Asnan Gasifier

international journal of hydrogen energy xxx (xxxx) xxx
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he
Study of increasing thermodynamic efficiency and

hydrogen amount in the process of solid fuels and
biomass gasification
Wladyslaw Mitianiec
Cracow University of Technology, Al. Jana Pawla II 37, 31-864 Krakow, Poland
highlights graphical abstract
Determination of thermodynamic
efficiency in dependence of C/H2O
and O2/C mass ratios.
High mass ratio of hydrogen in the
syngas at stoichiometric ratio of C
and H2O according to “water-gas
shift reaction”.
Complex mathematical and
chemical model of gasification
reactions.
CFD determination of syngas
chemical composition for gasifica-
tion systems.
High caloric value in the syngas
from external and internal heated
gasifiers also for biomass.
article info abstract
Article history: The effect of fuel composition such as hard coal and biomass in fluidized bed on the
Received 26 February 2021 thermodynamic efficiency of three gasifier types, low heating value (LHV) and syngas
Received in revised form composition was studied by simulation in CFD program. The paper presents various small
15 March 2022 gasification systems with fluidized bed of water-coal mixture and water-biomass mixture
Accepted 20 March 2022 both with oxygen (air) and without oxygen. The work presents the extended mathematical
model of gasification process taking into account also 13 kinetic chemical reactions
Keywords: enabled to apply them in CFD program. The chemical model is based on surface reactions
Fuel slurry given in the model of Equivalent Reactor Network (ERN) in Ansys Energetico. Simulation of
External heated gasifier gasification of different reactor designs enabled to obtain the mass concentration of
Numerical model chemical compounds in the syngas which influenced on thermodynamic efficiency and
Chemical reactions LHV. Additionally, heating of the gasifier walls by electrical system without air gives higher
Caloric value mass ratio of hydrogen (15%) and carbon monoxide (75%) in the syngas than in the oxidized
Syngas components gasification system. The simulation tests showed high thermodynamic efficiency, taking
into account the exergy above 80%, both for the oxygen gasification of hard coal-slurry and
E-mail address: [email protected].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.03.191
0360-3199/© 2022 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Mitianiec W, Study of increasing thermodynamic efficiency and hydrogen amount in the process of solid fuels
and biomass gasification, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.03.191
2 international journal of hydrogen energy xxx (xxxx) xxx
biomass as well as for the externally heated gasifier without the supply of oxygen. The
highest thermodynamic efficiency 90.5% was obtained during gasification of energy willow
in the oxidation reactor due to the large difference in LHV of syngas and fuel. Obtaining the
maximum possible mass ratio of H2 in syngas and a high thermal efficiency for the OXGR
system from the gasification of subbituminous coal dust occurs at a ratio C/O2 ¼ 0.314 and
at almost stoichiometric ratio of C/H2O ¼ 0.63. In the case of gasification of biomass in the
form of finely ground energy willow in the OXGR system, these ratios were respectively: O2/
C ¼ 1.82 and C/H2O ¼ 0.47. While maintaining the almost stoichiometric ratio C/H2O ¼ 0.75,
resulting from the water-gas shift reaction, low heating value of the syngas for the ana-
lysed gasification systems was over 25 MJ/kg. The paper shows comparison of mass frac-
tions of CO, H2, H2O, H2S, CO2, O2, CH4, tar and other chemical compounds in the syngas.
Application of the gasification reactor with external heated walls and without oxygen
inflow produces the syngas without tar and volatile species in comparison to the systems
with additional oxygen supply. In oxidized reactors the syngas contains a large amount of
CO2 about 25e30% of total mass.
© 2022 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
boilers of high power after additional removal of undesirable

Introduction components particularly solid components or in high tem-
perature fuel cells. Separation of hydrogen from syngas was
For many years gasification of solid and liquid fuels in the reported by Campen et al. [3] in two-step process by using iron
presence of water is the known methods for obtaining the oxide and calcium oxide bed. The gasification process is one of
gaseous fuels, which are used in many energy devices. Solid the most important ways for production a clean electric en-
fuels such as coal and biomass are the basic raw material for ergy from the coal fuels to avoid large dusting of the envi-
the production of gaseous fuel through gasification systems. ronment in the combustion process and avoiding expensive
The calorific value (CV) of the gaseous fuel and the thermo- catalytic devices. Fossil fuels are the basic fuels for energetic
dynamic efficiency of the gasification systems depend on the sector in many countries, because biomass combustion and
type of fuel used, its chemical composition, as well as the renewable energy resources are not yet sufficient to meet
proportion of the fuel mass flow rate, the supplied oxygen or energy needs. This applies to the combustion or gasification of
air, and water or steam. Gasification in the presence of only biomass, the use of solar panels, wind energy and water en-
oxygen increases the calorific value of the fuel but is associ- ergy. The basic problem of the gasification process of different
ated with expensive oxygen production. The thermodynamic fuels is to achieve high gasification efficiency, a large amount
efficiency of the gasification system expressed by the chemi- of flammable gases in the entire volume, low installation and
cal and physical exergy is the best indicator of the efficiency of operating costs.
this process. Obtaining the maximum possible thermody- Tavares and his team [4] found that the use of steam as
namic efficiency depends mainly on the mass fraction of gasification agent allows increasing the hydrogen content and
hydrogen in the syngas. heating value of the produced gas in comparison to the use of
Recently the main problem of avoiding emission of solid air as gasifying agent. For many years plenty research works
particles, sulphur compounds, reduction of NOx emission and of gasification systems of solid fuels have been realized in
better use of fuel in the combustion process, particularly in whole the world e.g Texaco, Luirgi, BGL, HTW, Prenflo, Shell
internal combustion engines, turbines and burners is applying and many others and were described extensively in literature
hydrogen as a clean fuel from the syngas. Additionally, during [5e7]. Recently also many authors made computational
gasification process of solid and liquid fuels the gaseous fuel is studies on gasification of coal fuels and biomass using CFD
enriched with hydrogen coming from decomposition of technique [7,8] using kinetic reactions developed by scientific
steam. For that case hydrogen can be produced by different researchers [9,10]. Gasification process of different fuels such
ways from a wide spectrum of raw materials. One way to as: hard coal, lignite, wood, willow, municipal sewage and
produce hydrogen is gasification of solid fuels and biomass. It even grain, was described and discussed globally by many
depends on the local raw materials and possibility providing authors [11e14]. Underground coal gasification was investi-
additional energy. In the world there are many gasification gated by the Indian researchers (Mandapati and team) [15] for
systems of hard coal, biomass and sewage sludge for pro- checking reactivity of coal bed in a function of temperature
duction of electric energy and heat. The most industrial ap- and they found the increase of chemical reactions above
plications of coal gasification were invented at the end of 20th 1000 K. An extensive experimental analysis of underground
century by Texaco [1] for production of synthesis gas or the coal gasification (UCG) using large bulk samples in an ex-situ
Shell coal gasification process (SCGP) [2] which is a dry-feed, reactor under atmospheric and high-pressure (30 bar) condi-
oxygen-blown, entrained flow coal gasification process. Pro- tions was carried out in polish mine and were described by
duction of syngas from bituminous and lignite coal is one of Zagorscak et al. [16]. Gasification of solid fuels is associated
the ways to obtain a clean gaseous fuel enriched additionally with combustion process where pulverization of coal is
with hydrogen for combustion in combustion engines and
international journal of hydrogen energy xxx (xxxx) xxx 3
needed and many researches [12,17,18,52,53] described co- agriculture wastes in presence of the air and steam on labo-
combustion of coal with biomass. Otherwise, many engi- ratory scale was carried out by Chang and team [30] for finding
neering solutions of coal and biomass gasification were thermogravimetric properties and parameters of kinetic
applied in practice. chemical reactions. They found dependence of increasing
Obtaining of pure hydrogen for combustion engines, fuel volumetric ratio H2 and CO with temperature.
cells and thermal devices is the main goal of many chemical One of the most important factors is optimization and
processes. Production of hydrogen from gasification of energetic efficiency of producing the syngas with high content
generally available biomass seems to be one of the best solu- of hydrogen from gasification of solid fuels by using heat re-
tions in modern energy. The simplest way to produce covery system [31]. The product of the gasification process is
hydrogen, but one of the most expensive, methods is elec- syngas with large amount of impurities and inert gases that
trolysis of water, which requires a lot of energy to separate must be removed in order to obtain a gaseous fuel with high
into hydrogen and oxygen. An innovative multigeneration calorific value. Pure hydrogen is needed in low temperature
plant for hydrogen and ammonia generation based on solar fuel cells (namely PEM) applied in transportation. This re-
and biomass power sources is suggested by Tukenmez et al. quires a system to separate the chemicals present in the
[19] with energetic effectiveness above 58%. Also an electrical syngas. However, high temperature fuel cells such as solid
energy produced in photovoltaic (PV) panels was used to oxide fuel cells (SOFC) and molten carbonate fuel cells MCFC
electrolyze water in some provinces in Turkey [20]. Bandari can be fed by fuel blends and long-lasting operation is also
et al. [21] gave a review of hydrogen production via electrolysis possible by using products from biomass and coal slurry
but with energy produced by wind turbine. Such production gasification. The UE project DEMOSOFC carried out by Poli-
can only take place in regions with a strong wind and with tecnico di Torino, Technical University Graz and others
water reservoirs. Similarly, the work of Kalamaras and Efsta- showed that SOFCs are able to convert biogas from e.g. waste
thiou [22] indicates the possibility of hydrogen production water plants highly efficiently into electricity and heats [32].
from natural sources using solar, wind, hydroelectric or The results indicate that fuel cells systems are able to perform
geothermal energy. Power strategies for a stand-alone power power modulation according to the power demand and
system for hydrogen production were presented by Ipsakis achieving constant high total efficiencies above 50%. The
and the team [23]. They proposed the wind generators and DEMOSOFC project developed software to maximize the use of
photovoltaic array for energy recovery for production of biogas in the cogeneration system and the capacity factor of
hydrogen by water electrolysis for future use in proton ex- the SOFC modules. The presented system has also carbon
change membranes (PEM). They proposed an efficient man- recovery and re-utilization (CRR) module from the exhaust of
agement strategy for such system. Similar use of solar energy SOFC. The results of the work with efficiency analysis in 50
for water electrolysis by using alkaline electrolyser in Iran is kWe SOFC system with biogas is given by Langnickel et al. [33].
presented by Mostafaeipour et al. [24]. The researchers Sheth The presented solution enables directly using of syngas with
and Babu [25] did the experimental tests with gasification of small cleaning from solids only. The same technology of using
the waste wood for production of hydrogen in a small gasifier of syngas obtained by biomass gasification was proposed
with external delivering of the air. They measured the earlier by Alvez et al. [34].
chemical composition of the syngas and determined the cold In addition to the typical gasification processes of solid
gas efficiency at different equivalence ratios. Fuel cells, fuels, biomass and wastewater as well as water electrolysis,
especially for automotive sector, work with pure hydrogen other methods are used to obtain hydrogen, such as solar-
obtained for example from biogas. Alvez and his co-workers autothermal hybrid operation with thermal efficiency of 44%
[26] did literature review of the biogas reforming technolo- [35]. Liu et al. [36] proposed applying a magnetic field for
gies, emphasizing the types of fuel cells available on the increasing the hydrogen production efficiency of water elec-
market and found that biogas is an alternative source to use trolysis. Direct plasma decomposition of methane for the
methane to obtain hydrogen. Another review of hydrogen simultaneous synthesis of hydrogen and high value-added
production from biomass is presented by Binder and co- carbon black for electricity production is proposed by Gaut-
workers [27]. Two different hydrogen production routes were ier et al. [37].
analysed based on biomass gasification and were investigated The most ecological method of obtaining hydrogen is
in more detail. Hydrogen production was investigated for gasification of biomass, depending on local possibilities
steam gasification and sorption enhanced reforming. [38,39].
Air-steam gasification of wood residue was explored by Gasification process of raw materials requires additional
Peng et al. [28] in a research scale fluidized bed by using two energy and the process consists several stages. From the sci-
different kinds of metal catalysts (Ni/CeO2/Al2O3) with various entific point of view there are still unknown thermochemical
catalyst loadings. They found that high content of hydrogen parameters of kinetic reactions of processes taking place in
can be achieved at temperature higher than 900 C and high the gasification reactors for more complicated fuels such as
catalyst loading. biomass with different material structure and wastewater.
Full Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) system Gasification process of solid fuels proceeds in many phases.
was analysed by Gnanapragasam and team [29] for commer- Usually, the Arrhenius reaction parameters are assumed to be
cial production of hydrogen from coal slurry in a big scale in constant, but in fact they depend on temperature and pres-
Brazil. It was stated that the H2 system has the potential to be sure. Most of the research work recently focused on gasifica-
a superior way to use syngas without much destruction of the tion of biomass for the production of syngas from which
energy source (coal) and the environment. Gasification of hydrogen can be obtained [40] and some research works also
concern the production of syngas and hydrogen from sewage by one inlet system under certain angle to the main
waste by steam gasification [41]. chamber. The walls of the gas generator can be electrically
This paper concerns the comparison of the mass fractions heated or heated as a result of burning of a gaseous fuel in
of synthesis gas components, especially hydrogen and carbon the outer chamber surrounding the gasifier. The gasifier
monoxide in three gasification systems for biomass and coal has two contractions which cause higher velocity of the gas
slurry, while maintaining the optimal selection of the ratio of in individual parts of the reactor causing higher turbulence
carbon C and water (C/H2O ¼ 0.75) resulting from water-gas which should increase the rate of chemical reactions.
shift reaction (9). Such ratio enables obtaining high thermo-
dynamic efficiency, maximal content of hydrogen and carbon Comparison of three considered cases gives more infor-
monoxide in the syngas during gasification process with only mation which system has higher possibility to obtain the
pure oxygen and water (steam). gaseous fuel, particularly hydrogen, with higher caloric value
and high thermal efficiency.
Purpose and scope of the work

Gasification process
The aim of the work is to obtain the highest possible thermo-
dynamic efficiency and the largest possible mass fraction of Gasification process of the solid fuel occurs in the presence of
hydrogen for the three solid fuel gasification systems, steam. Each solid fuel contains a significant amount of carbon,
assuming the mass fraction ratios of carbon in the fuel, water for example in anthracite the carbon mass content can reach
and oxygen in the substrates supplied to the reactor by using 80%. Higher rate of gasification process is reached by smaller
computational technique. Two parameters of the chemical diameter of fuel particles and at higher temperature above
composition of the substrates are decisive for the reactor's ef- 1100 K. Gasification process requires some additional energy,
ficiency, i.e. the ratio of C/H2O and O2/C. The calculations as- so the whole process is endothermic reactions. The required
sume dry fuel that contains besides C also H2 and O2. Obtaining amount of heat for the gasification can be obtained by com-
a high calorific value of syngas is possible by supplying the bustion of the certain mass of fuel in the presence of oxygen or
necessary amount of oxygen alone to support the gasification the air delivered to the chamber. Another possibility is heating
process in a fluidized bed. The supply of air is less expensive, of the walls of the gasification chamber. The whole gasifica-
but it results in a lower calorific value (CV) of the syngas. tion process consists of several stages and was presented by
Particularly the mass fractions of hydrogen, carbon monoxide Westbrook & Dryer [9] and their model does not show the heat
and methane are important for CV of the syngas. Large amount needed for chemical reactions. The stages of gasification
of carbon dioxide, oxygen and nitrogen in the syngas decreases process shown in Fig. 3 are as follows:
its CV. Three methods of gasification were used for comparison
of mass fraction of chosen chemical compounds in the syngas 1. Atomization of fuel and water in the injection process.
with determination of thermal parameters and thermal effi- 2. Evaporation and boiling of the water e water goes into the
ciency of the gasifiers. Due to the inability to compare these steam.
indicators on a real object, simulation tests were carried out 3. Pyrolysis process taking place at higher temperature e for
using the CFD program and the obtained results were bituminous coal the pyrolysis process takes place at about
compared with experimental results obtained by other re- 700 K. The pyrolysis is described by two competitive
searchers. The following systems have been checked: reactions:
1. Gasification of hard coal particles with water in presence of

Coal ¼ ðk01 ; T01 Þ / Y1 fLight Volatilesg þ ð1 Y1Þ fCharg (1)
the oxygen. The gasification system includes 3 inlet sys-
tems and one outlet system of syngas. There is two-stage
Coal ¼ ðk02 ; T2 Þ / Y2 fHeavy Volatilesg þ ð1 Y2Þ fCharg (2)
coal and water supply into the gasifier, but with different
mass flow rate of the coal-water mixture. The geometry of where.
model of the oxidized gasification reactor (OXGR) consid-
ered in the paper is shown in Fig. 1. Total length of the Y1 e partitioning factor of the low temperature reaction,
reactor amounts 2600 mm and its diameter 400 mm. The Y2 e partitioning factor of high temperature,
second stage of the inlet is placed in the contraction with k01, k02 e pre-exponential constants for coal and biomass,
diameter of 200 mm. T01, T02 e local temperature of coal and biomass.
2. Gasification of biomass particles with water also in pres-
ence of the oxygen. The gasification system is the same as During the pyrolysis process a wide range of compounds
in the first case. However, different diameters of the are released, such as: a) light volatile species: CH4, C2H6, H2O,
biomass particles were assumed and different mass flow H2, H2S, CO2, CO etc., b) heavy volatile species, called tar -
rates but the same boundary conditions were applied in these species are volatile compounds at the pyrolysis tem-
calculations. perature but they can be liquid or solid at room temperature,
3. External heated gasification reactor (EHGR) with forced c) solid phase called char. The pyrolysis process is called
turbulence and without external participation of the air or sometimes as devolatilization process because all volatile
oxygen shown in Fig. 2. The fuel-water mixture is delivered species from the fuel particles are released.
Fig. 1 e Reactor with two-stage inlet of fuel-water mixture and one fuel-oxygen inlet.
Fig. 2 e Model geometry of external heating gasification reactor.
Fig. 3 e Gasification model of solid fuels and water.
4. Heterogeneous chemical reactions e the involved volatile

species react with each other and at the presence of oxygen Mathematical model of gasification process
and carbon monoxide there are many progressive and
reverse reactions. Combustion and gasification of solid fuels were described by
5. Homogeneous reactions - the fixed carbon contained in the many authors, who published their mathematical models
so-called pseudo-gas species char reacts with steam, [8,9,13,42]. Injection of small water droplets together with solid
hydrogen, carbon dioxide and oxygen. fuel particles into the inlet duct causes a fast movement of the
6. Releasing of the synthesis gas from the outlet system with mixture to the reactor, where due the high temperature the
ash for the next purification process. water droplets evaporate according to the following formula:
v stoichiometric coefficient for product and M is the molecular

ðav rv Þ þ V , ðav rv uv Þ ¼ m_ lv m_ vl (3) weight.
vt
where:
Chemical reactions and properties of fuels

v - vapour phase,
av - vapour volume fraction,
Theoretically gasification process of solid fuels in which mass
rv - vapour density,
fraction of carbon predominates is the reactions between H2O,
uv - vector of vapour phase velocity,
C<s>, CO and CO2. Gasification of carbon in the presence of steam
m_ lv - evaporation mass transfer rate [kg/(s m3)],
requires additional heat 175.3 kJ/mol of C and reaction CO with
m_ vl - the rate of mass transfer due to condensation [kg/(s
steam requires 2.9 kJ/mol of C and both endothermic reactions
m3)].
called sometimes as “water-gas shift reactions” (WGSR) can be
written as follows:
The mass transfer rate of evaporation takes place when
Tl > Tsat and is described as follows:
C<s> þ H2O þ 175.3 kJ / CO þ H2 (9)
Tl Tsat
m_ lv ¼ fv al rl (4)
Tsat CO þ H2O þ2.9 kJ ⇔ CO2 þ H2 (10)
where fv is a coefficient and is interpreted as a relaxation time.
These reactions determine minimal amount of heat which
The condensation rate is calculated when temperature vapour
should be delivered to the reactor for full gasification of car-
Tv is smaller than saturation temperature Tsat (Tv < Tsat):
bon in the solid fuel. This amount of heat may come from
Tsat Tv burning small portion of fuel in the presence of oxygen
m_ vl ¼ fv av rv (5)
Tsat delivered to the reactor.
Devolatilization of the fuel particles in the pyrolysis pro-
cess due to high temperature in the reactor most often is C<s> þ O2 / CO2 þ 393.5 kJ (11)
determined by single rate model developed by Badzioch and
In other case at external heating of the reactor the same
Hawskley [13]:
amount of thermal energy should give an electric heating system
dmp or external burning system. The chemical model considered in
¼ k mp 1 fv;0 fw;0 mp;0 (6)
dt the paper takes into account 5 chemical elements: C, H, O, N and S
where mp is the fuel particle mass (kg), fv,0 is the fraction of and the following chemical compounds: CO, CO2, CH4, H2, O2, N2
volatiles initially present in the particle, fw,0 is the mass and H2S but also monatomic compounds O and H as radicals.
fraction of evaporating/boiling material (when wet combus- Mass balance equations of 5 elements C, H, O, N and S are deter-
tion is modelled) and mp,0 is the initial particle mass (kg). mined on their content in the chemical compounds. Unknown 7
Parameter k is the kinetic rate (s1) defined from the Arrhe- chemical compounds should be calculated such as: CO, CO2, CH4,
nius formula with pre-exponential factor A and an activation H2S, H2O, H2, O2 and N2.
energy E: In numerical calculations the single global combustion rate
as a function of temperature T and pressure p the following
b
k ¼ A expð E = ð RTÞÞ (7) formula is considered [11]:

where R b is the universal gas constant and T is temperature. d½fuel E
b
ri ¼ ¼ ATn pm exp
a
½fuel ½O2 b (12)
Gasification process is modelled as a turbulence-chemistry dt b
RT
interaction with species transportation. It can be described where for many cases n ¼ m ¼ 0 for a specified range of T and p. The
by finite rate-eddy dissipation model given by Magnussen exponents a and b can be found in chemical tables for example in
and Hjertager [42]. The net rate Ri,r of species i due to re- NSRDS-NBS 67 [43]. Among many chemical models of gasification
action r can be determined by smaller value of the two process the model developed by Equivalent Reactor Network
expressions: (ERN) dominates and is applied in Ansys Energetico [44] and was
! used for determination of mass fraction of the chemical com-
ε Y<
Ri;r ¼ v0i;r Mw;i Ar min< 0 and pounds in the considered three gasification reactors.
k v<;r Mw;<
P Heterogeneous reactions between gaseous chemical com-
YP pounds are modelled as kinetic reactions and are simply
ε
Ri;r ¼ vi;r Mw;i ABr N P (8) presented as follows:
kP }
vj;r Mw;j
j
1. Volatilization in pyrolysis process:
where: YP is the mass fraction of any product species P, Y< is
the mass fraction of a particular reactant <, A is an empirical
constant (A ¼ 4.0), B is an empirical constant (B ¼ 0.5), k is vol / a1 CO þ a2 CH4 þ a3 H2S þ a4 H2 þ a5 N2 þ a6 H2O þ a7
turbulent kinetic energy, ε is dissipation rate of turbulent en- O2 þ a8 tar
ergy, v0 is stoichiometric coefficient for reactants, v} is the
The analysis of gasification process was carried out for two

2. CO oxidation: CO þ0.5 O2 / CO2
solid fuels with participation of water and oxygen. The main
3. Forward water-gas shift reaction (FWGS): CO þ H2O /
properties of hard coal and biomass (energetic willow) taken
CO2 þ H2
for calculations are shown in Table 2. The ultimate analysis of
4. Reverse water-gas shift reaction (RWGS): CO2 þ H2 /
coal (dry, ash free basis) of rank subbituminous B was given by
CO þ H2O
Ragland & Bryden [47] and for biomass (willow) by Stolarski &
5. Hydrogen oxidation: H2 þ 0.5 O2 / H2O
Krzyzaniak [48].
6. Reverse of hydrogen oxidation: H2O / H2 þ 0.5 O2
7. Methane oxidation: CH4 þ 1.5 O2 / CO þ 2H2O
8. Steam methane reforming: CH4 þ H2O / CO þ 3H2
9. Tar oxidation reaction: tar þ O2 / CO
CFD model and boundary conditions
The CFD model of the reactor was created in fully 3D geome-

The equation No. 1 represents mass balance of the biomass
try. The reactor shown in Fig. 1 has three inlets of: 1) coal-
volatile part and coefficients a1 - a8 are mole numbers of the
oxygen (inlet 1), 2) coal-water (inlet 2), 3) coal-water (inlet 3).
individual species. The variable vol is a molar mass of the total
Configuration of inlet1 and inlet2 enables better mixing of coal
volatile part and for hard coal and lignite the molar mass of vol
or biomass slurry and swirl of both flowing media caused by
is assumed the same as for carbon. According to the work of
eccentric placement of these inlets on the same level. The
Sharma [45] and Gagliano [46] tar is represented by chemical
third inlet of coal or biomass slurry is placed in contraction
formula C6H6O0.2. In comparison to molar number of tar in the
with diameter 200 mm which give higher flow rate and higher
hard coal volatiles Mtar has higher value. Coefficients ai in the
turbulence of the fuel mixture. In the case of the OXGR reactor,
chemical equation No.1 are found by solving linear equations
it was assumed that the oxygen and fuel supplied to the inlet 1
of mass balance of chemical elements: C, H, S, O, N and mass
serve only for fuel combustion processes in order to maintain
balance of vol. Amount of total moles of chemical elements
the WGSR gasification reaction. Additionally, the heat from
are converted from their mass ratios in the biomass given by
combustion should enable evaporation of liquid water and
ultimate and proximate analysis.
increase the steam temperature. The mesh of model created
Ri in Ansys contains 212,914 tetrahedral cells. The inlet param-
ni ¼ ri (13)
b
R eters for gasification reactors with hard coal slurry supply in
oxidized and heated gasifiers are given in Table 3. Turbulent
where ri is mass ratio of chemical specie i, Ri is individual gas
intensity was assumed as 15% and turbulent viscosity ratio
constant of specie i and Rb is gas constant of vol.
equal 10.0 for all inlets. Temperature of the reactor’ walls with
Four homogeneous reactions occur on coal or biomass
thickness 10 mm was assumed as 600 K. The other inlet pa-
particle surface as char C<s> oxidation reactions and in the
rameters were given for biomass gasification in the reactor
ERN model are presented in the following form:
with the same geometry (Table 4). It was assumed that oper-
ating pressure in the gasifiers is 25 bar for all calculations.
10. Char combustion: C<s> þ 0.5 O2 / CO
In the case of hard coal gasification in the OXGR reactor,
11. CO2 gasification: C<s> þ CO2 / 2 CO
the following dependences of mass fractions of chemical
12. H2O gasification: C<s> þ H2O / CO þ H2
compounds at the inlet were as follows:
13. C(s) gasification: C<s> þ 2H2 / CH4
fuel = H2 O ¼ 0:79; C=H2 O ¼ 0:635 and O2 =C ¼ 0:314:
The rate of formation of the k-th chemical compound can
The C/H20 ratio is close to the stoichiometric ratio of these
be written as the sum of all chemical reactions in which this
compounds in the FWGS reaction (reaction No 3).
compound takes part. The constants in Arrhenius reactions (7)
For the OXGR reactor with biomass containing a large
and constants of exponents ni in combustion rate formula (12)
amount of O2, the following relationships occur:
are presented in Table 1.
Table 1 e Constant data of Arrhenius reactions of gasification process.

React. No A E [J/kmol] n1 n2 n3 Literature
1 2.119eþ11 2.027eþ08 1.5 e e [9]
2 2.239eþ12 1.7eþ0.8 1 0.25 0.5 (H2O) [9]
3 2.35eþ10 2.88eþ08 0.5 1 e [50]
4 1.785eþ12 3.260eþ08 1 0.5 e Eq. with FWGS
5 9.87eþ08 3.1eþ07 1 1 e [49]
6 2.06eþ11 2.728eþ08 1 e e Equil. with 5
7 5.012eþ11 2.0eþ08 0.7 0.8 e [9]
8 5.922eþ08 2.09eþ08 0.5 1 e [51]
9 1.0eþ15 1.0eþ08 1 0.5 e estimation
10 300.0 1.3eþ08 0.65 (O2) e e [8]
11 2224.0 2.2eþ08 0.6 (CO2) e e [8]
12 42.5 1.42eþ08 0.4 (H2O) e e [8]
13 1.62 1.5eþ08 1 (H2) e e [8]
on the author's experience with other systems, which ensures

Table 2 e Ultimate analysis of subbituminous (hard coal)
complete gasification process.
[11] and biomass [7].
For the EHGR reactor with pulverized coal without
Properties Hard coal Biomass
providing additional oxygen at the inlet, the following de-
(willow)
pendencies occur:
Mass fraction of total carbon % 80.51 53.0
Mass fraction of Hydrogen % 5.68 5.8 fuel = H2 O ¼ 0:75; C=H2 O ¼ 0:603 and O2 =C ¼ 0:108:
Mass fraction of Oxygen % 8.69 37.62
Mass fraction of Nitrogen % 1.58 1.2 A small amount of oxygen is provided in the fuel.
Mass fraction of Sulphur % 3.54 2.38 Interaction of solid particles with continuous phase was
Low heating value J/kg 2.2343e7 1.8140e7 calculated by using Discrete Phase Model (DPM) and was
Density kg/m3 1200.0 550.0 updated every 50 iterations.
Table 3 e Boundary conditions for hard coal slurry. Calculation results

Oxidized gasifier Heated
gasifier The analysis of three gasification systems were carried out in
the Ansys Fluent v. 16.0 double precision 64-bit program on 6
Parameter Inlet1 Inlet2 Inlet3 e
processors Intel 7i at 3000 iterations of calculation and with
Mass flow rate O2 [kg/s] 0.01 e e e
Mass flow rate H2O [kg/s] e 0.038 0.038 0.016
pseudo transient option. The ERN gasification model was used
Mass flow rate of coal [kg/s] 0.01 0.025 0.025 0.012 and additional material coal-volatiles-air was applied and also
Temperature O2 [K] 300 e e e a special definition of thermal parameters for species tar and
Temperature H2O [K] e 300 300 300 volatile fluid was created. The pressure-velocity coupling
Temperature of coal [K] 400 300 300 300 scheme was used in the solution method and all spatial dis-
Velocity of coal [m/s] 5 5 5 0.05
cretization were calculated in the second order upwind
Velocity of H2O [m/s] e 5 5 5
scheme. The three cases were modelled by application of k-ε
Mean coal particle 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
diameter [mm] standard turbulence model with the following constants:
Mean H2O droplet e 0.05 0.05 0.05 Cm ¼ 0.09, C1ε ¼ 1.44, C2ε ¼ 1.92 and Prt ¼ 1. This k-ε model was
diameter [mm] applied at assumption of standard wall functions (u ¼ 0 m/s).
Oxidation reactor of coal-water mixture
Table 4 e Boundary conditions of oxygen gasification

Most gasification processes run in the presence of oxygen or
reactor for biomass slurry.
air delivered from external sources. This work considers
Parameter Inlet1 Inlet2 Inlet3
delivering only oxygen. The OXGR enables delivering of the
Mass flow rate O2 [kg/s] 0.059 e e heat for endothermic gas-water shift reaction by combustion
Mass flow rate H2O [kg/s] e 0.0375 0.075 of certain amount of fuel. The total ratio of carbon to water at
Mass flow rate of biomass [kg/s] 0.025 0.025 0.05
the inlet was C/H2O ¼ 0.635 and the ratio of supplied oxygen
Temperature O2 [K] 500 e e
together with the oxygen contained in the fuel was O2/
Temperature H2O [K] e 300 300
Temperature of coal [K] 400 300 300 C ¼ 0.314. This ratio makes it possible to obtain a large amount
Velocity of air [m/s] e e e of hydrogen in the syngas according to the chemical reaction
Velocity of particles [m/s] 10 10 10 of the FWGS. The two inlets with injected coal-water mixture
Velocity of H2O [m/s] e 10 10 and one inlet with oxygen and injected coal particles enable
Mean biomass particle diameter [mm] 0.01 0.01 0.01 full gasification of the reactants. Mass fractions of burned
Mean H2O droplet diameter [mm] e 0.05 0.05
gases in the syngas at the outflow determine chemical effi-
ciency of the gasification system. Using the above given inlet
parameters (Table 3) and by oxidation of small coal mass flow
rate 0.01 kg/s the mass fraction of CO (Fig. 4a) at the outflow
fuel = H2 O ¼ 0:888; C=H2 O ¼ 0:47 and O2 =C ¼ 1:82:
amounts about 0.3 (of total mass). Production of CO begins on
The EHGR shown in Fig. 2 without the oxygen supply has the level of the first inlets and locally reaches value 0.43. There
one inlet of coal slurry. The gasifier has two places of is also a large increase in H2 with distance from the inlets.
contraction for increasing the flow velocity and local turbu- Formation of H2 occurs in the whole space of the reactor. The
lence. The small diameter of the gasifier was applied due to largest mass fraction of hydrogen occurs at the outlet where it
penetration of the heat from the external wall inside the reaches value 0.12 (Fig. 4b). The whole amount of delivered by
chamber by conductivity and convection. The mesh was also inlet1 oxygen is consumed in the first part of the reactor for
created in Ansys meshing module with automatic adaptation burning coal particles to increase temperature inside the
and has 122,425 tetrahedral cells. Temperature of external reactor.
surfaces of the reactor, which is made from SiC (high tem- Carbon dioxide is the product of gasification process in
perature resistant material), was assumed with a value 1400 K presence of oxygen and also as a product of reaction No.10. As
for 10 mm walls thickness. Such temperature value was given greenhouse gas it can be assimilated by nature, however, in
Fig. 4 e Mass fraction of carbon monoxide (a) and hydrogen (b).
the syngas is not needed. Mass fraction of CO2 changes in the C ¼ 1.82. An even distribution of the mass fraction of CO is
space of reactor from 0 even to the value of 0.7 (Fig. 5a) but at observed at the middle and final part of the reactor (Fig. 6a)
the outflow it amounts 0.25, which is almost equal CO mass and the average mass fraction of CO in the reactor amounts
fraction. Most of it is formed around the air and coal intake 0.35. Hydrogen is formed in the inlet part and at the final part
(inlet1). In the gasification process a high amount of methane of the reactor (Fig. 6b). Very fast formation of H2 after the
and similar to the formation of hydrogen is formed at the second dose of biomass slurry is caused also by high content
outflow of the reactor, where mass fraction reaches value 0.18 of O2 in the biomass. The syngas leaving the reactor contains
(Fig. 5b). Methane is formed due to homogenous reaction of about 12% of H2 of the total mass.
coal particle C<s> and H2 (reaction 13). Delivering oxygen together with biomass through inlet1
The release of volatile substances from the coal particles in causes a fast combustion process which manifests itself in the
pyrolysis process takes place in the middle part of the reactor. formation of a significant amount of CO2 (Fig. 7a) on the inlet
Gasification temperature changes along the reactor and its level giving a sufficient heat for gasification process. The
higher value 2300 K is reached in the initial part of the reactor. average MSFR of CO2 at the outflow amounts about 25% and is
All amount of oxygen delivered in inlet1 and the one coming close to value in the previous case. Distribution of CO2 MSFR is
from decomposition of water is fully consumed on formation almost uniform in the cylindrical part of OXGR. Gasification of
of CO and CO2. Gasification of hard coal in the oxygen pres- biomass causes a significant content of CH4 in the syngas
ence enables achieving high contents of CO, H2 and CH4 but (Fig. 7b) about 14% of total mass. A local CH4 mass fraction
also a large amount of CO2. Internal combustion of a certain reaches value 0.15 in the middle part of the reactor, which
amount of fuel gives the heat needed for endothermic water- indicates on strong homogenous reactions No.13 between
gas shift reaction. Gradual supply of the hard coal slurry en- C<s> and H2, but reactions 7 and 8 reduce amount of CH4 at
ables almost full gasification of reactants giving a large mass the final part of the reactor. Small amount of tar in biomass
fraction of gaseous fuel. The process is efficient due to lack of causes a fast oxidation and the exhaust gases contain a
nitrogen and due to the high content of hydrogen and negligible amount of tar. The two inlets of biomass þ O2 and
methane in the gases. biomass þ H2O cause a strong swirl and mixing of two jets.
Devolatilization of biomass is very fast and finishes shortly
Oxidation reactor of biomass after the second injection of the biomass slurry.
Release of carbon in the gaseous form occurs at the inlet
Gasification of biomass is similar to the hard coal gasification level where the mass fraction of tar reaches value 0.053 due to
but with different chemical composition of the syngas. The high temperature caused by biomass oxidation. The fast
energetic willow as a biomass contains much more O2 (37.62% chemical reaction occurs on the level of inlet1 and inlet2
of mass fraction) and lower mass fraction of C (53%) in com- causing burning of the biomass, which is seen by high value of
parison to coal bituminous. Due to the high O2 content of the the CO2 MSFR. Combustion process in the inlet part of the
biomass and the lower C content, the ratio of carbon to water reactor causes high temperature above 3000 K (Fig. 8a) also
was lower than for coal-slurry and was C/H2O ¼ 0.47, and the due to high content of O2 in biomass. Temperature of the
total ratio of O2, also contained in the fuel, to C was O2/ gaseous species in the reactor is almost the same along the
Fig. 5 e Mass fraction of: a) carbon dioxide, b) methane.
Fig. 6 e Mass fraction of: a) carbon monoxide, b) hydrogen.
Fig. 7 e Distribution of mass fraction of: a) carbon dioxide, b) methane.
Fig. 8 e Temperature in oxidized biomass reactor (a) and mass fraction of hydrogen sulphide (b).
reactor and at the outflow region is about 1800 K. Despite fuel. Simulation tests showed that MSFR of CO on almost the
small content of sulphur in the biomass H2S is formed very entire length increases in the final part of the gasifier and
fast due to high temperature, however with low mass fraction amounts above 0.75 (Fig. 9) at the outflow. The oblique inlet of
less than 0.015 (Fig. 8b). coal particles and water droplets causes high turbulence in
During biomass gasification only H2S is formed and due to the initial part of the pipe, which influences on faster mixing.
high temperature, the syngas does not contain SO2 or SO3 Small tube diameter enables a good heat flow from the walls
because sulphur easily reacts with H2. At assumed inlet pa- to the reactants by conduction and convections. The hydrogen
rameters almost the whole amount of oxygen is consumed in formation process is similar to formation of CO (Fig. 10), which
the reactor for production of CO and CO2 and mass fraction of shows that water-gas shift reactions are the main processes in
O2 at outflow is zero. As a result of the high oxygen content of this gasification system. The outflow MSFR of H2 is about 0.15
the fuel, the exhaust gases contain a considerable amount of and is higher than for the coal slurry gasification process in
tar, the mass fraction of which is approximately 7.5%. OXGR.
Despite the lack of oxygen at the inlet the gasification
External heated reactor of coal slurry process produces also CO2 in the forward water-gas shift re-
action. Most CO2 is generated at the pipe inlet to the reactor's
Gasification process of hard coal fuel by external heating can tube, where mass fractions is almost 0.5 and decreases along
be realized in a long tube reactor with two contractions. the tube (Fig. 11) because gasification of CO2 takes place ac-
Temperature of external wall made of SiC with thickness cording to the homogenous reaction 11. The CO2 mass frac-
10 mm was assumed as 1400 K. In the simulation process, the tions at the outflow amounts almost 0.05 and is lower than in
ratio of coal bituminous fuel to water was assumed as for the two previous cases. The oxygen in the hard coal particles and
pure FWGS reaction (0.75). However, the actual carbon to released from the steam in chemical reactions is fully
water ratio was C/H2O ¼ 0.6 and the oxygen to carbon ratio consumed during formation of CO and CO2 and is not enough
was only O2/C ¼ 0.108 based on the ultimate analysis of the for full oxidation of tar and for this case the syngas contains
Fig. 9 e Mass fraction of carbon monoxide.

Fig. 11 e Mass fraction of carbon dioxide.
Fig. 10 e Mass fraction of hydrogen. Fig. 12 e Mass fraction of tar.
also small amount (about 0.5%) of tar (Fig. 12), but in com-
parison to the previous cases it is very small value. At
assumed boundary and inlet conditions the EHGR causes a
fully water-gas shift reaction with small amount of CO2. The
applying of two contractions enables higher turbulence inside
the pipe for faster chemical reactions.
Temperature inside the gasifier (Fig. 13) increases along the
pipe proportionally to formation of CO and H2 and at the Fig. 13 e Gasification temperature in EHGR.
outflow reaches 1400 K due to exothermic reaction of tar
oxidation, where oxygen is formed during reverse hydrogen but this reaction releases more CO. In such case the oxygen
oxidation reaction marked as No. 6. The fluid temperature at mass flow rate in inlet1 should be increased or use an addi-
the outlet reaches 1400 K and is the same as external heated tional oxygen inlet. High content of tar at the outflow in the
temperature. The temperature during gasification is lower OXGR for coal slurry can also be reduced by separation of tar
than in the previous two cases. and reverse flow to inlet or by a reactor design change.
The biomass gasification process in the same oxidized
Comparison calculation results of gasification systems gasifier indicates lower mass fraction production of CO (26%)
and CO2 (24%) in comparison to values in the syngas obtained
The aim of the study is to show that achieving a high ther- from gasification of the coal slurry. High content of O2 in biomass
modynamic efficiency and a high hydrogen content in syngas causes reaction between H2 and O2 forming H2O which leads to
is possible by determining the proper mass proportions be-
high steam content in the exhaust gas. Mass fractions of chosen
tween the carbon contained in the fuel and the water supplied
chemical compounds at the outflow are shown in Fig. 15. Almost
to the system. In the OXGR system with coal-slurry this ratio
the same MSFR of H2 as in the first case is obtained (11.5%) at the
was 0.635 and in the OXGR system with biomass (energy
outflow and also the same MSFR of CH4 (18.9%) is produced
willow) only 0.47. For EHGR the ratio of C to H2O was 0.603 at during the process of biomass gasification. A larger MSFR of CO
the ratio of coal dust to water equal to 0,75. The conducted and CO2 are caused by higher amount of CO and O2 in the
simulations of three gasification cases enabled determination biomass volatile part in comparison to the coal slurry
of mass fraction of 9 chemical compounds in the syngas
leaving the reactors. The syngas also contains the rest of un-
burned fuel, ash and moisture in the steam form. Fig. 14
presents mass fractions of 9 species in the syngas at the
outlet at the case of oxidized gasification of hard coal-water
mixture, where the largest mass fraction occurs for CO, CO2
and CH4. This system produces large amount of H2 about 12%
of total syngas mass. There is also a large amount of tar (7.5%
of total MSFR) which indicates on incomplete gasification of
substrates. Higher amount of CH4 at outlet increases caloric
value of the raw syngas. The syngas contains much amount of
tar and does not contain oxygen which was fully consumed
during burning process of coal particles. For this reason more
oxygen should be supplied to the reactor in inlet1 in order to Fig. 14 e Mass fractions of chemical species on outlet in
full oxidation of tar in heterogeneous chemical reaction No.9 OXGR for coal slurry case.
systems and caloric values of the raw syngas by using

calculation technique at assumed ratio C/O2 and O2/C.
Obtaining high efficiency of the gasification process is
possible thanks to the assumed ratio of the element carbon C
in the solid fuel and water (about 0.75) corresponding to the
reaction (10), the share of only oxygen to maintain the tem-
perature of chemical reactions for the OXGR system in the
fluidized bed and the lack of nitrogen in the substrates.
Gasification process of considered systems can be compared
by determination of thermodynamic efficiency, The thermo-
dynamic efficiency defined by Prins et al. [54] is defined as the
exergy increase of the gas divided by the exergy decrease of
the solid fuel for gasifying a fuel with pure oxygen and
Fig. 15 e Mass fractions of chemical species on outlet in
optionally steam.
OXGR for biomass slurry.
jgasifier ¼

4m;gas εch;gas þεph;gas 4m;oxygen εch;oxygen 4m;steam εch;steam þεph;steam

gasification. The biomass gasification process enables forming 4m;fuel εch;fuel 4m;fuel unconv εch;fuel unconv þεph;fuel unconv
of hydrocarbons containing C, H, O, N and other elements which (14)
are called tars. In this case, there is a large mass fraction of tars
(8.6%) in the syngas because of high content of O2 and H2O in the where:
biomass. The syngas from biomass gasification contains negli-
gible amount of vol and O2, which are almost fully consumed εch;fuel - chemical exergy of fuel [MJ/kg],
during chemical processes wherein oxygen is fully consumed at εch;fuel unconv - chemical exergy of unconverted fuel [MJ/kg].
initial gasification stage forming CO2. εch;oxygen - chemical exergy of oxygen [MJ/kg],
The mass fractions of gasification products are quite εch;steam - chemical exergy of steam [MJ/kg],
different at the heated gasifier for two reactants: hard coal and εch;gas - chemical exergy of syngas [MJ/kg],
water. In the case of EHGR the syngas contains 3 main gases: εph;fuel unconv - physical exergy of unconverted fuel [MJ/kg],
CO, CO2 and H2 (Fig. 16) and small amount of H2S and steam. εph;steam - physical exergy of steam [MJ/kg],
Complete gasification process occurs in this case because there εph;gas - physical exergy of syngas [MJ/kg]
is neither tar nor volatile species. Reverse reaction of hydrogen 4m;::: - mass flow rate of substances [kg/s]
oxidation (No. 6) is enough to produce O2 in order to oxidize tar.
Gasification process in the EHGR produces small amount of Chemical exergy of fuel (MJ/kg) εch;fuel is calculated as:
CO2 (above 5% of mass fraction) as a result of carbon mon-
εch;fuel ¼ bLHVfuel (15)
oxide kinetic reaction with the steam according to the
chemical formula No. 3. This system produces a lot of CO and with ratio of chemical exergy and lower heating value of fuel
H2 about 75% and 15% of MSFR, respectively as is shown in b, which is depending of fuel molar composition CHO and
Fig. 16 and very small amount of CH4 and tar. During gasifi- statistical correlation was given by Szargut and Styrylska [55]:
cation process without participation of oxygen the syngas
H O O
does not contain O2, steam and volatile species from pyrolysis b ¼ 1:0438 þ 0:0158 þ 0:0813 for 0:5 (16)
C C C
process. The substitute caloric value of the raw syngas pro-
duced by the EHGR is smaller than in the case of coal slurry
1:0414 þ 0:0177ðH=CÞ 0:3328ðO=CÞ½1 þ 0:0537ðH=CÞ
OXGR despite high mass fraction of CO (about 75% of mass b¼
1 0:4021ðO=CÞ
fraction) due to low caloric value of CO. O
The biomass characterizes a greater amount of volatile for 0:5 < 2
C
compounds than hard coal and lignite. Much amount of H2S (17)
about 3.5% in the OXGR results from the assumed high con-
The considered fuels: coal slurry and dry willow biomass
tent of sulphur in the hard coal (3.54% of dry fuel mass), but
have the molar ratio of O/C < 0.5. Chemical exergy of consid-
biomass contains only 0.2% of sulphur. The low content of H2S
ered gaseous species: CO, CO2, CH4, H2, O2, N2, H2S, H2O and C
(1.5%) in the syngas in the case of biomass results from high
was taken from data given by Szargut et al. [56,57]. Physical
temperature of the process (T > 2000 K) in the initial part of the
exergy was calculated by using accurate data of enthalpy and
gasifier and faster releasing of sulphur from volatiles.
entropy of chemical species for outflow temperature and
ambient temperature (293 K) for three considered gasification
systems. Because of using only pure oxygen at inlet of OXGR
Discussion and validation of results
system the required energy for large-scale oxygen production
is approximately 1368 kJ/kg [54]. For EHGR system additional
Gasification efficiency
energy for heating coal-water mixture in the gasifier was
calculated by energy needed for chemical reactions (9) and (10)
One of the main task of the work was determination of
with assumed efficiency about 75% and evaporation of water
thermodynamic efficiency of three analysed gasification
Fig. 16 e Mass fractions of chemical compounds on outlet in EHGR for coal slurry.
and overheating of steam. The calculated thermodynamic where 4i denotes specie mass fraction, gi denotes specie molar
efficiency of 3 considered systems for dry substrates amounts fraction and mean gas constant of syngas is obtained from
P
as follows: dependence RS ¼ n1 4i Ri and Ri ¼ MR=Mi , wherein MR is uni-
versal gas constant (8314 J/(kmol K)) and Mi is molar number of
1. OXGR e coal slurry - 82.8%, each specie. Table 5 shows the values of the volumetric frac-
2. OXGR e biomass - 90.5%, tions of syngas chemical compounds for the three gasification
3. EHGR e coal-slurry - 86.7%. systems.
Hydrogen has the largest molar fraction in syngas from the
Such high efficiencies were obtained due to dry substrates three analysed gasification systems and the highest molar
coming into reactors, small dimensions of biomass or carbon fraction occurs in the case of non-oxidizing gasification sys-
particles (10 mm) and the selection of the theoretical ratio C/ tem EHGR (71.4%).
H2O z 0.75. Higher thermal efficiency of biomass gasification
than for other cases is due to higher difference of LHV of Comparison of gasification systems
syngas and substrates and small amount of oxygen supplied
in relation to the amount of biomass. The study of gasification of hard coal and biomass in the flu-
Echegaray and a team [62] conducted experimental studies idized bed with internal heating has shown slight differences
on the exergy efficiency of peach gasification. The biomass of mass fractions of products in the syngas. Both cases enable
had almost the same chemical composition (C ¼ 53.01%, achieving of the syngas with the following chemical compo-
O2 ¼ 36.89%, H ¼ 5.90% by weight percentage) as in the case of sition: 30e37.5% CO, 24e31% CO2, 5e18% CH4 and about 12%
biomass gasification in the OXGR system. The experimental H2 (60e66% molar fraction) with small amount of H2S and
research carried out by the team showed the exergy efficiency steam. Such high mass fraction of hydrogen means that
at the level of 85%, calculated according to the formula (14) hydrogen takes up more than 60% of the syngas volume. For
included in the publication, which differs from formula (14) the assumed design and inlet parameters in the OXGR with
presented in this paper. Other studies by Prins and the team coal slurry much amount of tar (7.5% of total mass) is leaving
[54] showed that the thermodynamic efficiency based on the the reactor indicating incomplete gasification process. Elimi-
exergy of the gasification system for subbituminous coal nation of tar in the syngas is possible by higher mass of oxy-
amounts 85% at ratio O/C ¼ 0.2. This value is close to the ob- gen flowing into the reactor by inlet1 or by elongation of the
tained value of 82.8% of the obtained coal gasification in the reactor. In the case of biomass the same reactor produces
OXGR system. significant amount of tar (7.5% mass fraction) and insignifi-
cant amount of vol (0.5% mass fraction). The third case with
Volumetric syngas composition external heating of the walls gives better results, because the
flammable gases (CO and H2) occupy almost 90% of total mass
Thermodynamic calculations were carried out for the condi- and only 5% is the mass of CO2, which is the product of for-
tions of meeting the mass balance. This requires specifying ward water-gas shift reaction. In gasification process with
the mass fractions of substrates, and the results are mass external wall heating the syngas has lower caloric value
fractions of products. In technological conditions, the volume comparing to the coal slurry OXGR because of lack of CH4 and
or mole fraction is used for easier measurement. Volume low caloric value of CO despite of high content of CO and H2.
fraction is calculated as follows: Highest mass fraction of hydrogen in the syngas can be ob-
tained by applying the external heated gasifier, but it requires
Ri
gi ¼ 4i (18) additional removing CO from the syngas. The three analysed
RS
gasification systems indicate high thermal efficiencies above
of useful raw materials can be obtained. Caloric value of the

Table 5 e Volumetric fractions of chemical compounds at
raw syngas Wd can be simply calculated by the following
outlet during gasification.
formula:
Chemical Volumetric (molar) fraction []
compound X
n
Wd ¼ ri Wi (14)
Biomass Coal slurry Coal slurry i¼1
OXGR OXGR EHGR
where ri is mass fraction and Wi is caloric value of the indi-
CO 0.096 0.120 0.255
vidual combustible gas.
H2 0.599 0.657 0.714
CO2 0.057 0.062 0.012 The gasification process of coal slurry in a presence of
CH4 0.123 0.131 0.009 oxygen at assumed gasification parameters produces the raw
H2S 0.009 0.011 0.005 syngas with a caloric value of 27.16 MJ/kg. Such high caloric
O2 0 0 0 value is due to large amount of methane which has higher
H2O 0.021 0.017 0.001 caloric value (55.22 MJ/kg) than CO (10.112 MJ/kg). In the case
Vol 0.001 0.001 0
of biomass gasification in the same oxidized gasifier the raw
tar 0.075 0.001 0.004
syngas has caloric value of 25.3 MJ/kg which is much higher
than for raw biomass (18.14 MJ/kg). Despite a large amount of
80% due to the selection of the proportion of the amount of CO the raw syngas obtained from the external heated gasifier
carbon contained in the fuel and water supplied to the reactor has lower caloric value of 26.4 MJ/kg than OXGR during coal
inlet systems close to the mass fractions resulting from the slurry gasification due to low amount of methane. Low
FWGS reaction (0.75). amount of methane in the EHGR is due to low temperature of
Production of the syngas occurs most strongly in the initial gasification process than in the OXGR. This research indicates
part of the gasifier, where the inlet water and air streams and the highest mass fraction of hydrogen about 15% for EHGR
particles of solid fuels or biomass are mixed due to high flow during coal slurry gasification. On the other hand, biomass
turbulence. Fig. 17 shows formation courses of CO, H2 and CO2 gasification process at higher oxygen mass flow rate (0.059 kg/
along the oxidized gasifier where only biomass from the en- s) gives the same mass fraction of hydrogen (above 12%) as
ergetic willow, was delivered to the inlets. The predicted pa- gasification process of coal slurry with oxygen mass flow rate
rameters show that full gasification process finishes at 40% of of 0.1 kg/s.
the gasifier length. The mass fraction of the most important
gases in the charge at the end of the gasifier remains constant Verification of calculation model
(Fig. 17).
In the gasification process of solid fuels and biomass, CO2 is The applied calculation model in CFD program has been
always produced and should be removed from the syngas to verified by Ansys Inc [49]. Comparison of simulation results
produce enriched fuel with high calorific value. from the real model of gasification reactor applied in Wabash
River Energy Ltd in USA [25,58] was done with measurement.
By adding only oxygen (not the air) to the gasifier it is
Measurements were conducted on two stage gasification
possible to achieve higher mass fractions of combustible gases
(CO, H2 and CH4) in the raw syngas, which influences on system, where coal is first mixed with water and fed with 95%
higher caloric value of the gaseous fuel. Such strategy requires pure oxygen. The coal is partially combusted giving temper-
an expensive technology for oxygen production. Additionally, ature 1370 C. Majority of the coal reacts at this temperature
for technical application the raw gases flowing from the with steam to produce the raw syngas. Additionally, the coal
gasifier should be passed by a water scrubber to remove solid slurry is added to the second gasification stage where it un-
impurities. Removing other gases and leaving only hydrogen dergoes devolatilization, pyrolysis, and partial gasification to
requires further chemical processes from which the number cool the raw syngas and enhance its heating value. The Ansys
work [20] also concerns the gasification process of coal in the
presence of oxygen only and comparison of dry volume frac-
tions of CO, H2, CO2 and CH4 by measurements and by CFD
simulation is presented in Fig. 18.
The model used by Wabash River Energy was applied for
different boundary conditions at the inlet and a different type
of fuel than for the gasification cases analysed in the study.
Hence the differences in the values of H2 (33% molar ratio) of
this company and the results obtained in this study (H2> 60%
molar ratio) at an almost stoichiometric C/H2O ratio resulting
from the chemical reaction given in equation (9). The amount
of individual chemical compounds also depends on the inlet
O2/C ratio and the temperature of the chemical reactions,
where it affects the individual Arrhenius reactions.
Application of the same calculation model as in the work
[25] enables achieving the correct results for analysed gasifi-
Fig. 17 e Gasification process along the biomass internal cation cases presented in the work. Mass fractions of the
heating gasifier.
chemical compounds in the syngas are presented in the work and H2 in syngas slightly differ from the results obtained in
because they are closer to physical and thermal issues than this study for gasification of biomass in OXGR system (12 g/kg)
molar fractions. The experimental tests done by the Indian of H2 and molar fraction of CO equal 12,25%) because of
researchers Sheth and Babu [59] carried out on biomass gasi- different physical parameters of substrates. Therefore, the
fication in the presence of air showed a decrease of CO and H2 simulation results cannot be accurately compared.
when molar fraction of the air increases while causing an The experimental part of the research for both gasifiers is
increase of CO2. They found that molar fraction of the main currently under way in company Filen sp. z o.o and will be
syngas components at equivalence ratio 4 ¼ 0.25 amounts as published in near future.
follows: CO ¼ 0.21, H2 ¼ 0.1, CO2 ¼ 0.05, CH4 ¼ 0.02 and the rest
is N2. The calculations show higher mass fraction of H2 in the
raw syngas for the oxidized gasifier when only oxygen is Summary and conclusions
delivered both for the coal slurry and biomass and such
method is more effective for hydrogen production. This paper presents a method of obtaining syngas with high
calorific value and high thermodynamic efficiency for gasifi-
Validation of calculation results cation of hard coal slurry and biomass in the presence of ox-
ygen and gasification of hard coal slurry by external heating.
The technical solutions for coal dust and biomass gasification Raw syngas obtained from the presented gasification systems,
presented in the paper differ from those described in the containing a large amount of H2, CO, CH4 as well as CO2, is a
literature due to different parameters at the gasifier inlet, good fuel for use in fuel cells such as SOFC [32,33] after
especially in the case of the system with external heating. An cleaning only tar and other solids. The main reasons of solid
almost similar system of coal dust gasification in a cyclone fuels gasification are also obtaining of gaseous fuels enabling
furnace in an O2/H2O atmosphere was made by Zarzycki and lower pollution during combustion, lower content of sulphur
team [60]. The gasification process occurred in a furnace and more efficient fuelling system in internal combustion
composed of two chambers: lower with inlet of O2þH2O and engines. The main task of the gasification process is to obtain
upper with inlet of fuel þ CO2 or H2O. Experimentally the re- a large amount of hydrogen with high thermodynamic effi-
searchers found that composition of syngas can be controlled ciency at certain optimal ratio C/H2O in the substrates. In the
by changes in the content of O2 and H2O in the gasifying agent OXGR system, a certain amount of O2 is needed to burn the
and molar content of CO at the level of 50% was obtained at necessary amount of fuel to sustain the gasification reaction.
molar ratio O2/H2O ¼ 50/50. They also found that molar con- The ratio of O2 to fuel depends on the mass fraction of carbon
tent of H2 at level 50% was obtained at molar composition of and oxygen in the fuel. Obtaining the maximum possible mass
the gasifying agent O2/H2O of 80/20. Delivering some amount ratio of H2 in syngas and a high thermal efficiency of over 80%
of CO2 decreases molar fraction both CO and H2. The authors for the OXGR system from the gasification of subbituminous
did not mention about amount of CO2 delivered into upper coal slurry occurs at a ratio C/O2 ¼ 0.314 and an almost stoi-
part of the furnace. chiometric ratio of C/H2O ¼ 0.63. In the case of gasification of
Another experimental work of co-gasification of lean coal biomass in the form of finely ground energy willow (d ¼ 10 mm)
(wt. 62.42% of C, 2.83% of H2) and biomass (wt. 47.53% of C, in the OXGR system, these ratios were respectively: O2/
4.9% H) was done by Wang and Chen [61] in an intermittent C ¼ 1.82 and C/H2O ¼ 0.47.
fluidized bed reactor. It was found that H2 content amounted Two oxidized gasification systems for hard coal and
almost 70 g/kg of syngas at biomass to coal mass ratio (BCMR) biomass and one for hard coal gasification by external heating
equal 4 and molar fraction of CO amounted 28%. The molar of the walls are shortly described. Calculations of solid fuel
fraction of CO2 in syngas was 10% and CH4 5% The experiment gasification required a brief presentation of mathematical
was carried out without nitrogen. The given contents of CO model of different stages of this process, which is included in
Fig. 18 e Validation of Ansys CFD model on measurements in Wabash Power Plant (USA) [25].
a computer program. The experimentally proven Ansys ERN fraction of CH4. Thermodynamic efficiency is above 86% at
model of 13 chemical kinetic reactions with Arrhenius con- assumed ratio fuel/H2O ¼ 0.75 where C/H2O ¼ 0.603. The
stants was presented. Properties of solid fuels: subbituminous syngas from the reactor with external heating of the wall
hard coal and willow biomass taken from ultimate and prox- contains also CO2 (about 5%) and gasification process is
imate analysis are included in tables. The geometries of two complete without tar and volatile species in the exhaust
gasification reactors are shown in the figures with their short gases. The exhaust gases contain only small amount of
description. Boundary conditions and initial conditions of methane.
simulations of 3 gasification system cases were defined. 4. Gasification of hard coal and biomass in the oxidized
Simulation of gasification process in all systems were carried gasification reactor with inflow of oxygen together with
out in Ansys Fluent program until convergence of all ther- fuel gives almost the same content of hydrogen in the
modynamic variables reached very low values. The results of syngas. A large amount of methane is formed (about
calculations are presented in figures showing mainly distri- 15e16%) in the case of coal slurry gasification as a result of
bution of the main products in the reactors. The results of chemical reactions which increases caloric value of the
simulation tests were also discussed by comparison of raw syngas.
gaseous components in the syngas for all cases. Calculations 5. The oxidized gasification reactor at the assumed boundary
carried out in CFD showed that for a similar to stoichiometric conditions characterizes with a large mass fraction of tar
ratio of C/O2 ¼ 0.75, according to the chemical reaction of (7.5%) and high amount of H2S in the exhaust gases at the
FWGS, a 12 ÷ 15% mass ratio of H2 in the syngas and over 80% case of hard coal gasification and small amount of H2S in
thermal efficiency was obtained for the analysed gasification the case of biomass gasification.
systems. Energy willow was selected as the biomass for 6. Local maximum temperature of the gases inside the
simulation tests, which in European conditions is an excellent reactor for the cases with internal combustion (for biomass
fuel for gasification due to the large mass fraction of O2 and C. T > 3000 K and for hard coal T > 2000 K) is higher than for
The simulation tests showed the highest theoretical thermo- the case with external heating (1300 K).
dynamic efficiency of the oxidizing gasification process of 7. Gasification with external heating of the walls is more
biomass in the OXGR system, reaching the value of 90.5%. The expensive and requires higher strength materials of the
highest mass fraction of CO, amounting to 75%, and the mass walls but gives flammable gases with higher CO and H2
fraction of H2, amounting to 15% in syngas, were obtained in mass fractions. Gasification of biomass and solid fuels
the EXGR reactor with a very small mass fraction of CO2 (5%) enables receiving maximum 15% of hydrogen mass frac-
and CH4 (2%). These values do not correspond to the theo- tion, but it is about 75% of volume fraction. High amount of
retical values obtained from the primary FWGS reaction due to CO2 decreases caloric value of the raw syngas.
the content of O2 in fuel and other chemical reactions. Se- 8. Gasification process of the coal slurry and biomass carried
lection of the best gasification system, in addition to the out in the oxidized and external heated gasifier enables
benefits of a high molar ratio of H2, CH4 and CO in the syngas, high mass fraction of H2 (above 12%). From energetic point
also depends on the costs associated with the construction of view removing other gases from the raw syngas and
and exploitation of the gasification installation. leaving only hydrogen requires further chemical processes.
Based on simulation calculations carried out, the following
basic conclusions can be drawn:
1. High thermodynamic efficiency of the solid fuel gasifica- Applications

tion process in the presence of steam and oxygen, and a
large mass fraction of hydrogen in the syngas are ach- Production of hydrogen by gasification process is one of the
ieved at a specific ratio of C/H2O and O2/C contained in the ways to obtain clean fuel for internal combustion engines and
substrates. Simulation calculations showed that for hard fuel cells after removing unwanted components such as CO2,
coal slurry these ratios should be: 0.6 <C/H2O < 0.75 and H2S, tar, etc. Renewable energy from biomass by gasification
O2/C z 0.3. In the case of oxygen gasification of biomass decreases demand on fossil fuels.
containing a large amount of oxygen, high thermody- The most practical application of raw syngas from the
namic efficiency 82.8% is achieved for C/H2O > 0.45 and aerobic and anaerobic gasification processes is to supply high-
O2/C < 1.8. temperature fuel cells in the power industry, such as, for
2. Despite the lower calorific value of syngas from gasification example, SOFCs.
of energetic willow, the oxygen gasification process shows
the highest thermodynamic efficiency 90.5% resulting from
a large difference in calorific value of the obtained gas fuel
and biomass and high mass ratio of CH4 (18.9%) in the
Funding
syngas.
The inspiration of this work was a cooperation with company
3. External heating of the reactor's wall without oxygen
Filen sp. z o.o. in the research project POIR.01.01.01-00-0327/15
inflow gives higher mass fraction of CO (75%) than the
financed by National Research Development Centre (NCBiR) in
cases with fuel oxidation and gives highest H2 mass
Poland. This research did not receive any specific grant from
fraction (about 15%) for all considered cases. However,
funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit
such syngas composition gives lower caloric value than
sectors.
the oxidized gasifier of coal slurry due to small mass
[11] Watanabe H, Otaka M, Hara S, Ashizawa M, Kidoguchi K,

Declaration of competing interest Inumaru J. Modelling and simulation for extra heavy oil
gasification on entrained flow gasifier. In: Industrial joint
The authors declare that they have no known competing power generation conference, 24e26 June 2002 Phoenix AZ;
financial interests or personal relationships that could have 2009. p. 667e74.
[12] Jupudi RS, Zamansky V, Fletcher TH. Prediction of light gas
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
composition in coal devolatilization. Energy Fuels
2009;23(6):3063e7.
Abbreviations [13] Badzioch S, Hawksley PG. Kinetics of thermal decomposition
of pulverized coal particles. Ind Eng Chem Process Des Dev
OXGR oxidized gasification reactor 1970;9(4):521e30.
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics [14] Chen G, Andries J, Luo Z, Spliethoff H. Biomass pyrolysis/
CV caloric value gasification for product gas production: the overall
investigation of parametric effects. Energy Convers Manag
DPM discrete phase model
2003;44:1875e84.
EHGR external heated gasification reactor
[15] Mandapati RN, Daggupati S, Mahajani SM, Aghalayam PK,
ERN Equivalent Reactor Network Sapru RK, Sharma RK, et al. Experiments and kinetic
FWGS forward water-gas shift reaction modeling for CO2 gasification of Indian coal chars in the
IGCC Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle context of underground coal gasification. Ind Eng Chem Res
LHV lower heating value 2012;51:15041e52. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie3022434.
MSFR mass fraction [16] Zagor ak R, Sadasivam S, Thomas HR, Stan
sc czyk K,
Kapusta K. Experimental study of underground coal
PEM Proton Exchange Membrane
gasification (UCG) of a high-rank coal using atmospheric
SCGP Shell Coal Gasification Process and high-pressure conditions in an ex-situ reactor. Fuel
SOFC Solid Oxide Fuel Cells 2020;270:117490. https://doi.org/10.1016/
RWGS reverse water-gas shift reaction j.fuel.2020.117490.
WSGR water-gas-shift-reaction [17] Zhao Y, Serio MA, Bassilakis R, Solomon PR. A method of
predicting coal devolatilization behavior based on the
elemental composition. Proc Combust Inst 1994;25:553e60.
references [18] Mitianiec W. Co-combustion of pulverized coal and biomass
in fluized bed of furnace. J Energy Resour Technol 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4036958. 139/062204-1.
[19] Tukenmez N, Koc M, Ozturk M. A novel combined biomass
[1] Schlinger WG, Kolaian JH, Dorawala TG. Texaco coal- and solar energy conversion-based multigeneration system
gasification process for production of clean synthesis gas with hydrogen and ammonia generation. Int J Hydrogen
from coke. Energy Prog 1985;5(4):234e8. OSTI 5370902. Energy 2021;46(30):16249e512.
[2] Doering EL, Cremer GA. Advances in the shell coal [20] Karacavus B, Aydin K. Hydrogen production and storage
gasification process. American Chemical Society; 1995. analysis of a system by using TRNSYS. Int J Hydrogen Energy
CONF-950402- Journal ID: ACFPAI; ISSN 0569-3772; TRN: 2020;45(60):34608e19.
97:000006-0022. [21] Bhandari R, Trudewind CA, Zapp P. Life cycle assessment of
[3] Campen A, Mondal K, Wiltowski T. Separation of hydrogen hydrogen production via electrolysis e a review. J Clean Prod
from syngas using a regenerative system. Int J Hydrogen 2014;85:151e63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.048.
Energy 2008;33(1):332e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/ [22] Kalamaras CM, Efstathiou AM. Hydrogen Production
j.ijhydene.2007.07.016. Technologies: Current State and Future Development. In:
[4] Tavares R, Monteiro E, Tabet F, Rouboa A. Numerical Hindawi Publishing Corporation, Conference Papers in Energy;
investigation of optimum operating conditions for syngas 2013. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/690627. Article ID 690627.
and hydrogen production from biomass gasification using [23] Ipsakis D, Voutetakis S, Seferlis P, Stergiopoulos F,
Aspen Plus. Renew Energy 2020;146:1309e14. https://doi.org/ Elmasides C. Power management strategies for a stand-alone
10.1016/j.renene.2019.07.051. power system using renewable energy sources and hydrogen
[5] Macphee JE, Sellier M, Jermy M, Tadulan E. CFD modeling of storage. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34/16:7081e95. https://
pulverized coal combustion in a rotar lime kiln. In: 7th doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.06.051.
International Conference on CFD in the Minerals and Process [24] Mostafaeipour A, Rezayat H, Rezaei M. A thorough
Industries CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia; 9e11 Dec 2009. investigation of solar-powered hydrogen potential and
[6] Farzad S, Mandegari M, Gӧrgens J. A critical review on accurate location planning for big cities: a case study. Int J
biomass gasification, co-gasification, and their Hydrogen Energy 2020;56(45):31599e611.
environmental assessments. Biofuel Res J 2016;12:483e95. [25] Sheth NP, Babu BV. Production of hydrogen through biomass
[7] Xingying L, Hanbin Z, Jansen G. CFD simulation on the (waste wood) gasification. Int J Hydrogen Energy
gasification of asphalt water slurry in an entrained flow 2010;35:10803e10.
gasifier. Petrol Sci 2014;11:308e17. https://doi.org/10.1007/ [26] Alvez HJ, Junior Bley C, Niklevicz RR, Frigo EP, Frigo MS,
s12182-014-0345-2. Coimbra-Araujo CH. Overview of hydrogen production
[8] Wu Y, Zhang J, Smith PJ, et al. Three-dimensional simulation technologies from biogas and the application in fuel cells. Int
for an entrained flow coal slurry gasifier. Energy Fuels J Hydrogen Energy 2013;38/13:5215e25. https://doi.org/
2010;24(2):1156e63. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.02.057.
[9] Westbrook CK, Dryer FL. Simplified reaction mechanisms for [27] Binder M, Kraussler M, Kuba M, Luisser M. Hydrogen from
the oxidation of hydrocarbon fuels in flames. Combust Sci biomass gasification. IEA Bioenergy; 2018, ISBN 978-1-
Technol 1981;27(1e2):31e43. 910154-59-5.
[10] Ragland KW, Bryden KM. Combustion engineering. 2nd ed. [28] Peng WX, Wang LS, Mirzaee M, Ahmadi H, Esfahani MJ,
Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2001, ISBN 978-1-4200-9250-9. Fremaux S. Hydrogen and syngas production by catalytic
biomass gasification. Energy Convers Manag 2017;135:270e3. [44] Ansys Energetico Tutorial. ECO-TUT-15180-1701-UG-1.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.12.056. Ansys; 2016.
[29] Gnanapragasam NV, Reddy BV, Rosen MA. Hydrogen [45] Sharma AK. Equilibrium modeling of global reduction
production from coal gasification for effective downstream reactions for a downdraft (biomass) gasifier. Energy Convers
CO2 capture. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2010;43:4933e43. https:// Manag 2008;49:832e42. https://doi.org/10.1016/
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.07.114. j.enconman.2007.06.025.
[30] Chang ACC, Chang HF, Lin FJ, Lin KH, Chen CH. Biomass [46] Gagliano A, Nocera F, Patania F, Bruno M, Castaldo DG. A
gasification for hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy robust numerical model for characterizing the syngas
2011;36:14252e60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.05.105. composition in a downdraft gasification process. Compt
[31] Kuo PC, Wu W. Design, optimization and energetic efficiency Rendus Chem 2016;19:441e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/
of producing hydrogen-rich GA from biomass steam j.crci.2015.09.019.
gasification. Energies 2015;8:94e110. https://doi.org/10.3390/ [47] Ragland KW, Bryden KM. Combustion engineering. 2nd ed.
en8010094. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2001, ISBN 978-1-4200-9250-9.
[32] Gandiglio M, Lanzini A, Santarelli M, Acri M, Hakala T, [48] Stolarski M, Krzyzaniak M. Wartosc opalowa i skład
Rautanen M. Results from an industrial biogas-fed SOFC elementarny biomasy wierzby produkowanej systemem
plant (the DEMOSOFC project). Int J Hydrogen Energy Eko-Salix (Caloric value and elementary content of willow
2019;45(2020):5449e64. https://doi.org/10.1016/ biomass produced by Eko-Salix system). Fragm Agron
j.ijhydene.2019.08.22. 2011;28(4):86e95.
[33] Langnickel H, Rautanen M, Gandiglio M, Santarell M, [49] Nakod P, Orsino S, Walavalkar A, Sami M. Development and
Hakala T, Acri M, Kiviaho J. Efficiency analysis of 50 kWe validation of a volatile break-up approach for gasification
SOFC systems fueled with biogas from waste water. J Power simulation. June 2-6. In: 38th Int. Tech. Conf. on clean coal and fuel
Sources Adv 2020;2:100009. https://doi.org/10.1016/ systems. Ansys Inc.; 2013. https://www.scribd.com/document/
j.powera.2020.100009. 448038770/ANSYS-gasification-clearwater-2013-ansys.
[34] Alvez HJ, Junior Bley C, Niklevicz RR, Frigo EP, Frigo MS, [50] Bustamante F, et al. Uncatalyzed and wall catalyzed forward
Coimbra-Araujo CH. Overview of hydrogen production water-gas shift reaction kinetics. AIChE J 2005:51e5. https://
technologies from biogas and the application in fuel cells. Int doi.org/10.1002/aic.10396.
J Hydrogen Energy 2013;38/13:5215e25. https://doi.org/ [51] Hou K, Houghes R. The kinetics of methane steam reforming
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.02.057. over a Ni/a-Al2O catalyst. Chem Eng J 2001;82:311e28.
[35] Hathaway BJ, Davidson JH. Autothermal hybridization and [52] Jugola P, Huttunen M. A CFD simulation of biofuel and coal
controlled production of hydrogen-rich syngas in a molten co-combustion in a pulverized coal fired furnace.
salt solar gasifier. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2021;46(29):15257e67. International Flame Research Foundation, The Finnish and
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.02.48. Swedish National Committees; 2013.
[36] Liu Y, Pan Lm, Liu Hb. The dynamic effect of Micro-MHD [53] Nussbaumer T. Combustion and co-combustion of biomass:
convection on bubble grown at a horizontal microelectrode. fundamentals, technologies, and primary measures for
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2021;27(46):13923e35. https://doi.org/ emission reduction. Energy Fuels 2003;17:1510e21.
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.01.155. [54] Prins M, Ptasinski KJ, Janssen FJJG. From coal to biomass
[37] Gautier M, Rohani V, Fulcheri L. Direct decarbonization of gasification: comparison of thermodynamic efficiency.
methane by thermal plasma for the production of hydrogen Energy 2007;32:1248e59. https://doi.org/10.1016/
and high value-added carbon black. Int J Hydrogen Energy j.energy.2006.07.017.
2017;47(42):28140e56. https://doi.org/10.1016/ [55] Szargut J, Styrylska T. Approximate evaluation of the exergy
j.ijhydene.2017.09.021. of fuels. Brennst Wa € rme Kraft 1964;16(12):589e96 [in
[38] Bonilla J, Gordillo G, Cantor C. Experimental gasification of German].
coffee husk using pure oxygen-steam blens. Front Energy Res [56] Szargut J, Morris DR, Steward FR. Exergy analysis of thermal,
2019. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2019.00127. chemical and metallurgical processes. New York:
[39] Binder M, Kraussler M, Kuba M, Luisser M. Hydrogen from Hemisphere Publishing Corporation; 1988.
biomass gasification. IEA Bioenergy; 2018, ISBN 978-1- [57] Szargut J. Technical thermodynamic. Warsaw: Scientific
910154-59-5. Publishing PWN; 1991.
[40] Yilmaz F, Ozturk M, Selbas R. Design and thermodynamic [58] https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/Coal/energy-systems/
assessment of a biomass gasification plant integrated with gasification/gasifipedia/wabash.
Brayton cycle and solid oxide steam electrolyzer for [59] Sheth NP, Babu BV. Production of hydrogen through biomass
compressed hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy (waste wood) gasification. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2020;60(45):34620e36. 2010;35:10803e10.
[41] Nipattummakul N, Ahmed II, Kerdsuwan S, Gupta AK. [60] Zarzycki R, Je˛dras J, Kobyłecki R. Gasification of coal dust in a
Hydrogen and syngas production from sewage sludge via cyclone furnace in an O2/H EO atmosphere. Energies
steam gasification. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2020;13:2253. https://doi.org/10.3390/en3092253.
2010;35(21):11738e45. https://doi.org/10.1016/ [61] Wang LQ, Chen ZS. Hydrogen-rich gas production by
j.ijhydene.2010.08.032. cogasification of coal and biomass in an intermittent
[42] Magnussen BF, Hjertager BH. On mathematical models of fluidized bed. Hinsawi: The Sc World J; 2013. https://doi.org/
turbulent combustion with special emphasis on soot 10.1155/2013/276823. ID 276823.
formation and combustion. In: 16th Symp. (Int'l.) on [62] Echegaray ME, Castro MR, Mazza GD, Rodriguez RA. Exergy
Combustion. The Combustion Institute; 1976. analysis of syngas production via biomass thermal
[43] NSRDS-NBS 67 Table of recommended rate constants for gasification. IJoT 2016;19(3):178e84. https://
chemical reactions occurring in combustion. National www,researchgate.net/publication308991969.
Bureau of Standards; 1980.

Asnan Gasifier

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asnan Gasifier

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asnan Gasifier

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

international journal of hydrogen energy xxx (xxxx) xxx

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

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

Study of increasing thermodynamic efficiency and

highlights graphical abstract

article info abstract

E-mail address: [email protected].

boilers of high power after additional removal of undesirable

Purpose and scope of the work

1. Gasification of hard coal particles with water in presence of

Fig. 2 e Model geometry of external heating gasification reactor.

Fig. 3 e Gasification model of solid fuels and water.

4. Heterogeneous chemical reactions e the involved volatile

v stoichiometric coefficient for product and M is the molecular

Chemical reactions and properties of fuels

The analysis of gasification process was carried out for two

The CFD model of the reactor was created in fully 3D geome-

Table 1 e Constant data of Arrhenius reactions of gasification process.

on the author's experience with other systems, which ensures

Table 3 e Boundary conditions for hard coal slurry. Calculation results

Oxidation reactor of coal-water mixture

Table 4 e Boundary conditions of oxygen gasification

Fig. 4 e Mass fraction of carbon monoxide (a) and hydrogen (b).

Fig. 5 e Mass fraction of: a) carbon dioxide, b) methane.

Fig. 6 e Mass fraction of: a) carbon monoxide, b) hydrogen.

Fig. 7 e Distribution of mass fraction of: a) carbon dioxide, b) methane.

Fig. 9 e Mass fraction of carbon monoxide.

Fig. 10 e Mass fraction of hydrogen. Fig. 12 e Mass fraction of tar.

systems and caloric values of the raw syngas by using

of useful raw materials can be obtained. Caloric value of the

1. High thermodynamic efficiency of the solid fuel gasifica- Applications

[11] Watanabe H, Otaka M, Hara S, Ashizawa M, Kidoguchi K,

You might also like