Biomass cofiring: the technology, the experience, the combustion consequences

Tillman, David A.

doi:10.1016/s0961-9534(00)00049-0

Cited by 457 publications

(212 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

203

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some types of coal-fired boilers, including stoker boilers and pulverized coal boilers, can substitute raw biomass for coal, often up to 20% by mass, without significant detrimental effects on system performance [36], but there may be some advantages to using pyrolysis products in these systems rather than biomass. The energy density of pyrolysis products is higher than that of biomass, which is typically around 16 MJ kg −1 for biomass used in cofiring [37].…”

Section: Biocharmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Producer Gas, Biochar, and Activated Carbon from Two Distributed Scale Thermochemical Conversion Systems Used to Process Forest Biomass

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thermochemical biomass conversion systems have the potential to produce heat, power, fuels and other products from forest biomass at distributed scales that meet the needs of some forest industry facilities. However, many of these systems have not been deployed in this sector and the products they produce from forest biomass have not been adequately described or characterized with regards to chemical properties, possible uses, and markets. This paper characterizes the producer gas, biochar, and activated carbon of a 700 kg h −1 prototype gasification system and a 225 kg h −1 pyrolysis system used to process coniferous sawmill and forest residues. Producer gas from sawmill residues processed with the gasifier had higher energy content than gas from forest residues, with averages of 12.4 MJ m for forest residues. Biochars produced have OPEN ACCESSEnergies 2013, 6 165 similar particle size distributions and bulk density, but vary in pH and carbon content. Biochars from both systems were successfully activated using steam activation, with resulting BET surface area in the range of commercial activated carbon. Results are discussed in the context of co-locating these systems with forest industry operations.

show abstract

Section: Biocharmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Producer Gas, Biochar, and Activated Carbon from Two Distributed Scale Thermochemical Conversion Systems Used to Process Forest Biomass

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The study reported that leached biomass produced less alkali metal vapors and resulted in reduced char formation during combustion. Biomass cofiring with coal is a promising environmentally-friendly technology that has been shown to be economical with switchgrass replacing up to 20% of coal requirements (Tillman, 2000). Boylan et al (2000) described plans for pilot scale testing of cofiring of switchgrass with coal.…”

Section: Thermal Conversionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Switchgrass for bioethanol and other value-added applications: A review

Keshwani

2009

Bioresource Technology

369

195

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Unstaged co-fired results without SNCR produced substantial NO x reduction especially with increasing biomass input shares up to a VM/FC ratio of 1.8 [26]. Fig.…”

Section: Unstaged Co-combustion Results Without Sncrmentioning

confidence: 83%

NOx control in coal combustion by combining biomass co-firing, oxygen enrichment and SNCR

Daood

Javed

Gibbs

et al. 2013

Fuel

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Article:Daood, S.S., Javed, M.T., Gibbs, B.M. et al.(1 more author) (2013) NOx control in coal combustion by combining biomass co-firing, oxygen enrichment and SNCR. Fuel, 105. 283 -292. ISSN 0016-2361 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.06.087 eprints@whiterose.ac.uk https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version -refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher's website. TakedownIf you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. Abstract:There has been renewed interest in evaluating the effect of biomass co-firing on the multi-pollutant control system such as Selective Non-catalytic Reduction (SNCR) and oxygen enrichment. Emissions savings have been attained by combining SNCR and biomasscoal co-combustion under various oxygen enriched staged air levels. Biomasses with higher tendency of generating CO produced better reduction in NO x emission with and without using SNCR. NO reduction of around 80% were attained using SNCR for 15% and 50% blending ratios of biomasses at 21% overall O 2 concentration for unstaged combustion.Whereas, a range of 40%-80% NO reductions were attained for RC2 (a Russian Coal) and 15% co-fired biomasses with 3.1%-5.5 % overall O 2 concentration at 22%-31% levels of flame staging. Moreover, it was found that better NO x removal efficiency was attained for higher NO x emission baselines under both oxygen enriched and normal firing conditions. However, SNCR NO x control for both coal or coal-biomass blends was observed to produce higher NO x reductions during O 2 enrichment, believed to be due to the self-sustained NO x reduction reactions. Hence, NO x control by SNCR, oxygen enriched co-firing in the furnaces would result in lower NO x emissions and higher carbon dioxide concentration for efficient scrubbing with better carbon burnouts.Key words: NOx, SNCR, biomass cofiring, coal 1.IntroductionSome conventional coal fired power stations of Europe are under threat of closure, due to enforcement in 2020 (previously 2016), of the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD)[1]. This is due to the economics of implementing control technologies to reduce the emission of NO x to lower than 200mg/Nm 3 . Moreover, UK is also expected to fail in meeting the NO x emissions ceiling target set by the European National Emissions Ceiling Directive (ENECD)[2]. Hence, the ENECD is reviewing to produce new emission cei...

show abstract

Biomass cofiring: the technology, the experience, the combustion consequences

Cited by 457 publications

References 2 publications

A Comparison of Producer Gas, Biochar, and Activated Carbon from Two Distributed Scale Thermochemical Conversion Systems Used to Process Forest Biomass

A Comparison of Producer Gas, Biochar, and Activated Carbon from Two Distributed Scale Thermochemical Conversion Systems Used to Process Forest Biomass

Switchgrass for bioethanol and other value-added applications: A review

NOx control in coal combustion by combining biomass co-firing, oxygen enrichment and SNCR

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About