is the internal entropy
Carbon dioxide concentration exhibited as opposing trend, generation.
increasing from 16 to 22%. The improvement in hydrogen
content and gas yield resulted in an increase in hydrogen yield 3.5. Process energy and exergy efficiencies
by 3% on mole basis.
Three exergetic efficiencies were defined in the analysis
3.3. Effect of gasifier operating temperature section above and according to the desired outputs and
plotted in Fig. 7. The exergy efficiency, hEx1 and presented by
It was studied in a range of 1000–1500 K. The wood was 32 kg/s dotted line and that considers hydrogen production is
and steam 4.5 kg/s. The increase in temperature led to similar decreased as biomass increases and that because there is
trend of hydrogen yield. Over the temperature range some
differences in gas yields were obtained. The gas composition

Fig. 6 – Destroyed exergy and content exergy in sawdust Fig. 8 – Specific entropy generation at a gasifier
wood at 1000 K and 4.5 kg/s from steam. temperature of 1500 K.
4988 international journal of hydrogen energy 35 (2010) 4981–4990

observed from Fig. 9 that both energetic efficiencies are more


sensitive to biomass quantity than steam amount.

3.6. Comparisons

Recent available investigations used different gasifier designs


and a variety of biomasses in addition to different conditions.
This approach did not agree completely with the conditions
investigated by the others but can predict the range covered by
their investigations and the obtained results show reasonable
results as can be seen from Table 4. The modeled approach has
a feature where it is more flexible and easily predicts different
parameters and gives reasonable results. In the absent of the
Fig. 9 – Energy efficiency for conversion of sawdust wood
experimental and theoretical results under completely the
using steam.
same design and operating conditions, it is difficult to show
how accurate the results are. It can be more beneficial
extended to include parameters those affect hydrogen yield
available energy still unbeneficial or efficiency of using the such as including mechanisms treating the catalysts, CO2
energy available decreases. The other two efficiencies, hEx2 capture, other side reactions like steam reforming and steam
and hEx3 have similar trends. The exergy efficiency, hEx3 has shift reaction to enhance the hydrogen yield.
the highest value because it considers all products from the Florin et al. [10] reported that there is an increase in H2
gasification process. It is noticed there is a point where the concentration corresponding to an increase in steam–biomass
exergetic efficiencies hEx2 and hEx3 are minimum. For decla- ratio and that is due to hydrogen enhanced from steam
ration, considering hEx3 where gasifier temperature is reforming and gas-shift reactions. These are side reactions
constant, the irreversibility either external which is related to and are not included in this approach. Instead, the metha-
the thermal losses from the gasifier wall or internal that is nation reaction is included in this study. Although methane
calculated from entropy generation. The former is function of concentration in the studied range was low, at high temper-
gasifier wall temperature and this is constant as gasifier atures it decomposes and is accompanied by increasing CO.
temperature is kept constant. Therefore one can attribute that The production of CO is enhanced by a decrease of CO2. This
to the internal irreversibility part. agrees with the Herguido et al. [13] results at 1023 K. Such
To make that more clear the entropy generation per unit comparison cannot be considered realistic because they used
mass was plotted in Fig. 8. It is obvious from the graph the different biomass (pine sawdust and wood) with different
specific entropy generation is maximum at the state corre- hydrogen contents, different gasification agents (90% H2O),
sponding to the minimum exergy efficiency. Increasing steam different pressures, and gasifiers with different geometries.
amount to 6.3 kg/s shows similar trend for specific entropy Specific details are not available to make comparison using
generation but the minimum exergy state moves towards the a gasification ratio, the ratio between the H2 product and the
right-hand direction. biomass fed. This result is also true as observed by Turn et al.
The energetic efficiencies both have similar trend in the [28] at a different temperature (1073 K). It is noticed from the
studied wood range. There is a little decreasing. It can be results about hydrogen production at 1073 K are less sensitive

Table 4 – Important investigations on hydrogen production by biomass steam gasification.


Gasifier Dimensions Used biomass T ( C) Steam–biomass ratio H2 yield (%) Reference
ID ¼ inside diameter,
H ¼ height

ID ¼ 70 mm Pine (softwood) and eucalyptus 880 0.8 41 Franco et al. [8]


H ¼ 500 mm (hardwood) wastes
ID ¼ 89 mm Sawdust 800 4.7 57.4 Turn et al. [28]
H is n/a
ID ¼ 89 mm Sawdust 800 1.4 48.8 Turn et al. [28]
H is n/a
ID ¼ 89 mm Sawdust 800 1.1 46 Turn et al. [28]
H is n/a
ID ¼ 150 mm, Pine sawdust 750 0.5 40 Herguido et al. [13]
H is n/a and wood
n/a Biomass 777 1.5 59 Florin et al. [11]
ID ¼ 70 mm Sawdust wood 750 0.51 62.5 Abuadala et al. [1]
H ¼ 500 mm

n/a is not available.


international journal of hydrogen energy 35 (2010) 4981–4990 4989

to steam–biomass ratio than at 1023 K and the same conclu- references


sion can be drawn from this paper. Furthermore, that the
hydrogen production is given at different temperatures and
that makes the comparison unrealistic. [1] Abuadala A, Dincer I, Naterer GF. Exergy analysis of
Although Herguido et al. [13] have used wide range of steam– hydrogen production from biomass gasification. In:
biomass ratio (0.50–2.50), the hydrogen concentration was 40– International conference on hydrogen production (ICH2P),
60% and after 0.70 did not show significant change (55–59%). If Oshawa, Canada; 3–6 May 2009.
[2] Bridgwater AV. Renewable fuels and chemicals by thermal
we neglect the difference in conditions under which they have
processing of biomass. Chem Eng J 2003;91:87–102.
reached their results and at a low steam–biomass ratio, [3] Cengel YA, Boles MA. Thermodynamics: an engineering
hydrogen product from our approach lies in the narrow margin approach. 6th ed. New York: Mc Graw Hill Companies, Inc;
w 51–63% in steam–biomass ratio of 0.15–0.51 and with same 2008.
degree of sensitivity to change in hydrogen yield. [4] Corella J, Herguido J, Gonzalez-Saiz J. Steam gasification of
The results showed different trends and that may be biomass in fluidized bed-effect of the type of feed stock. In:
Sadaka S, Ghaly AE, Sabbah MA, editors. Two phase
attributed in addition to the above mentioned reasons, other
biomass air–steam gasification model for fluidized bed
issues related to the gasifier itself where the selection of
reactors: part I – model development. Biomass Bioenergy
gasifier is determined by its different features. Investigations 2002;22:439–62.
of atmospheric biomass steam gasification are adopted from [5] Demirbas A. Hydrogen production from biomass by the
Florin et al., [10] and summarized in Table 4. gasification process. Energy Sources 2002;24:59–68.
[6] De Souza-Santos ML. Solid fuels combustion and gasification
modeling, simulation, and equipment operation. New York:
Marcel Dekker, Inc; 2004.
4. Conclusions [7] Eisermann W, Johnson P, Conger WL. Estimating
thermodynamic properties of coal, char, tar and ash. Fuel
Hydrogen production by the process of gasification of sawdust Process Technol 1980;3:39–53.
wood in steam appears to be an ultimate option for hydrogen [8] Franco C, Pinto F, Gulyurtlu I, Cabrita I. The study of
production in terms of optimum operating condition studies reactions influencing the biomass steam gasification process
Fuel 2003;82:835–42.
and on thermodynamic efficiency based on 1st law and 2nd
[9] Fryda L, Panopoulos KD, Karl J, Kakaras E. Exergetic analysis
law of efficiencies or evaluations.
of solid oxide fuel cell and biomass gasification integration
This paper shows the results of the parametric analysis of with heat pipes. Energy 2008;33:292–9.
biomass gasification to produce hydrogen. The main process [10] Florin NH, Harris AT. Enhanced hydrogen production from
unit of this study was gasifier. The study was focused on the biomass with situ carbon dioxide capture using calcium
influence of the gasification temperature, biomass feeding dioxide sorbent. Chem Eng Sci 2008;63:287–316.
and steam injecting on the hydrogen yield and energetic [11] Florin NH, Harris AT. Hydrogen production from biomass
coupled with carbon dioxide capture: the implications of
efficiencies. The analysed gasification pressure was set to
thermodynamic equilibrium. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2007;32:
atmospheric pressure while the temperature range was 4119–34.
changed from 1000 to 1500 K. The results showed that the [12] Hanaoka T, Yoshida T, Fujimoto S, Kamei K, Harada M,
hydrogen produced by following this approach of modeling Suzuki Y, et al. Hydrogen production from woody biomass by
and from the desired quantity of this type of biomass reaches steam gasification using a CO2 sorbent. Biomass Bioenergy
80–130 g H2/kg biomass while at the examined operating 2005;63:63–8.
[13] Herguido J, Corella J, Gonzllez-Saiz J. Steam gasification of
gasifier temperature; the hydrogen yield reaches 80 g H2 kg1
lignocellulosic residues in a fluidized bed at a small pilot
biomass. This study deviates from the Herguido et al. [13]
scale. Effect of the type of feedstock. Ind Eng Chem Res 1992;
results at the same operating temperature (750  C) and in 31:1274–82.
a higher steam–biomass ratio as there was no significant [14] Hulteberg PC, Karlsson HT. A study of combined biomass
change in hydrogen concentration beyond a steam–biomass gasification and electrolysis for hydrogen production. Int J
ratio of w 0.7. Schuster et al. [26] reported that the deviation of Hydrogen Energy 2009;34:772–82.
results from those were obtained at equilibrium state could be [15] Hyman D, Kay WB. Heat capacity and content of tars and
pitches. In: Li C, Suzuki K, Tar property, analysis, reforming
attributed to their deviation from the equilibrium state. To
mechanism and model for biomass gasification-an overview,
a certain limit one can derive a conclusion that says: higher
vol. 13; 2009. p. 594–604.
steam–biomass ratio leads to a weak enhanced hydrogen [16] Isachenko VP, Osipova VA, Sukomel AS. Heat transfer. In: de
production especially in bench scale units. Also, the derived Souza-Santos ML, editor. Solid fuels combustion and
conclusion puts this work on the right track as the parametric gasification modeling, simulation, and equipment operation.
study was performed under low steam–biomass ratios New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc; 2004.
condition. [17] Jarungthachote S, Dutta A. Thermodynamics equilibrium
model and second law analysis of a downdraft waste gasifier.
Energy 2007;32:1660–9.
[18] Knoef H. The UNDP/Word Bank monitoring program on
small scale biomass gasifiers (BTG’s experience on tar
Acknowledgements
measurement). Biomass Bioenergy 2000;18:39–54.
[19] Lowry HH. Chemistry of coal utilization. In: Eisermann W,
The authors undertook this work with the support of Univer- Johnson P, Conger WL, editors. Estimating thermodynamic
sity of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT) and Libyan properties of coal, char, tar and ash. Fuel Process Technol
Ministry of Education through Libyan Embassy in Canada. 1980;3:39–53.
4990 international journal of hydrogen energy 35 (2010) 4981–4990

[20] Lv P, Yuan Z, Ma L, Wu C, Yong Ca, Zhub J. Hydrogen-rich gas [26] Schuster G, Löffler G, Weigl K, Hofbauer H. Biomass steam
production from biomass air and oxygen/steam gasification gasification – an extensive parametric modeling study.
in a downdraft gasifier. Renew Energy 2007;32:2173–85. Bioresour Technol 2001;77:71–9.
[21] Mahishi MR, Goswami DY. Thermodynamic optimization of [27] Szargut J, Morris DR, Steward FR. Exergy analysis of thermal,
biomass gasifier for hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen chemical and metallurgical processes. In: Pellegrini LF,
Energy 2007;32:3831–40. Oliveira Jr S. Exergy analysis of sugarcane bagasse
[22] Moran MJ, Shapiro HN. Fundamentals of engineering gasification. Energy 2007;32:314–27.
thermodynamics. USA: John Wiley, Inc; 2007. [28] Turn S, Kinoshita C, Zhang Z, Ishimura D, Zhou J.
[23] Ni M, Leung DYC, Leung MKH, Sumathy K. An overview of An experimental investigation of hydrogen production
hydrogen production from biomass. Fuel Process Technol from biomass gasification. Int J Hydrogen Energy 1998;23:
2006;87:461–72. 641–8.
[24] Prins MJ, Ptasinski KJ, Janssen FJG. Thermodynamics of gas– [29] Walawender WP, Hoveland DA, Fan LT. Steam gasification of
char reactions: first and second law analysis. Chem Eng Sci pure cellulose. 1. Uniform temperature profile. Ind Eng Chem
2003;58:1003–11. Process Des Dev 1985;24:813–7.
[25] Rezaiyan J, Cheremisinoff NP. Gasification technologies [30] Werther J, Sanger M, Hartage EU, Ogada T, Siagi Z.
a primer for engineers and scientists. USA: Taylor & Francis Combustion of agricultural residues. Prog Energy Combust
Group, CRC Press; 2005. Sci 2000;26:1–27.

You might also like