Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews: Sciencedirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 94 (2018) 998–1023
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser
Biomass gasification in fluidized beds: A review of biomass moisture content T

and operating pressure effects
⁎
Ingrid Lopes Motta , Nahieh Toscano Miranda, Rubens Maciel Filho, Maria Regina Wolf Maciel
Laboratory of Optimization, Design and Advanced Control, School of Chemical Engineering, State University of Campinas, Av. Albert Einstein 500, Campinas 13083-852,
Brazil
A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T
Keywords: The global dependence on fossil reserves as well as the environmental aspects related to them are some of the
Biomass gasification factors that propel research on renewable energy forms. Gasification, a thermochemical process that converts
Fluidized bed carbonaceous resources into syngas, is an advantageous alternative due to its relatively low costs, high effi-
Gasifier ciencies, and syngas’ wide variety of applications. Although gasification is a very promising heat, power, and fuel
Syngas
production technique, there is still a field of improvement in gasification in fluidized beds when it comes to
Pressure
operation under high pressure and with feedstocks containing moderate or high moisture contents. Thus, to
Moisture content
provide enough information to address such questions, the present work aims at bringing an overview of ga-
sification concepts, as well as an in-depth discussion based on simulation, laboratory- and demonstration-scale
works of the effects of biomass water content and pressure on different parameters of several fluidized bed
gasifiers. Moreover, diverse strategies for handling high-moisture content biomass materials are presented, as
well as the achievements and technical difficulties encountered by worldwide development and demonstration
plant projects that designed and used pressurized fluidized-bed gasifiers.
1. Introduction electricity, and transportation fuels [4], enhancing diversity of energy

supply [6]; it has the potential of generating a great variety of solid,
Along the last decades, renewable energy resources have been re- liquid, and gaseous fuels that can be stored, transported, and employed
searched due to concerning factors such as the aggravation of global far away from where it was harvested [6,8]; it usually involves low
warming, the depletion of fossil reserves, and the world's growing en- costs due to its abundance in many countries [9]; it is environmentally
ergy demands [1–5]. friendly because it can absorb part of the CO2 that is emitted during
Among the many existing renewable energy options, biomass con- fuels consumption, reducing greenhouse gas emissions [5,6]; it can
version accounts for over 70% of all renewable energy production [6] foment waste management control [6]; and finally, it can instigate re-
and up to 10% of the world's total energy supply [7]. Bioenergy consists gional and socioeconomic development in the areas where such tech-
in an attractive alternative due to a number of factors: it is the only nologies are explored [8], providing jobs and income for rural areas [6].
form of energy conversion that can be applied to produce either heat, Biomass resources are generally found as agricultural or forestry
Abbreviations: ASU, Air separation unit; ATR, Autothermal reforming; BFB, Bubbling fluidized bed; BIGCC, Biomass integrated gasification combined cycle; BtL, Biomass-to-liquids;
CCE, Carbon conversion efficiency, %; CCG, CHOREN coal gasification technology; CCS, Carbon capture and storage; CEDER, Centre for the Development of Renewable Energy Sources;
CFB, Circulating fluidized bed; CGE, Cold gas efficiency, %; CHOREN, Carbon Hydrogen Oxygen Renewable; CHP, Combined heat and power; CHRISGAS, Clean Hydrogen-Rich Syngas
Project; CHxOy, Simplified formula for biomass sources calculations; DME, Dimethyl ether; DOE, Department of Energy; eagent, Chemical exergy of gasifying agent, kJ/kmol; ech,biomass,
Chemical exergy of biomass, kJ/kg; ech,syngas, Chemical exergy of syngas, kJ/kmol; eph,syngas, Physical exergy of syngas, kJ/kmol; ER, Equivalence ratio; FEED, Front-end engineering and
design; FICFB, Fast internally circulating fluidized bed; FTS, Fischer-Tropsch synthesis; GTI, Gas Technology Institute; GV, Gas yield, m3/kg; HGCU, Hot gas clean-up unit; HHV, Higher
heating value, MJ/kg; HRSG, Heat recovery steam generator; HTL, Hydrothermal liquefaction; HT-WGS, High-temperature water-gas shift process; IEA, International Energy Agency;
IGCC, Integrated gasification combined cycle; IGT, Institute of Gas Technology; IRENA, International Renewable Energy Agency; KIT, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology; LHVbiomass,
Biomass lower heating value, MJ/kg; LHVi, Lower heating value of a component gas i, MJ/kg; LHVsyngas, Syngas lower heating value, MJ/kg; Mbiomass, Biomass feed, kg; MSW, Municipal
solid waste; MWe, MW of power generation; MWfuel, MW of fuel input; MWth, MW of heat generation; nagent, Molar amount of gasifying agent, kmol; nsyngas, Molar amount of syngas, kmol;
PAH, Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; PCA, Principal component analysis; PDU, Process development unit; PFB, Pressurized fluidized bed; PFD, Process flow diagram; PICHTR, Pacific
International Center for High Technology Research; PLS, Partial least squares; RDF, Refuse-derived fuels; S/B, Molar steam-to-biomass ratio; SCO, Selective catalytic oxidation; SEA,
Swedish Energy Agency; SNG, Substitute natural gas; SOFC, Solid oxide fuel cell; TPS, Termiska Processer AB; UCG, Ultra Clean Gas process; Vg, Syngas volume under standard conditions,
m3; VTT, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland; WGS, Water-gas shift; wt%, Weight percentage; xi, Volume percent of component gas I; ψ, Exergy efficiency, %
⁎
Corresponding auhor.
E-mail address: [email protected] (I.L. Motta).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.06.042
Received 19 June 2017; Received in revised form 26 May 2018; Accepted 20 June 2018
Available online 10 July 2018
1364-0321/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
I.L. Motta et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 94 (2018) 998–1023
residues, which include wood, sugarcane, corn, wheat, rice, and soy Gasification can occur in different gasifier configurations such as
wastes [10]. fixed bed, fluidized bed, and entrained-flow reactors. Fluidized beds are
Despite the obvious bioenergy potential, more than half of it is re- the most used gasifier types due to advantages such as feeding flex-
lated to the traditional use of biomass, which consists in the use of ibility, scalability, good mixing capacities, high heat and mass transfer
wood, charcoal, animal dung, and agricultural residues for residential rates, and high reaction rates and conversions [19,20]. Although bio-
cooking and heating. The conventional use of biomass usually produces mass gasification in fluidized beds is a subject that receives much at-
very low efficiencies and harmful emissions that can lead to health is- tention either academically or industrially, gasification technology still
sues [6,7,11]. Thus, to develop a sustainable bioeconomy, not only the faces improvement opportunities. Among these challenges, one can cite
efficiencies of traditional biomass conversion must be enhanced, but issues related to high moisture content feedstocks and gasifier's oper-
also modern renewable practices must be developed [11]. ating pressure.
Modern renewable biomass conversion pathways may include bio- Feedstocks containing high moisture contents lower the reactor's
chemical or thermochemical routes. Biochemical routes use enzymes temperature and slow down certain endothermic reactions, in a way
and microbial cells, which are added to heat and chemicals [12] to that 15 wt% water contents are usually advised for most biomass
convert biomass into bioalcohols, biodiesel, biocrude, and bio-synthetic sources. However, this value is recommended regardless the particu-
oils [13]. Once the lignocellulosic matrix is strongly intermeshed and larities of the raw materials employed [26,27]. Additionally, the re-
bonded through covalent and non-covalent bonds, biological paths lationship between moisture content and other parameters like biomass
must involve pretreatment steps to overcome lignocellulosic biomass particle size, equivalence ratio, biomass feed rate, and residence time is
recalcitrance [14,15]. Such pretreatment stages are usually expensive not fully elucidated, neither how it explicitly affects products yields,
since they require the use of enzymes and acids, and they are also time- distribution, and syngas heating values.
consuming [9,15]. Thermochemical routes, on the other hand, use heat Higher operating pressures may be beneficial for gasification be-
and catalysts to transform high carbon content materials into inter- cause the former accelerates some reactions. Moreover, higher pres-
mediate products [12,16,17], like bio-oil and syngas [13]. Differently sures enhance energy and exergy efficiencies since downstream pro-
from biological routes, thermochemical conversion processes are robust cesses generally require pressurized gas streams. However, the
and flexible considering they accept a wide range of feedstocks [12]. operational challenges related to the complexity of the project, con-
Gasification is one of the most attractive options for biomass ther- struction, and operation of biomass pressurized gasifiers [10,20] still
moconversion, not only for being environmentally friendly, but also for prevent the use of such equipment in commercial scales.
offering higher efficiencies when compared to combustion and pyr- Even though many reviews in the field of gasification have been
olysis [4,18,19]. Gasification is defined as the conversion of carbo- published [17,20,28,29], these operating parameters have received
naceous solids or liquids mainly into a combustible gas at temperatures little attention. Thus, to address such gaps, this paper aims at presenting
around 600–1500 °C under the presence of a gasifying agent and an an overview of gasification concepts, emphasizing on the effects of
oxygen feed below oxidation stoichiometric values. biomass moisture content and gasifier pressure from a chemical and
If gasification is carried out at lower temperatures, the combustible operational sight, based on simulation, laboratory-, development-, and
gas is known as product gas or producer gas and may be composed of demonstration-scale projects.
hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane, low hydro- The gasification section of this paper reviews the concepts, reac-
carbon amounts, and other contaminants [16,17,20,21]. However, if tions, equipment configurations, and operating conditions to address
the producer gas undergoes post-cleaning processes, or biomass gasifi- the main subjects of this study.
cation occurs at higher temperatures, the resultant gas mixture is called The biomass moisture content section presents the main effects of
synthesis gas or syngas, which can be mainly composed of hydrogen, this parameter on the performance of fluidized bed gasifiers, as well as
carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, water, and fewer contaminants [22]. different strategies to handle materials that contain high moisture
In this work, the terms “syngas” and “synthesis gas” are used for all gas contents.
mixtures produced via gasification. Syngas has a wide range of low and Finally, the high operating pressure section discusses the influence
high added value applications, such as electricity and heat generation of gasifier pressure on fluidized beds. In addition, it brings the main
by syngas combustion in engines or gas turbines [20], and catalytic and findings and operational drawbacks of different development and de-
biocatalytic processes to synthesize organic acids, alcohols, esters, and monstration plant projects that developed pressurized fluidized bed
hydrocarbons [16], respectively. gasification technology, such as the RENUGAS® technology and its pilot
Despite the broad range of syngas applications, only costs and and demonstration plants, the VTT pressurized fluidized bed gasifier,
performance data will demonstrate syngas’ potential to become a the BIOFLOW project, the CHRISGAS project, the Bio2G initiative, and
competitive energy. Syngas final price may be subject to fluctuations the CHOREN Carbo-V® technology.
since it depends on factors such as plant design, ultimate production
objectives, feedstock type, co-products generated, and local conditions. 2. Lignocellulosic biomass and main characteristics
Table 1 compares syngas costs to other energy sources, such as coal,
diesel, and naphtha. Although biomass-derived syngas is more ex- Biomass is a generic term for biodegradable and non-fossilized or-
pensive than coal-derived syngas, it may still be a competitive energy ganic matter [30], usually produced directly or indirectly by photo-
source in comparison to diesel and naphtha, which propels research to synthesis and used as feedstock to produce fuels and chemicals [31].
make it even more compelling. Although wood is the most abundant biomass energy resource [32],
many other biomass sources can be used for bioenergy production, such
Table 1 as: sugar and starch crops (corn, wheat, sugar, and cereals in general);
Comparison of prices of different fuels [23–25]. oil crops (palm, rapeseed, canola, and sunflower); non-food crops such
as lignocellulosic plants (miscanthus, willow, and eucalyptus); lig-
Fuel Price Lower heating Estimated price (US
[20,21] value [22] $/MJ)
nocellulosic biomass residues from forestry and agriculture industries;
and wet organic wastes (sewage sludge, animal wastes, organic liquid
Coal (wet basis) 0.06 US$/kg 22.7 MJ/kg 0.003 effluents, and the organic fraction of municipal solid waste – MSW) [6].
Diesel 1.34 US$/L 42.8 MJ/L 0.031 Lignocellulosic biomass resources play an essential role in bior-
Naphtha 0.52 US$/kg 44.9 MJ/kg 0.012
efineries due to their abundance, low costs, and possible non-alimen-
Syngas from biomass 0.10 US$/m3 10 MJ/m3 0.010
for FT uses tary features [33,34]. They can be either found in the form of woody
biomass (e.g. hybrid poplar, poplar, white oak, red oak, walnut, maple,
999
alcohol [36]. These features confer to lignin its primary functions:

structural strength; mechanical reinforcement; water pressure re-
sistance and waterproofing, promoting the ability to develop a water-
conducting system in plants and serving as a barrier to enzymatic di-
gestion [30,33,39].
3. Gasification
3.1. Concepts
Gasification is a process initially employed for the conversion of

coal into fuels, thermal energy, and electricity, and has been exploited
since the 18th century. Similarly to other thermochemical processes,
gasification lost ground throughout the 20th century due to the growth
of natural gas and oil industries. However, this panorama changed
during the 21st century: the elevated prices of fossil fuels, the depletion
of oil reserves, and the vast availability of agricultural wastes have once
again made gasification a promising energy generation process [16].
Gasification technologies can be used to convert any carbonaceous
Fig. 1. Representation of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin in lignocellulosic solids or liquids into higher heating value fuels under conditions such as
biomass. temperatures around 600–1500 °C; oxygen feed below stoichiometric
Reproduced with permission from [39]. values to prevent combustion and increase process efficiency through
partial oxidation; and presence of a gasifying agent, such as air, steam,
eucalyptus, willow, spruce, pine) or grass biomass (e.g. switchgrass, oxygen, or carbon dioxide. The gasification main product, syngas or
miscanthus, alfalfa, hemp, corn cob, corn stover, sugarcane bagasse, synthesis gas, usually contains carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hy-
wheat straw, wheat bran, rice straw, barley straw) [35]. drogen, methane, water, and light hydrocarbons [19–22,29,32,40].
Lignocellulose is constituted by carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, and Gasification also produces a liquid phase, known as tar, and a solid
extractives [30,36,37]. Lignocellulosic biomass is comprised of up to phase, denominated as char. The liquid phase consists of a complex
75% carbohydrates [33,37], which are mainly cellulose (38–50%), mixture of condensable hydrocarbon materials above C1-C6 [29].
hemicellulose (23–32%), and lignin (15–25%) [14,38]. The production of syngas is one of the best gasification features
Cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin are not only physically con- since this combustible mixture can hold a great variety of applications,
nected, but strongly intermeshed and chemically bonded through as portrayed in Fig. 3.
covalent cross-linkages and non-covalent bonds, creating a macroscopic Heat and power generation in gas turbines or combined heat and
network [14,15] represented in Fig. 1. Lignocellulose sources differ power (CHP) plants are syngas lowest added-value applications. Such
quantitatively and qualitatively: depending on species and maturity, syngas use has the lowest quality requirements, which results in lower
lignocellulose may assume different compositions, hemicellulose types, operational costs in comparison to other syngas downstream practices
and quantities of lignin monomers [34,37]. [20,32]. The so-called biomass integrated gasification combined cycles
Cellulose is the main component of lignocellulose [36,39]. Cellulose (BIGCC) for the simultaneous generation of heat and power – further
is an organic linear polymer, which is composed exclusively of anhy- discussed in Section 3.4 – also arises as an alternative for syngas use
drous glucose units connected by β-(1-4) glycosidic bonds. Cellulose [41]. Finally, one of the highest added value gasification applications is
tends to create a crystalline supermolecular structure once van der the use of syngas to synthesize fertilizers, liquid fuels, or chemical
Waals interactions and hydrogen bonds connect the hydroxyl groups of products such as diesel, gasoline, jet fuel, methanol, ethanol, pure hy-
the cellulose chains. Such bonds and interactions are then responsible drogen, and dimethyl ether (DME) [20,40,42].
for directing cellulose chains in a parallel manner, although amorphous All processing routes presented in Fig. 3 have different syngas
(disordered) regions may also be present. Cellulose is insoluble in most specification requirements. To achieve such quality criteria, syngas
solvents and is not readily susceptible to acid and enzymatic hydro- usually undergoes cleaning and conditioning steps, which correspond to
lyses, which is due to lignocellulosic biomass recalcitrance and low a complicated and potentially expensive group of industrial processes
digestibility [14,15,30,33,34,36,37,39]. Fig. 2a shows a small section of that consist in the removal of undesired impurities from the gas mix-
the cellulose macromolecule. ture. These impurities include particulate matter, NH3, HCN, H2S, other
Hemicellulose has some distinctions in comparison to cellulose: it gases containing nitrogen or sulfur, HCl, alkaline metals, hydrocarbons
contains other polysaccharides other than glucose, such as pentoses with different molecular weights, and ash [22,29,43–45]. Syngas
(xylose and arabinose) and hexoses (mannose and galactose) cleaning processes face the challenge of removing multiple con-
[30,33,34,37,39], and its structure is smaller in length, slightly bran- taminants at different concentrations from synthesis gas to achieve
ched and not as crystalline as cellulose. Both characteristics make distinct product, process, and pollution control requirements [27,43].
hemicellulose partially soluble in water [14,30,34,37] and more sus- Syngas cleaning processes can come into different classification criteria,
ceptible to depolymerization [39]. Hemicellulose molecules are cova- such as whether the clean-up process takes place inside or outside of the
lently bonded to cellulose fibers [39], acting as a material that keeps gasifier – primary and secondary clean-up processes, respectively; ac-
cellulose fibers together [30]. Fig. 2b portrays hemicellulose's main cording to the temperature at which cleaning takes place – hot or cold
constituents. gas cleaning; and depending on the type of removed impurity, like
Lignin is a complex high molar mass macromolecule organized in a particulate matter or other components [27].
three-dimensional structure and composed of aromatic monomer units, Different parameters describe the performance of a gasifier, such as
just as p-hydroxyphenyl [36]. This polymer is relatively hydrophobic gas yield, syngas higher and lower heating value, carbon conversion
and contains various sorts of substructures that repeat randomly efficiency, equivalence ratio, cold gas efficiency, and exergy efficiency.
through cross-linked covalent bonds. Fig. 2c presents some of the lig- Gas yield (GV, m3/kg) is the ratio between the syngas volume under
nin's aromatic units, like guaiacol, syringol, coniferyl, and sinapyl standard conditions (Vg, m3) and the biomass feed (Mbiomass, kg), as
demonstrated in Eq. (1) [46].
1000
Fig. 2. Cellulose structure (a); hemicellulose constituent monosaccharides (b) and; lignin constituent units (c).
[30,39]. Figs. 2a and 2c: reproduced with permission from Springer.
vg generic formula for biomass is assumed to be CHxOy, and thus stoi-

Gv =
Mbiomass (1) chiometric combustion happens according to Eq. (3) [20].
The syngas lower heating value (LHVsyngas) or total calorific value x −2y x
CHx Oy + (1 + ) O2 → CO2 + H2
corresponds to the chemical energy that belongs to the cold and tar-free 4 2 (3)
syngas [47]. It is described by Eq. (2) as the sum of the lower heating
values of syngas’ individual components (LHVi) multiplied by the vo- Carbon conversion efficiency (CCE, %) is the percentage of carbon
lume percent of each component gas i (xi) [46]. in the fuel converted into syngas products in the gasification process, as
per Eq. (4) [20,48].
LHVsyngas = ∑ (xi × LHVi ) (2)
Carbon content in syngas × syngas flow rate
CCE = × 100%
The syngas higher heating value (HHVsyngas), on the other hand, Carbon content in fed biomass × biomass flow rate (4)
corresponds to the sum of the syngas lower heating value and the latent
heat of vaporization of water vapor formed during combustion. Cold gas efficiency (CGE, %) is the ratio between the chemical en-
Equivalence ratio (ER) is equal to the amount of oxygen fed into the ergy in the produced gas and the chemical energy in the feedstock, as
gasifier in comparison to the stoichiometric amount of oxygen neces- demonstrated in Eq. (5) [20,48].
sary for complete oxidation. To estimate the equivalence ratio, a
Air
Combustion CO + H2O Electricity

Biomass
Steam
Gasification CO + H2 Water gas shift CO2 + H2 Hydrogen

reaction
Organic acids
Catalysis/ Alcohols Fuels and other
Biocatalysis Esters components
Hydrocarbons
Fig. 3. Gasification and syngas applications.

[16]. Reproduced with permission from John Wiley and Sons.
1001
LHVsyngas × syngas flow rate 3.3. Gasifiers

CGE = × 100%
LHVbiomass × biomass flow rate (5)
Gasifiers can be classified according to different criteria such as the
Finally, the last performance indicator of gasification is exergy ef-
source of heat supply, the involved fluid mechanics, the type of gasi-
ficiency. Exergy is a measure of the actual potential of a system to
fying agent, the selected bed material, and if the gasifier is atmospheric
perform work. The exergy efficiency corresponds to the ratio of energy
or pressurized [10,32]. Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 cover the first two
flows out and into a system. At high gasification temperatures, exergy
classification methods.
efficiencies consider both chemical and physical exergy contributions.
Eq. (6) represents the exergy efficiency, ψ, for an adiabatic gasifier [49].
3.3.1. Classification according to heat supply
nsyngas (ech, syngas + eph, syngas ) According to the heat supply mechanism, gasifiers can be classified
ψ=
Mbiomass × ech, biomass + nagent × eagent (6) as partial oxidation (autothermal reactors) or indirectly heated (al-
lothermal reactors) [20,27,29,32].
In Eq. (6), nsyngas is the molar amount of syngas (kmol), ech,syngas is Partial oxidation gasifiers make use of the enthalpies of exothermic
the chemical exergy of syngas (kJ/kmol), eph,syngas is the physical exergy reactions to provide heat for gasification endothermic reactions. To
of syngas (kJ/kmol), Mbiomass is biomass feed (kg), ech,biomass is the achieve such, different combinations of gasifying agents may be used,
chemical exergy of biomass (kJ/kg), nagent is the molar amount of ga- such as air, nitrogen, steam, and oxygen [17,20,32].
sifying agent (kmol), and eagent is the chemical exergy of gasifying agent Indirectly heated gasifiers, on the other hand, contain an external
(kJ/kmol). heat supply for gasification. Allothermal gasifiers transfer heat via heat
transfer surfaces, like reactor walls or transport media (bed). The gases
3.2. Gasification stages and main reactions produced in this configuration contain higher heating values than those
produced in autothermal gasifiers [17,20,32].
The steps involved in a gasifying process are biomass drying, pyr-
olysis, oxidation, and reduction [27,29]. 3.3.2. Classification according to fluid mechanics
In the biomass drying step, the fuel's water content converts into According to the other transport phenomena existing in the gasifi-
steam through vaporization [19,20,22,29]. In this stage, heat transfer cation process, gasifiers may be batch or continuous. Gasifiers are
through conduction takes place from the surface to the center of the usually sorted as fixed bed, fluidized bed, or entrained-flow reactors,
biomass particles, which makes advisable the application of feedstocks and each gasifier type presents advantages and drawbacks depending
with small particle sizes to reduce heating and drying times [19,20]. on the fuel, application, and operation conditions [22].
Also, the use of dry biomass is usually preferred once the heat required Fixed bed gasifiers correspond to the oldest gasifier category, and
in this stage is proportional to the feedstock moisture. Thus, biomass are usually operated below biomass and bed melting temperatures to
drying is directly related to biomass pretreatment procedures [29]. prevent slag formation [17,22,58]. Fixed bed reactors are found in
The pyrolysis step, also known as devolatilization, corresponds to downdraft (co-current), updraft (counter-current) [17,22,28,29], and
the thermochemical decomposition of dry biomass to vaporize its vo- cross-draft [47] configurations. Fig. 4 portrays the three fixed bed ga-
latiles in the form of CO, CO2, light hydrocarbons, and tars. The re- sifier configurations.
sulting solid products are residual char and ashes [17,22,29]. Eq. (7) In co-current or downdraft configurations (Fig. 4a), both the fuel
shows the general devolatilization reaction. and the gasifying agents flow downwards in a way that the gas mixture
Biomass + O2 → CO + CO2 + H2 O + H2 + CH4 + hydrocarbons + tar leaves the reactor in its hottest zone [19,22,26–28,32,56]. In co-current
gasifiers, biomass undergoes drying, pyrolysis, combustion, and re-
+ char + ashes (7)
duction. Most of the tar decomposition occurs in the combustion zone,
Pyrolysis reactions are endothermic and occur at temperatures be- generating low tar yields. The low tar production minimizes the need
tween 200 and 700 °C. The phenomena involved in this step include for subsequent gas cleaning stages, reducing the capital and operational
heat transfer, product diffusion from biomass pores to the gas phase, costs and adding simplicity to the operation [19]. Thus, this reactor is
and reactions in series [29]. Pyrolysis can be classified into primary and suitable for a wide variety of downstream applications, such as in small-
secondary pyrolysis. Primary pyrolysis occurs at temperatures between scale electricity generation systems [22]. Despite these advantages,
200 and 600 °C and corresponds to the initial decomposition of biomass downdraft gasifiers cannot be scaled-up due to non-uniform heat dis-
into tar, char, and volatiles. Secondary pyrolysis takes place above tributions in the oxidation zone, and design characteristics [19] such as
600 °C and consists in the cracking of tars into light hydrocarbons [19]. the size of the gasifier throat, which depends on biomass particle sizes
Oxidation, also named as combustion, is the only gasification exo- [22]. Also, downdraft gasifiers are not fuel-flexible [17], presenting
thermic stage and, consequently, may provide thermal energy for the difficulties to handle unprocessed feedstocks [19]. Among the desired
endothermic processes. This exothermic nature of oxidation reactions feedstock characteristics for downdraft gasifiers, one can mention low
contributes to a temperature increase in the gasifier, leading to tem- moisture contents to enable temperatures high enough to decompose
peratures of 800–1100 °C. Oxidation requires the presence of oxygen tars, low ash levels and high ash melting temperatures to prevent
below the stoichiometric conditions to oxidize only part of the fuel. slagging in the combustion zone, and small and uniform particle size
Char and hydrogen are the principal reactants of this step, which ra- distributions (20–100 mm) to ensure a uniform bed
pidly convert into CO2 and H2O. Apart from char and H2, condensable [19,20,26,27,29,59].
products also oxidize [19,22,29]. In the counter-current or updraft configuration (Fig. 4b), on the
Finally, in the reduction stage, the products of pyrolysis and oxi- other hand, the fuel enters on top of the reactor and, the gasification
dation, i.e., gases and char, react in the presence of the gasifying agent agent at the bottom. The gasifying agent moving upwards carries heat,
to produce the final syngas composition. In this endothermic process, which is transferred to the descending biomass particles that undergo
caution must be taken regarding ash removal, once ash can contaminate drying, pyrolysis, reduction, and combustion steps. Updraft gasifiers
the reduced char, leading to overheating [19,29]. can be scaled-up [17,19,32] and produce higher tar yields than
The above-described gasification steps take place through complex downdraft gasifiers, requiring further gas cleaning stages.
elementary gas-solid (heterogeneous reactions) and gas-phase reactions [19,22,26–28,56]. The updraft conformation is also characterized by its
(homogeneous reactions) [17,43], whose reaction paths are not com- flexibility in feedstock and ease of operation, being flexible enough to
pletely understood [29]. Table 2 summarizes the essential gasification handle biomass sources with high moisture contents [19,22,56] and
reactions. moderate inorganic content (such as MSW) [22]. However, fuels
1002
Table 2
Homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions in gasification.
Sources: [20,26,29,32,43,50–57].
Reaction Enthalpy of reaction (MJ kmol−1)
Partial combustion C + 0.5O2 ⇌ CO − 111

Complete combustion C + O2 → CO2 − 394
Boudouard reaction C + CO2 ⇌ 2CO + 172
Char reforming C + H2 O ⇌ H2 + CO + 131
Methanation reaction C + 2H2 ⇌ CH4 − 75
Methane and CO2 production C + H2 O → 0.5CH4 + 0.5CO2 –
Water-gas shift reaction CO + H2 O ⇌ H2 + CO2 − 41
Partial combustion of CO CO + 0.5O2 → CO2 − 283
Partial combustion of H2 H2 + 0.5O2 → H2 O − 242
Steam methane reforming CH4 + H2 O ⇌ CO + 3H2 + 206
Carbon dioxide reforming CH4 + CO2 → 2CO + 3H2 + 247
Methane combustion CH4 + 0.5O2 → CO + 2H2 − 110
Partial oxidation of hydrocarbons Cn Hm + 0.5O2 → nCO + 0.5mH2 –
Steam reforming of hydrocarbons Cn Hm + nH2 O → nCO + (n + m/2) H2 +
Tar cracking αCn Hm → βCn − x Hm − y + δH2 +
Dry reforming Cn Hm + nCO2 → 2nCO + (x /2) H2 +
H2S formation H2 + S → H2 S nd*
NH3 formation 0.5N2 + 1.5H2 ⇌ NH3 nd*
*: not determined.
-: exothermic reaction.
+: endothermic reaction.
containing low ash melting point are not advised for this configuration, higher reaction rates and conversions [19,26,28]. Fluidized bed gasi-
since they can form slag and impact the reactor's reliability [20]. Fi- fiers also display higher mass flow rates, feeding flexibility, scalability,
nally, a particle size distribution in the range of 5–100 mm is preferred and moderate tar and particulates production in comparison to updraft
[27]. gasifiers [19,20]. Regarding feedstock selection, fluidized beds may
In the cross-draft configuration (Fig. 4c), biomass enters on top of apply biomass sources that possess variable moisture contents [29,60],
the reactor, the gasifying agent enters at high velocity at the side near particle sizes below 6 mm [27], and low ash and alkali metals contents
the bottom of the reactor, and product gas leaves the reactor on the since such materials in the presence of silica either from the bed or from
opposite side [19]. In this reactor configuration, the ash grate and the fuel ash may form a eutetics. Thus, biomass materials such as grasses,
combustion zone are physically separated from the other reactor sec- canes, almond hull, rice, and wheat straws are not advised for this re-
tions, which creates zones with operating temperatures higher than the actor configuration [58]. These reactors can be mainly classified as
ash melting limit. Consequently, cross-draft gasifiers are limited to low- bubbling, circulating, and dual fluidized bed reactors [26,29,56], as
ash containing fuels such as wood and charcoal [19] with tiny particle portrayed in Fig. 5.
sizes [58] in the range of 5–20 mm [27]. Despite this feed type re- In bubbling fluidized bed reactors, BFB, (Fig. 5a), gases ascend the
striction, the cross-draft configuration induces substantial circulation equipment bed at the minimum fluidization velocity (usually below
across the bed and the production of a low-tar gas [47,58]. 5 m/s) to create a particle and gas bubble emulsion and to maintain the
With the intent to overcome fixed bed deficiencies, fluidized bed bed at a fluidized state. The bed usually contains granular materials,
reactors have been conceived. In fluidized bed gasifiers, beds such as such as sand, dolomite, and alumina. After the bed stage, a freeboard
sand, olivine, limestone, dolomite, or alumina are fluidized by air, section is generally found, whose cross-sectional area is wider to reduce
oxygen and steam [20]. These reactors also operate below biomass and gases superficial velocity, force the particles to return to the bed, and
bed melting temperatures [17,22,58]. Fluidized bed reactors present maintain a fixed solid amount in the bed. These reactors promote the
better mixing capacities and higher heat transfer rates than fixed bed production of tar and particulates, which require the assembly of cy-
gasifiers, which produces a more uniform bed [19,20,28]which yields clones in the gas outlet to retain such materials. Bubbling fluidized bed
Fig. 4. Fixed bed gasifiers: (a) downdraft; (b) updraft; and (c) cross-draft.
[58]. Reproduced with permission from Elsevier.
1003
Syngas Flue gas

(a) (b) (c)
Secondary Combustor
Cyclone Syngas
cyclone Syngas Cyclone
Primary
Freeboard
cyclone
Gasifier
Ash Bed
Tar Gasifier Fly ash Biomass material
Fluidized
bed
Biomass Biomass
Plenum Gasification
agent
Gasification agent
Gasification Char and
agent bed material
Bottom ash Steam Air
Fig. 5. Fluidized bed gasifiers: (a) bubbling; (b) circulating; (c) dual.
[20,61]. Reproduced with permission from John Wiley and Sons and Formatex Research Centre.
reactors can assume large scales [20,22,27,29,32] and, in these cases, a reactor. Although initially developed for coal gasification [20,26], en-
way to evenly distribute raw materials in the gasifier is fundamental. trained-flow technology was adapted for biomass gasification in the
Bubbling fluidized beds present good flexibility regarding fuel loading 1990's with the efforts of companies and institutions such as CHOREN,
and processing [29], being able to process a wide range of fuels with Range Fuels, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Mitsubishi Heavy
high ash contents such as biomass, municipal solid wastes, lignite, and Industries, and Pearson Technology [66]. In this reactor, finely divided
low-rank coals [22,26,29], with biomass particle sizes below 6 mm solid fuels (particle size < 100 µm) either in dry or slurry forms are
[27]. BFB gasifiers should either use fuels with high ash melting tem- concurrently fed with a steam or oxygen stream at high velocity. Lock-
peratures, or operate at temperatures lower than the fuels’ ash melting hopper systems feed dry fuels, whereas high-pressure slurry pumps feed
temperature to prevent bed particle agglomeration and, consequently, slurry fuels [47]. The feedstock gasification rapidly occurs at tem-
defluidization [20,22]. peratures of 1300–1500 °C and residence times around 1–5 s. This
Circulating fluidized bed reactors, CFB, (Fig. 5b) may hold gas flow temperature range results in the almost complete consumption of tar,
rates and superficial velocities up to three to five times more than the oils, and phenol, leading to a gas mixture with low quantities of me-
bubbling configuration, namely above minimum fluidization, reducing thane and other light hydrocarbons [19,20,22,32,56]. Although en-
residence times. Some consequences derive from this modification: the trained-flow reactors offer high throughput, rapid carbon conversions,
regimen becomes turbulent, and the solid amounts in the freeboard and handling of a variety of feedstocks [19,29], such reactors also
increase, which requires the recirculation of these particles. Thus, a present some operational and economic limitations. Firstly, one can
cyclone is coupled to the gasifier to recover the particulate materials mention the possible corrosion or deterioration of reactors' internal
and redirect them back to the bed [20,22,28,29,32]. The solids recycle walls due to the alkali produced during gasification [56] and to the high
and the consequent increment of the particles residence time enhances temperatures of the process [19], reducing the lifetime of system
mass flow and reaction rates [62], yields higher carbon conversion ef- components [29,56]. Secondly, biomass feeding restrictions occur in
ficiencies [56], and lower tar production [22]. CFB gasifiers present entrained-flow reactors. If feed load is in a solid form, biomass particle
very good scale-up potential [20,29,62], feed flexibility in terms of fuel sizes need to be abruptly reduced, requiring biomass pretreatment
particle size and type [20,22,29,62], and are suitable for large-scale stages to increase bulk density. However, such pretreatment procedures
capacities (up to 1 MW or higher) [29]. However, this configuration increase the plant's capital and operational expenditures, as well as
also presents some disadvantages, such as the restricted solid-gas con- process complexity [19,26,29,56]. Alternatively, a simpler operation
tact derived from the high superficial velocities, the complexity of the involves the use of slurry feed. Nevertheless, slurries add water to the
design, the difficult control of the operation, and the high costs of in- gasifier, which needs to be evaporated and results in a product gas with
vestment and start-up [62]. higher H2/CO ratio and lower thermal efficiency [19,47].
Dual, double, twin or internal circulating fluidized beds (Fig. 5c) Gasification may also occur in other reactor types, such as the rotary
consist of two chambers: a bubbling fluidized bed gasifier and a cir- kiln and plasma reactors. Further information regarding these gasifiers
culating fluidized bed combustor. Biomass and steam enter the bub- can be seen in the reviews of Puig-Arnavat et al. [59], Anukam et al.
bling fluidized bed (gasifier), enabling gasification. The char, other [19], Samiran et al. [22], and Molino et al. [29].
gasification residues produced in the bubbling bed, and part of the bed
material are transported to the circulating bed (combustor), where it is
oxidized with air to generate heat and flue gas. The bed material con- 3.4. The biomass integrated gasification combined cycle (BIGCC)
taining heat then returns to the gasification chamber, serving as an
external heat source for the endothermic steam gasification reactions The biomass integrated gasification combined cycle (BIGCC) is a
[32,47,63]. Dual fluidized beds generate syngas with moderate HHV power generation process that incorporates a biomass gasification
and relatively low tar levels. Their construction and operation are re- system with a combined cycle power plant [67]. It is an attractive al-
latively complex, but they are suitable for high specific capacities and ternative for power generation in comparison to other CHP processes
present good scale-up potential [59]. Dual fluidized beds apply feed- due to many advantages, such as high thermal efficiency and energy
stocks such as pine barks and sawdust, wood chips and pellets, grass, output, smaller production of greenhouse gases, and reduced genera-
dried coffee grounds, cedar, oak sawdust, almond shells, municipal tion of solid wastes [68].
solid waste, and sewage sludge [64,65]. A BIGCC process without carbon capture and storage (CCS) may
The last gasifier configuration to be described is the entrained-flow contain four central operating units: an air separation unit (ASU), a
gasifier, a syngas cooling and clean-up system, and a combined cycle
1004
Steam
turbine Generator
Gasifier
Cyclone
Syngas
Gas cooling
Raw and cleaning
gas Steam
Steam
Condenser
ASU
Oxygen
HRSG Feed
Biomass water
Nitrogen
Combustion
chamber Pump
Compressor
Turbine
Air
Fig. 6. Simplified scheme of a BIGCC process without CCS.

[67]. Reproduced with permission from Elsevier.
power plant [67]. Fig. 6 shows a simplified scheme of a BIGCC process have been eventually canceled or shut down due to technical and
without CCS. economic reasons [71].
The pressurized cryogenic air separation unit separates air into O2 Among the operational problems, many of them intrinsically relate
and N2, and it is only necessary in case the gasifier uses oxygen as to the challenges of using biomass sources. Biomass usually has a very
gasifying medium. The pressurized air may be supplied by a gas turbine low energy density, producing syngas mixtures containing a lower net
compressor or by a separate compressor. The degree of integration calorific value. In addition, biomass also has low mass density, which
between the air separation unit and the gas turbine is the portion of the means that higher biomass volumetric flow rates are required to run
air required by the air separation unit, which is extracted and supplied BIGCC plants in comparison to coal-based IGCC systems. Many biomass
by the compressor of the gas turbine. This degree of integration affects types are fibrous and tough, creating various feeding problems. Finally,
the overall plant efficiency and output net power: maximum plant ef- biomass cannot be stored for an indefinite time since it may rot or
ficiency is achieved at a degree of integration of 100%, whereas max- decompose [72]. Thus, the use of solely biomass rather than coal or
imum plant output power is reached depending on the types of gas coal-biomass still imposes a risk to BIGCC systems.
turbine, gasifier, and feedstock used [67]. From an economic sight, the transition from a demonstration phase
The fuel and the gasification agents enter the gasifier, which may to a commercialization phase of IGCC and BIGCC technologies did not
assume different configurations and may be pressurized or atmospheric. occur due to the necessity of high investments for an unproven tech-
The raw syngas produced by the gasifier moves to the cooling system, nology [71]. Finally, if implemented, BIGCC plants costs are sig-
which may be composed of a waste heat boiler or a direct quench nificantly higher than other CHP processes. Different factors influence
process. The cold gas mixture then proceeds to the cleaning system, the costs of a BIGCC plant, such as the type of feedstock used and its
which usually comprises ceramic or metallic filters for the removal of availability; the location of the plant; the implementation of CCS and
particulates and condensed alkali metals. The cold and clean syngas pre-combustion stages in the process; the design of the plant control
finally passes to the combustion chamber of the combined cycle power system; and process integration [68]. Hence, BIGCC still requires im-
plant, where it is burned with compressed air, resulting in hot gases. provements to become more cost-competitive and to be implemented
The hot gases are expanded later in the gas turbine, generating work. on a commercial scale.
The BIGCC system usually employs modified gas turbines for the use of
lower calorific value gaseous fuels. The hot exhaust gases are captured
and directed to a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) to generate 3.5. Factors that influence fluidized bed gasifiers
steam for the steam turbine [67–69].
The BIGCC system can also assume other three different config- Syngas composition, as well as gasifier performance, are influenced
urations: it may contain a CCS stage, two additional pre-combustion by factors related either to biomass characteristics or to operating
stages [67], or work as poly-generation BIGCC plant [70]. The BIGCC conditions. Biomass aspects comprise particle size, moisture content,
process with CCS has extra units in the gas cleaning stage, such as a and composition. Operational features, on the other hand, include types
water-gas shift reactor to convert CO into CO2, an acid gas removal unit of gasification agent, bed, heat supply method, process temperature,
to remove CO2, and a CO2 compressor stage to enable storage and pressure, steam-to-biomass ratio (S/B), and equivalence ratio (ER)
transportation of CO2. Such additions usually reduce overall plant ef- [20,43].
ficiency by up to 40%; however, they are necessary due to environ- The use of small particle fuels is advised in gasification, since the
mental aspects. In the process with additional pre-combustion stages, smaller the biomass solids fed to the reactor, the bigger is their external
the gasifier requires extra fuel loads to ensure the required rate of area [26]. Thus, small particle feedstocks reduce the time necessary for
chemical fuel energy to the gas turbine. Finally, the poly-generation heat transfer from the particles' walls to the center [28,73], resulting in
BIGCC plant also contains a shift reactor to adjust syngas H2/CO ratio to higher chemical reaction rates. Furthermore, small particle sizes con-
produce different fuels and chemicals. A detailed scheme of these three tribute to higher total gas yields, higher H2 concentrations, and lower
BIGCC configurations can be seen elsewhere [70]. char and tar yields [28].
During the 1990's, IGCC and BIGCC received a significant amount of Biomass moisture content has a significant effect on gasification
attention due to its benefits over other CHP processes. Significant R&D efficiencies and products composition, once it affects the overall energy
efforts led to the design and commissioning of demonstration plants to balance of the biomass gasification process [27]. The drier the biomass
develop the technology (see section 5.1.2.2). However, BIGCC plants particles, the higher the gasification efficiency, which may increase the
hydrogen content in the gas outlet. Such behavior occurs because, with
1005
the use of moist fuels in the process, part of the heat available in the materials into a pressurized reactor [10,20]; the additional complexity
reactor is destined to the vaporization of raw material's water content, that is inherent in the project, construction, and operation of pressur-
reducing gasifier temperature and slowing down endothermic reac- ized tanks and reservoirs; the need to develop cyclones and other
tions. Additionally, moisture content can affect handling, storage, and cleaning apparatuses capable of operating at high temperatures and
transportation of biomass fuels [27]. Hence, feedstocks containing pressures [20]; and the difficulties in maintaining a constant mass flow
about 15 wt% moisture content are advised [26,27]. Despite this overall in the gasifier [10].
understanding, review papers do not commonly elucidate how biomass Considering the advantages and broad application of fluidized bed
water content affects the thermodynamics of gasification and several reactors, as well as the need to further study the effects of higher
other gasification parameters. Moreover, little attention is given to the moisture contents and operating pressures, Sections 4 and 5 bring a
possible strategies to handle biomass sources that contain higher broader review on the impact of such gasification parameters, along
moisture contents. Thus, a broader study on this subject is necessary. with practical experiences of different scale research projects.
When it comes to the choice of the gasification agent, the cheapest,
simplest, and most explored is air. When air acts as a gasification car- 4. Effects of biomass moisture content on fluidized beds
rier, synthesis gas' main compound will be nitrogen, which may be
undesirable since the latter dilutes the heating value of the gaseous Section 4.1 presents a detailed analysis of biomass moisture content
mixture. Despite this disadvantage, the syngas produced in the presence main effects in different fluidized bed configurations based on labora-
of air is widely employed in furnaces, boilers, and internal combustion tory and simulation works. Section 4.2 addresses strategies to handle
engines [20,27,32], that is, low added value applications. The other biomass fuels containing higher moisture contents such as co-gasifica-
gasification agents, steam and oxygen, are capable of generating syngas tion ad biomass pretreatment methods.
streams with middle and high heating values, respectively [27,74].
However, such gasifying agents increase operational costs in compar- 4.1. Laboratory and simulation works
ison to air, being oxygen the most expensive. In some cases, CO2 can
also be applied as a gasification carrier [27]. 4.1.1. Bubbling fluidized beds
The type of bed selected for a gasifier also affects heat and mass Wu et al. [75] studied the influence of operational parameters, such
transfer rates and syngas compositions. Beds can be either inert, such as as gasification temperature, equivalence ratio, feeding rate, and bio-
alumina or sand, or have some catalytic effect like dolomite, magnesite, mass water content on the performance of an air-blown bubbling flui-
limestone, and olivine. Beds containing calcium oxide (CaO), such as dized bed gasifier operating with rice husk with 12 and 17 wt%
dolomite, decrease tar yield and increase total gas yield, gas composi- moisture contents. The authors observed that, as expected, an increase
tion, and carbon conversion. CaO plays the dual role of a catalyst and a in moisture led to a decrease in bed temperature, since water eva-
sorbent. As a catalyst, CaO promotes the secondary cracking of tar and poration is an endothermic process. Also, higher moisture content
hydrocarbons, increasing H2 content. As a sorbent, when the gasifica- feedstocks caused intensive bed temperature fluctuations, which would
tion temperature is lower than the equilibrium temperature corre- cause problems in fluidization and massive coking. To process biomass
sponding to the CO2 partial pressure, the bed adsorbs and reacts with sources with higher moisture contents, ER should increase to generate
CO2, converting CaO into CaCO3. When the opposite takes place, CaCO3 additional heat. Lastly, the authors advised moisture contents up to
desorbs to produce CaO [28]. Magnesite, which is mainly composed of 15 wt% to maintain a stable process.
magnesium carbonate (MgCO3), presents similar behavior. Huynh and Kong [76] operated a 5 t/day pilot-scale biomass gasifier
Gasification temperature is also a critical process parameter. It has a using different mixtures of steam and oxygen-enriched air as gasifying
positive effect on gasification endothermic reactions (Boudouard and agents to define operating characteristics that would increase syngas
char reforming reactions): the higher the gasification temperature, the higher heating value and combustible gas constituents. Besides, the
more intense are tar and char decompositions, which produces higher authors studied the effects of the gasifying agents on ammonia con-
concentrations of H2 and CO and increased overall gas yield. On the centrations in syngas, to reduce NOx emissions from syngas combustion.
other hand, it has an adverse effect on exothermic reactions, such as The feedstocks used consisted of pine (8.9 wt%), maple-oak mixtures
water-gas shift (WGS) and methanation [10,28,29]. The maximum (6.25 wt%), and discarded seed corn (15.01 wt%). The authors found
temperature in a gasification process depends not only on the materials that seed corn, which was the feedstock that contained the highest
used for plant construction but also on the ash melting phenomenon water content, produced the syngas mixture with the lowest hydrogen
[27]. content. This behavior is easily explained by the fact that higher
Equivalence ratio (ER) impacts product characteristics and process moisture content drying deviated energy from the endothermic steam
performance: higher ER produces synthesis gas mixtures with lower gasification reaction. Consequently, the gas mixture produced by seed
calorific values, lower tar and char yields, lower CO concentrations, corn gasification had the lowest heating value. However, the authors
higher CO2 concentrations, and different gasifier temperature profiles highlighted one advantage of higher moisture content materials: the
[27,28]. Despite this fact, an oxygen feed is crucial since it propels presence of steam in seed corn gasification at 40 vol% oxygen condi-
partial oxidation reactions. Hence, gasifier equivalence ratio must be tions slowed down the reaction between NH3 and O2 to form NO, re-
controlled, being advised ER values between 0.2 and 0.4 [27]. sulting in a slight decrease of NOx contents.
Operating pressure is also a parameter that deserves attention due Bronson et al. [77] investigated the effect of physical pretreatment
to its advantages from a chemical point of view and due to challenges (particle size, moisture content, and pelletization) of forestry residues
from an operational sight. The use of pressures above atmospheric on the performance of a bubbling fluidized bed gasifier. The authors
conditions allows the storage of smaller gas volumes, which results in reported that some care must be taken when applying wet biomass
smaller tubes and vessels. Furthermore, some reactions are accelerated, sources. Firstly, high-moisture materials need to be fed at lower feed
since higher pressures shift the chemical equilibrium towards the side rates to maintain bed conditions, such as fluidization state and tem-
with lower volumes. Pressurized gasifiers also generate pressurized perature profile. Secondly, as demonstrated by Wu et al. [75], gasifi-
gases, which can be directly fed into gas turbines or synthesis reactors cation with high-moisture materials generally requires a larger O2
[10,20]. Other advantages for pressurized operation include: it is sui- availability (higher ER) to maintain pyrolysis reactions yields and
table for large-scale processes; it contains more efficient heat transfer temperature profiles. However, by doing so, it is difficult to dissociate
rates in the bed section; and it can lead to higher conversions in tar the effect of ER from the impact of biomass moisture content. As a
reforming and other gaseous reactions [10]. Among the challenges of result, the work reported that even though high moisture contents
pressurized gasifiers, one can cite the difficulties in loading solid raw promoted lower syngas higher heating values, higher water contents
1006
I.L. Motta et al.
Table 3
Collection of lab-scale and simulation studies that evaluated the influence of moisture contents or used high moisture content biomasses in fluidized bed gasifiers.
Type of Gasifier type Biomass type and MCb (wt. %) F (kg/h)c P (x 105 T (oC)e Gasifying agent Downstream units Ref.
studya Pa)d
E Bubbling Rubber woodchip (9.5, 18.1 and 25.5%), rubber 32–54 ~1 Gasification: 699–761Co- Air Cyclone [60]
woodchip, and shredded rubber waste (27.0, 24.4, gasification: 730–773
21.8, and 1.0%)
E Bubbling Rice husk (12 and 17%) 852–1,612 NIf 700–800 Air Inertial separator, cyclone, 2 [75]
Venturi tubes, and 2 water scrubbers
E Bubbling Pellets of pine (8.9%), maple and oak mixture 50/50 180 1.7–2.4 840–870 Air enriched with O2 and steam Cyclone and ceramic filter [76]
wt. (6.25%), and discarded seed corn (15.01%)
E Bubbling Forestry residues (25, 24, and 31%) compared to dry 9–24 1 725, 800, 875 Air Cyclones [77]
residues
f f
E Bubbling Raw (8.8%) and torrefied (2.4%) Miscanthus x NI 1 660–850 Air NI [81]
giganteus
E Bubbling Palm empty fruit bunch (7.80%) and sawdust 6–11 ~1 650–1050 Air Cyclone, condensers, and fiber filter [82]
(14.60%)
E Bubbling Rice husk (12.66%), almond shell (17.13%), and waste Carbon feed rate: ~1 600–900 Air Cyclone, scrubbing chamber, and [83]
wood (54.24%) 200-400 electrostatic precipitator
E Bubbling Yallourn char (7.1%), eucalyptus red gum wood chips 6.6–8.7 ~1 800–840 Air and steam Primary cyclone and secondary [84]
(19.2%), and commercial wood pellets (9.1%) cyclones
E Bubbling Pine sawdust (19.0–25.0%) 0.39–0.684 ~1 ~800 Air High-temperature metallic filter [85]
1007
S Bubbling Municipal solid waste (5–50%) 1 1 500–1000 Air (enriched with O2 or not) NIf [48]
and steam
E Circulating Various biomass types (3.5–22 %) NIf ~1–5 681–1042 Air and steam Cyclones [79]
E Circulating Demolition wood, verge grass, railroad ties, cacao 56–102.6 ~1 850 Air Cyclones [86]
shells, and different woody fuels (3.5–17.5%)
S Circulating Hemlock (5–3 %) 33.626 1.05 718 Air and steam Cyclones [78]
E Circulating and Distilled spirit lees (30%) 2.6 × 103 – 3.4 × NIf 800–900 Air Cyclones and filters [87]
dual 103
E Dual Wood chips with different water contents (6, 10, 19, 15, 22.5 ~1 650–870 Air and steam Cyclones [80]
30, 38, and 40%)
E Dual Coffee grounds (10.5%), impregnated with Ca 5 NIf ~800 Gasifier: steamCombustor: air Cyclone [89]
(14.8%), and mechanically mixed with Ca (14.8%)
f
E Dual Coffee grounds (10.5%), impregnated with Ca 5 NI ~800 Gasifier: steamCombustor: air Cyclone [90]
(14.8%), and mechanically mixed with Ca (14.8%)
S Dual Wood chips (5–40%) 1,508.64 1 650–1050 Gasifier: steamCombustor: air Cyclone [61]
a
E: experimental, S: simulation.
b
Moisture content.
c
Feed rate.
d
Pressure.
e
Temperature.
f
Not informed.
yielded higher H2/CO ratios, carbon conversions, and cold gas effi- content was the most significant parameter on gasifier performance: the
ciencies, as well as lower tar and benzene production [77]. higher the moisture, the lower the cold gas efficiency. This occurred
because higher moisture content feedstocks produced a smaller syngas
4.1.2. Circulating fluidized beds flow rate, causing a CGE reduction. Thus, regarding gasifier perfor-
Doherty et al. [78] developed a model in Aspen Plus™ based on the mance, the authors advised that moisture content should be as low as
Gibbs free energy minimization of an air-blown circulating fluidized possible.
bed biomass gasifier to predict syngas composition, conversion effi- Finally, Table 3 brings other experimental and simulation papers
ciency, and syngas heating value in good agreement with experimental that evaluated or applied biomass sources with moderate or high water
data. Additionally, the model was used to study the influence of some contents.
parameters on the gasification of hemlock, including biomass water
content (5–30 wt%) and steam injection. Increasing the feedstock water 4.2. Strategies for handling high moisture content feedstocks
content degraded gasifier performance: although H2 concentration was
slightly constant, CO and CH4 concentrations decreased, while CO2 Despite some interesting effects of biomass moisture content on tar
levels increased. This happened because the additional water present in production and the fact that biomass moisture content may not affect
the gasifier reformed CO and CH4, producing more CO2. Therefore, products composition if an external heat source is applied, it is neces-
syngas higher heating value and cold gas efficiency decreased. With the sary to handle water content for a better gasification performance. This
addition of steam to the reactor, H2 content increased despite of the CO can be achieved using either co-gasification or biomass pretreatment
and CH4 reforming. Furthermore, HHV decreased in a minimal range techniques.
(4.69–4.62 MJ kg−1), and CGE increased due to a higher syngas flow Co-gasification is a thermochemical process category in which both
rate. The authors concluded that steam was more reactive than biomass a biomass source and a second carbonaceous material are simulta-
moisture, probably because the necessary time to bring the humidity up neously gasified [91,92]. Hence, a biomass feedstock containing high
to the gasifier temperature is higher than the residence time and, hence, moisture content can be mixed to this second material.
humidity does not take part in steam gasification reactions. The most common form of co-gasification applies coal as an alter-
Mirmoshtaghi et al. [79] gathered the experimental records of nine native high carbon content material [74]. This co-feeding practice is
different circulating fluidized beds operating at different set-up condi- very beneficial since coal and biomass are highly complementary re-
tions and analyzed the data through statistical techniques like principal garding availability, gasification reactivity, and product distribution
component analysis (PCA) and partial least squares (PLS). The work [93]. This synergy between coal and biomass sources at specific feed
aimed to identify the most significant input parameters, to determine rate proportions produces many advantages. For instance, since the
the correlations between specific operating factors, and to determine supply of most biomass sources is seasonal, and biomass usually has low
optimum operational conditions. Using PCA, the authors found that mass density, adding coal to the process may help with biomass supply
biomass moisture content was a significant input factor for gasification. limitations and result in easier operation. Additionally, since biomass
Moreover, an intimate relationship between moisture content and gasification is cleaner than coal gasification, mixing both fuels results in
particle size was noticed, which presented a positive impact on carbon lower emissions than those of a coal-based plant [72,91]. Moreover, the
conversion. Higher water contents also led to higher productions of addition of coal to the biomass gasification process also reduces cor-
C2H4 and CH4 because, as expected, the feedstock drying process ap- rosion episodes, since the former is less corrosive than the latter [72].
plied part of the heat available in the reactor. However, the authors did However, by mixing feedstocks with different particle sizes, shapes, and
not recommended working with fuels containing too low water con- densities, setbacks like particle segregation and multi-phase fluidization
tents in order to reach an equilibrium between carbon conversion and may also occur [94]. Thus, interest in defining appropriate biomass-
light hydrocarbons. Through PLS, an optimum value of 9 wt% was coal mixtures and operating conditions for co-gasification processes
determined with olivine as bed material [79]. arises.
Other than coal, co-gasification processes may also apply other
4.1.3. Dual fluidized beds carbonaceous mixtures: rice husk, straw and plastic [95]; algae and
Pfeifer et al. [80] studied the effect of biomass type, bed material, wood pellets [96]; cellulose and polyolefins [97]; PET and tire wastes
moisture content, S/B, and temperature on tar and gas compositions of [98]; and rubber woodchip and shredded rubber waste [60].
a dual fluidized bed gasifier. In the moisture content analysis, the work Biomass preprocessing methods, on the other hand, are usually
applied wood chips with different water contents as feedstock. As ex- necessary to ensure that feedstocks have similar sizes and compositions,
pected, a temperature reduction occurred in the gasification region of to reduce technical challenges associated with the properties of the fuel
the reactor with the use of high moisture content biomass sources. [19,29], and to facilitate handling and transportation [7]. Drying, tor-
However, the lowest tar component concentrations were observed for refaction, and hydrothermal upgrading are examples of common pre-
20 wt% moisture contents, whereas higher levels were noticed for water treatment techniques to deal with biomass materials that contain high
contents above and below this value. Such result is remarkable because moisture contents.
it demonstrates that the effect of moisture content on tar production Drying or demoisturizing is the most common preprocessing
may not be linear as usually expected [80]. method. Drying can be classified according to the location where it
Doherty et al. [61] developed a model based on the Gibbs free en- takes place (i.e., on-site or off-site) and according to the type of dryer
ergy minimization in Aspen Plus of a fast internally circulating fluidized (i.e., active or passive dryers). Active dryers use flue gas, steam, or
bed (FICFB) biomass gasifier to predict syngas composition, heating process waste heat streams to dry the biomass sources, such as in boilers
value, and conversion efficiency in good agreement with experimental and dryer burners. Passive dryers, on the other hand, use natural
data. Additionally, the model was used to study the influence of some sources for drying, such as the open sun and natural ventilation [19].
parameters on the gasification of wood chips including temperature, Torrefaction, differently from conventional drying, is a thermo-
biomass water content (5–40 wt%), steam-to-biomass ratio, air-to-fuel chemical process carried out in the absence of oxygen and at a
ratio, and air and steam temperatures. Biomass moisture content had 200–300 °C temperature range [7,19,29]. This process is a mild form of
little impact on syngas composition and, consequently, on syngas LHV. pyrolysis since it occurs in the absence of O2 and it removes H2O and
This happened because the gasifier temperature was held constant in volatiles. In the torrefaction process, not only biomass water content is
the simulation, which demonstrates that, when an external heat supply evaporated as biomass is heated up, but also chemical reactions take
is available, the gasifier can process different water content materials. place, which results in drastic changes in the fuels’ properties.
Although not very significant for syngas composition, biomass moisture Shrinkage of material occurs, resulting in a fragile and light-weight
1008
product; material becomes more hydrophobic due to the elimination of 2.5 and 6 bar, employing four types of biomass sources (wood pellets,
hydroxyl groups; biomass loses recalcitrance due to the breakdown of crushed wood pellets, bark, and crushed forest residues) in a circulating
the hemicellulose matrix and cellulose depolymerization; calorific fluidized bed with steam and O2 as gasifying agents. The authors ob-
value increases; and C content increases, whilst O2 and H2 contents served that, when comparing 2.5 and 4 bar operations, the reactor had a
decrease. Torrefaction is advantageous since it may reduce biomass better performance on the latter. However, at even higher pressures, the
variability caused by different biomass species and environmental gasifier became unstable and operational changes were required. After
conditions [19]. the appropriate adaptations, the authors compared 4 and 6 bar opera-
Lastly, hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) is another thermochemical tions with the four types of fuels. The 6-bar operation caused a higher
process that can be applied to reduce biomass moisture content, pro- production of benzene, tar, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)
ducing bio-crude oil, a mixture of different-length hydrocarbons with components that are heavier than naphthalene. Thus, the authors re-
higher net calorific value [29]. HTL uses the properties of water at commended the 4-bar operation. The authors also suggested that a
temperatures above 280 °C and pressures up to 35 bar to convert the bubbling fluidized bed would be more adequate for a pressurized op-
components of lignocellulosic materials into its monomers through a eration than a circulating fluidized bed [102].
series of chemical reactions. HTL comprehends three major steps: de- Srinivas et al. [103] developed a thermochemical model based on
polymerization, decomposition, and recombination. The HTL steps are thermodynamic equilibrium to predict the gas composition and per-
still not entirely elucidated [99], but its particularities can be found in formance of a pressurized circulating fluidized bed gasifier operating
HTL-specific review papers [100]. Although HTL is very promising, it with air and steam as gasifying agents, and rice husk, sawdust, solid
still requires further studies to obtain higher-efficiency processes [29]. waste, and manure as feedstocks. The authors evaluated the effect of
air-to-fuel ratio, steam-to-biomass ratio, and gasifier pressure
5. Effects of high pressure on fluidized beds (8–20 bar) on gas composition, heating value, gasifier temperature, and
exergy efficiency. Although there was no significant influence of gasi-
The existing experience of high-pressure operation in fluidized-bed fier pressure on gas composition, higher pressures caused an increase in
gasifiers falls into three main categories: laboratory-scale experiments, temperature, syngas lower heating value, and exergy efficiency.
simulation works, and high utility-scale processes. Thus, Section 5.1
discusses the main findings of lab-scale and simulation works, whereas
5.1.3. Dual fluidized beds
Section 5.2 focuses on the challenges and achievements experienced by
Feng et al. [104] developed a simulation in Aspen Plus™ to predict
development and demonstration plants and technologies on high-
the syngas production via pine sawdust gasification in pressurized in-
pressure operations.
terconnected fluidized beds. The authors assessed the effects of gasifi-
cation temperature, pressure (1–6 bar), and steam-to-biomass ratio on
5.1. Laboratory and simulation works
syngas composition, yield, and carbon conversion. The authors found
that higher pressures reduced H2 and CO contents and increased CO2
This section discusses the main findings of some experimental and
and CH4 compositions, similarly to the results of Berrueco et al. [101].
simulation works on gasification pressure effects, which are mostly
Once again, according to the Le Châtelier principle, pressure increases
from a chemical point of view. Their main findings regarding gas yields,
shift the equilibrium towards the side with fewer molecules. Thus,
compositions and heating values, as well as tar formation, carbon
higher pressures shift the methane steam reforming reaction towards
conversion and exergy efficiency are presented for bubbling, circu-
CH4 formation, consuming CO and H2, and methanation reaction to-
lating, and dual fluidized bed gasifiers.
wards CH4 formation, consuming H2.
Song et al. [105] performed a simulation study of a gasification
5.1.1. Bubbling fluidized beds
process in interconnected fluidized beds. The work used average data of
Kitzler et al. [88] studied the operation of a pressurized bubbling
86 biomass types and evaluated not only the influence of pressure (1,
fluidized bed gasifier containing olivine as bed material and fed with
10, and 20 bar), but also the effect of steam-to-biomass ratio (S/B) and
wood pellets. The authors assessed the effects of temperature, pressure
temperature on syngas yields, compositions, and heating value, and on
(1–5 bar), air-to-fuel ratio, gasifying agent (air, steam, oxygen), biomass
the process exergy efficiency. At a fixed S/B, syngas CO and H2 contents
feed rate and fluidization number on the gasifier performance. The
decreased with higher pressures, while CH4 contents increased, simi-
authors found that higher pressures decreased H2 and CO concentra-
larly to Feng et al. [104] and Berrueco et al. [101]. Despite this re-
tions and increased CH4 concentrations because, according to the Le
duction of CO and H2 contents, gas yields increased due to the higher
Châtelier principle, higher pressures shift the equilibrium to lower vo-
production of CH4, while higher heating values increased due to the
lumes. Thus, high pressures shift the chemical equilibrium of water gas,
larger contribution of CH4 to the syngas HHV rather than CO and H2.
steam reforming, and methane reactions to the educt side. To obtain
Finally, when it comes to exergy efficiencies, higher pressures con-
higher H2 and CO contents, the authors advised pressure levels under
tributed to higher exergy efficiencies either with or without heat re-
4 bar.
covery.
Berrueco et al. [101] conducted an experimental work to study the
Table 4 offers a broader compilation of simulation and experimental
influence of torrefaction level and operating pressure (1–10 bar) on
works that applied pressures above atmospheric conditions.
syngas product yields and composition of an O2/steam fluidized bed
gasifier. The reactor used Norwegian spruce and forest residues as
feedstocks. The authors found that, as pressure increased, H2 and CO 5.2. High-pressure utility-scale biomass gasification projects
contents decreased, while CO2 and CH4 contents increased. The Le
Châtelier principle also explains such behavior: higher pressures benefit Several development and demonstration plants have also been de-
the formation of CO2 and CH4, and the consumption of H2 and CO. signed to operate at above-atmospheric pressures in fluidized beds.
Despite this, overall gas yields increased with pressure, accompanied by Such projects and technologies not only assessed the technical and
tar yield increases and char yield decreases. C2 and C3 hydrocarbons economic feasibilities of high-pressure operations, but also demon-
had low concentrations in syngas, presenting their highest yields at strated the technical difficulties this feature inserts.
intermediate pressures (5 bar). Fig. 7 portrays the sites of such programs and technologies, which
includes the RENUGAS® technology and related plants; the VTT pres-
5.1.2. Circulating fluidized beds surized circulating fluidized bed; the BIOFLOW project; the CHRISGAS
Kurkela et al. [102] studied the effects of pressure ranging between project; the Bio2G project; and the CHOREN Carbo-V® technology.
1009
I.L. Motta et al.
Table 4
Collection of lab-scale and simulation studies that evaluated the influence of pressure or applied high pressures in fluidized bed gasifiers.
Type of Gasifier type Biomass type and MCb (wt. %) F (kg/h)c P (x 105 Pa)d T (oC)e Gasifying agent Downstream units Ref.
studya
E Bubbling Pellets of pine (8.9%), maple and oak mixture 50/50 wt. (6.25%), 180 1.7–2.4 840–870 Air enriched with Cyclone and ceramic filter [76]
and discarded seed corn (15.01%) O2 and steam
E Bubbling Wood pellets (NIf) 4.5–8.0 1.0–5.0 720–900 Air, steam, oxygen Cyclone and high-temperature metal filter candle [88]
E Bubbling Norwegian spruce (3.79%) and forest residues (4.17%) 0.012–0.3 5.0 750, 850 O2 and steam Cyclone and filters [101]
E Bubbling Wood pellets (6%) 0.3 ~2 820 Steam Hydrodesulfurization reactor, ZnO bed for H2S [106]
adsorption, and steam reforming reactor
E Bubbling Straw pellets (12%), salix (8.6%), and birch wood (7%) 15 5, 10 700–900 Air and steam Filter [107]
E Bubbling Corn cob (9.71%) and glucose 3.2 230–270 < 700 CO2 Metal foam filter [108]
E Bubbling Wood pellets (4.84%) 2.0–5.3 1.0–2.5 750–840 Steam Cyclone and ceramic candle filter [109]
S Bubbling Wood particles (6.90%) 685.1 250 850 O2 and steam Supercritical water reactor and separators [111]
E Circulating Wood pellets (7.4%), bark pellets (9.0%), crushed bark (12.5%), and 36.4–55.8 2.5–6.0 860–930 O2 and steam Cyclone, ceramic candle filters, and catalytic [102]
crushed forest residues (11.3%) reforming reactor
E Circulating Clean woody biomass (8.1%), recycled woody biomass (6.2%), 20 1.5 ~800 O2 and steam Cyclone, high-temperature ceramic fiber tissue [112]
MiscanthusGiganteus pellets (7.3%), and agricultural residues (6.8%) candle filter, high-temperature Si-SiC ceramic
candle filter
E Circulating Wood chips (NIf) 60–140 4 Reformer: Air and steam Cyclone, particle filter, water scrubber [116]
815–830;
Combustor:
890–900
1010
S Circulating 2 types of pine sawdust (4.0 – 11.3% and 6.4 – 15.5%) for the NIf Empirical Empirical Air and steam Cyclones, heat exchanger, and ceramic filter [114]
determination of empirical correlations correlations: 4 – 5 correlations:
856–955
Pine sawdust (6.1 – 16%), pine chips (6.3 – 6.7%), forest residues Simulation Simulation
(9.2 – 12%), pine bark (5.6 – 6.7%), eucalyptus chips (4.3%), and validation: 4 validation: 835–935
wheat straw (6.1%) for simulation validation
S Circulating Crushed wood pellets (6.9%) and forest residues (10.4%) NIf 2.5–10 823–886 O2 and steam Cyclone, hot filter, pre-reformer, and reformer [110]
S Circulating Rice husk, sawdust, solid waste, and manure (NIf) NIf 10–20 Simulation output Air and steam NIf [103]
S Circulating Expired seed corn (NIf) 79.4–286 0.20–20.68 850 Air NIf [117]
S Dual Pine sawdust (7.89%) 3 1–6 Gasifier: Gasifier: steam; Cyclone, water and flue gas condensers, and gas [104]
650–950 separator
Combustor: Combustor: air
750–1050
S Dual Average data of 86 types of biomass (average moisture content: 3,600 1, 10, 20 700, 750, 800, 850 Gasifier: steam; Cyclone and gas separator [105]
14.40%) Combustor: air
a
E: experimental, S: simulation.
b
Moisture content.
c
Feed rate.
d
Pressure.
e
Temperature.
f
Not informed.
Tampere demonstration plant Maui demonstration plant Skive demonstation plant Des Plaines pilot plant (Illinois,
(Finland) (Hawaii, USA) (Denmark) USA)
Renugas® technology Renugas® technology Renugas® technology Renugas® technology
E.ON bio-SNG plant

Värnamo demonstration plant CHOREN Alpha and Beta plants
VTT’s PFB (Finland) (Landskrona, Sweden)
(Sweden) (Freiberg, Germany)
Ultra Clean Gas project and others Bio2G Project/Andritz-Carbona
BIOFLOW/CHRISGAS projects technology Carbo-V® technology
Fig. 7. Pressurized biomass fluidized bed gasification sites.

[118–125]. Värnamo plant photograph used with permission from Elsevier.
5.2.1. The RENUGAS® technology and associated projects process. The RENUGAS® PDU included a feeding system; a gasifier; a
The RENUGAS® gasifier was the first technology designed for cyclone; a gas purification and upgrading section with a tar cracker and
complete pressurized biomass gasification with high carbon conver- a hot gas clean-up unit (HGCU); a flare; and a sampling system. The
sions and low oil and tar production. The idea started in 1977 and, RENUGAS® gasifier was a single-stage bubbling fluidized bed reactor
throughout the 1980's, the first process development unit (PDU) was with a deep bed of inert solids, generally alumina, which operates with
designed, constructed and tested with different biomass feedstocks steam and O2/air as gasifying media. The gasifier reached temperatures
[126,127] by the Institute of Gas Technology (IGT) in Chicago with and pressures up to 980 °C and 34 bar, respectively. The gasifier had a
support from the US Department of Energy (DOE) and private industries 0.29 m internal diameter and was within an insulated 0.91 m OD
[128]. carbon-steel pressure vessel surrounded by 0.3 m of bulk fiber insula-
The RENUGAS® PDU, pictured in Fig. 8, was a 12 t/day adiabatic tion. [126,128–130].
Fig. 8. Scheme of the RENUGAS® PDU at Chicago.

[127]. Used with permission from Elsevier.
1011
After the first RENUGAS® pilot plant in Chicago, larger-scale gasi- 5.2.1.3. The Skive gasification plant. The Andritz-Carbona gasifier
fication plants based on this patented technology have been designed, consists in a bubbling fluidized bed based on the RENUGAS®
constructed and tested: which are the Tampere, Maui, Skive, and Des technology built in Skive (Denmark) as a result of several incentives
Plaines plants. Sections 5.2.1.1 through 5.2.1.4 bring the main features from the Danish government and the European Union [57]. The Skive
of these RENUGAS® facilities. facility is Europe's largest plant with a bubbling fluidized bed coupled
to a combined heat and power system [138], and produces 5.5 MWe of
electricity and 11.5 MWh of district heating from a 110 t/day biomass
5.2.1.1. The Tampere gasification plant. After the validation of the first
input (mainly pellets and wood chips) [57,139]. The project was
RENUGAS® gasification PDU, this technology was licensed to Tampella
financed on a commercial basis and received subsidies from the US
Power Inc. in 1989 to build a 15 MWth scaled-up pressurized
DOE, the European Union, and the Danish Energy Agency [32,139].
gasification plant in Tampere, Finland [57,131,132]. This project
The Skive plant contains a gasification and power plant module
aimed to further develop and demonstrate the gasification and hot
[139]. The gasification plant includes a pressurized lock-hopper system
gas cleaning technologies with the intent to ensure a clean gas
for biomass feeding; a traditional fluidized bed with a bubbling and a
production for IGCC applications [131,132]. In 1993, the plant was
freeboard section operating at 800–900 °C temperatures and maximum
built and commissioned by Environpower (a Tampella's subsidiary,
2 bar pressures for 8000 h/year; a two-stage monolithic catalytic tar
currently Andritz-Carbona) [133], gathering 3800 h of operation with
reformer to convert tars into syngas and ammonia into nitrogen; gas
5900 t of processed fuels in 26 test runs [131]. Since the aim of this
coolers and a low-temperature bag filter; and a gas scrubber. The power
initiative was to develop the technology for IGCC ultimate purposes, the
plant also has three internal combustion engines and gas boilers [57].
plant was shut down after the demonstration.
The plant design started in 2004, while plant commissioning and
The Tampere plant included fuel handling, drying, feeding, gasifi-
cold testing began in September 2007. The gasification system perfor-
cation, gas cleaning, and combined cycle stages. A commercial low-
mance assessment and the first engine start-up happened during spring
pressure steam dryer integrated with a combined cycle reduced biomass
2008 and May 2008, respectively. Operations initiated in the early
fuel moisture from 50 to 60 wt% to 15–20 wt% [134]. Separate feeding
summer of 2008 with the first gas engine, and the second and third gas
systems for coal and biomass existed in the plant [132], being both
engines were installed later in that summer [32]. The Skive gasification
composed of pressurized lock-hoppers [134]. The gasifier was an air-
plant, like all other pressurized gasification projects, encountered many
blown fluidized bed, with dolomite and sand as beds, operating at
difficulties in its commissioning. Nonetheless, the project managed to
temperatures up to 1100 °C and pressures up to 30 bar to process 42 t/
overcome such challenges and the plant is still in operation.
day of coal or 60 t/day of biomass [131,134]. The biomass fuels in-
cluded wood chips and pellets, paper mill waste, forest residues, alfalfa,
5.2.1.4. The Flex-Fuel test facility. The Flex-Fuel test plant is a pilot
and straw [57]. Finally, the cleaning units included cyclones, gas
plant designed and constructed by the Gas Technology Institute (GTI) in
coolers, a sulfur removal stage for syngas produced via coal gasifica-
Des Plaines (Illinois, USA) in 2004. This facility aims to serve as a test
tion, a hot gas filter, and product gas combustion units [132,134].
bed for gas clean-up and fuel synthesis – mainly methanol to be
converted into gasoline [57].
5.2.1.2. The Maui gasification plant. The Maui gasification plant The Flex-Fuel plant operates on coal (10/day with air, 20 t/day with
consisted in a RENUGAS® demonstration plant built at the Hawaii oxygen) and biomass (20 t/day with air, 40 t/day with oxygen), mostly
Commercial and Sugar Company at Paia, Maui (Hawaii, USA) in the in the form of wood chips and pellets [131]. This gasifier achieves
1990's [135]. The demonstration plant contained an air-blown 100 t/ temperatures in the range of 800–900 °C and pressures up to 27.5 bar
day gasifier operating at pressures up to 35 bar [136]. This project [57]. The Flex-Fuel facility contains many different modules, such as
aimed to gasify sugarcane bagasse – the main primary fuel of the fuel feeding, pressurized biomass gasification, downstream syngas
Hawaiian sugar industry – to obtain synthesis gas for subsequent power clean-up, and separation systems. Such modules can finally be in-
generation and applications to methanol production, fuel cells, and tegrated with advanced power conversion systems, coal conversion to
other bioproducts [126]. The project was quite important because, back liquids, hydrogen, substitute natural gas (SNG), and CO2 capture
then, all fuels were imported to Hawaii [129]. It accounted with technologies. The facility's design is flexible enough to allow the test of
different partners, such as the Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar a great variety of feedstocks and process configurations (gasification,
company, the US DOE Biomass Power Program, the IGT, the Pacific gas clean-up, and gas processing) [131].
International Center for High Technology Research (PICHTR), the
Hawaiian Natural Energy Institute, the State of Hawaii, and 5.2.2. The VTT pressurized CFB gasifier
Westinghouse Electric Corporation [126,135]. The VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, in cooperation with
The construction and commissioning of the Maui gasification plant the Helsinki University of Technology and the utility company Imatran
happened in two distinct phases: in the first phase, gasifier was con- Voima Oy, developed a 500-kW pressurized fluidized bed (PFB) gasifier
structed and tested and, in the second phase, a hot gas cleaning system in 1986–1987. The development of the PFB happened in two main
was developed [137]. phases: from 1988 to 1996, studies initially focused on technical
Phase 1 comprised gasifier construction and testing. Gasifier was questions of simplified IGCC systems [113,140], while in the 2000's the
built in 1993 and, from 1995 to 1997, gasifier ran in three separate facility was further developed for synthesis applications in the Ultra
campaigns [136] for over 100 h [137]. The main challenges of this Clean Gas (UCG) project [141].
phase consisted in biomass handling: once shredded sugarcane bagasse In the first R&D phase, the studies focused on the development of
had a very low density, the first PDU gasifier needed to undergo simplified IGCC systems suitable for large-scale power production and
modifications to ensure a steady and uniform biomass flow [128]. based on pressurized fluidized bed gasification, hot gas cleaning, and
Phase 2 consisted in the validation of the hot gas cleaning tech- combined cycles [140]. The facility in the first phase (Fig. 9a) contained
nology coupled to the pressurized gasifier. The hot gas cleaning unit a fuel feeding system; a circulating fluidized bed gasifier that operated
contained candle filters and a tar cracking reactor that were designed at at 2.5–10 bar, 700–1000 °C, and with air and small quantities of steam
IGT and later dismantled, transported, and installed in Hawaii in 1997 as gasifying agents; two cyclones to recirculate particles and bed ma-
[126]. The commissioning of the gas clean-up system included over terial and remove dust; a heat exchanger to cool down the gas, and a
170 h on a 10% slip-stream basis [137]. ceramic filter to further remove dust [113]. The works focused on many
Despite the efforts of the project, the plant was shut down in 1997 areas of study, including the effect of operating conditions in the for-
mostly due to the biomass handling difficulties [135]. mation of tars; the development of stable gasification of feedstocks
1012
Tars and nitrogen

Particulate
compounds sampling To slip stream
sampling A PFB gasifier
Ceramic testing facilities
Heavy tar Filter
filter Gas
and alkali Bed Pressure
Sampling of
metals sampling Additive CATR control valve
alkali metals B material
Flue gas
Particulate
PFB gasifier sampling B Fuel feeding
Water equipment Gas
cooler
Secondary Heat
Heating
air exchanger Scrubber elements
Heating Furnace
Dust Waste elements
Dolomite removal Oxygen
water Ash
Peat Dust Steam
removal Air removal
Primary air Combustor
Steam Nitrogen
Flue gas Bed
Bed removal removal
(a) Air (b)
Fig. 9. Process flow diagram of VTT's PFB in 1988–1996 (a) and in the 2000's in the Ultra Clean Gas project (b).
[110,113]. Used with permission from Elsevier.
(sawdust and wood wastes, different peat products, and Rhenish and [142–144]. In the demonstration phase, R&D activities concentrated in
brown coal) with different compositions and possible problematic ash areas of interest that included environmental issues, fuel flexibility,
behavior; the effect of fuels in the formation of nitrogen compounds; estimation of production costs in future facilities, as well as plant im-
the development of a hot gas cleaning system in temperatures from 400 provements [142].
to 750 °C; the influence of alkali metals and chlorine gas filtration; and Fig. 10 presents the process flow diagram (PFD) of the Värnamo
the testing of catalysts. The project presented several filtration and gas plant.
cleaning challenges, further discussed in item 5.2.7 [113,140]. The Värnamo plant consists of several subsections: (a) fuel handling;
In the 2000's, the UCG process consisted in the optimization of the (b) fuel feeding; (c) gasifier and cyclone; (d) gas cooling and cleaning;
pressurized gasifier and coupling to catalytic gas treatment steps sui- (e) power generation; (f) heat recovery steam generator; and (g) flare.
table for the subsequent production of liquid biofuels [141]. The PFB In the fuel handling section (a), wood chips or other types of bio-
facility (Fig. 9b) operated under different conditions and had additional mass are first crushed to a size that is suitable for the gasifier and then
gas cleaning modules. The circulating fluidized bed gasifier operated dried to approximately 10–20 wt% in an external facility that contains a
either with air for power applications or steam/O2 for synthesis pur- rotary-drum dryer, operating with flue gas as drying medium. Then, the
poses at pressures in the range of 1–6 bar. The gas clean-up unit con- pre-treated biomass goes to the fuel feeding section (b), in which a lock-
tained an advanced high-temperature filter, a catalytic autothermal hopper system and screw feeders pressurize and feed the fuel, respec-
reactor to crack tars and hydrocarbons, a gas cooler, and slip-streams tively.
for analysis, conditioning, and synthesis tests [141]. The project was The gasifier, which is a circulating fluidized bed reactor, operates at
successful in developing a gasifier with simple design, high carbon a pressure of 20 bar (a), at a 950–1000 °C temperature range, and with
conversion, low oxygen consumption, and no problems associated to air as a gasifying medium. After the gasification of wood chips, the raw
ash formation, as well as a gas cleaning system that provided complete gas leaves the top of the gasifier and enters the cyclone. In the cyclone,
tar and benzene decomposition, high levels of methane reforming, most of the solids are directed back to the lower part of the gasifier
suitable H2/CO ratios for Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (FTS) and minimum through a non-mechanical return leg, in which char is combusted to
operation costs [141]. provide the heat required for the process.
Although the VTT PFB gasifier is not of demonstration or com- The product gas subsequently enters the gas cooling and cleaning
mercial scale, the various studies conducted in this equipment have stage (d): gas is first cooled to 350–400 °C in a fire-tube design gas
largely contributed to the development of biomass pressurized gasifi- cooler, and then enters a ceramic filter vessel that removes the parti-
cation and hot gas cleaning. Lastly, the development of the VTT PFB led culates.
to the application of the UCG concept in a demonstration atmospheric The cool and particulate-free product gas moves to the power gen-
CFB gasifier by NSE Biofuels in Varkaus, Finland [141]. eration unit (e), in which gas is burned with air in combustion cham-
bers and then expands through a single-shaft industrial gas turbine to
5.2.3. The BIOFLOW project produce hot flue gas and 4 MWe of electricity. The hot flue gas subse-
The BIOFLOW project (1991–1999) was the world's first initiative to quently goes to the heat recovery steam generator (f), where super-
demonstrate the complete integration of an IGCC plant with a pres- heated steam is produced and then directed to a steam turbine (40 bar,
surized biomass CFB gasifier. The project was developed in co-opera- 455 °C), with the production of either 1.8 MWe of electricity or 9 MWth
tion between Sydkraft AB and Foster Wheeler Energy International Inc. of heat.
[122,142] to construct a demonstration plant in the city of Värnamo Finally, a flare (g) placed on the roof of the gasification buildingo-
(Sweden), with a capacity of generating 6 MWe of electricity and perates during start-up or when testing new operating conditions
9 MWth of district heating from a total input of 18 MWfuel [142–144]. [142–146].
The plant was designed based on flexible and conservative solutions to Among the areas of study developed during the BIOFLOW project,
ensure the success of the project and to make the plant suitable for R&D one can cite: the development of a pressurized biomass gasification
activities [142,144]. process; the integration of a pressurized CFB gasifier with a combined
The BIOFLOW project followed two main phases: a construction and cycle unit; the development of a pressurized fuel feeding system; the
commissioning period (1991–1996), which involved the conception, assessment of fuel flexibility in the gasifier; the study of different bed
assembly, and start-up of the Värnamo IGCC demonstration plant; and a materials in the gasifier; the analysis of product gas quality; the im-
demonstration and development phase (1996–1999), which covered plementation of hot gas filters; and modifications in the gas turbine of
the assessment of the status and future potential of the BIGCC concept the combined cycle to operate with low heating value product gas.
1013
Flare
Gasifier
Fuel
input
Booster Gas cooler

compressor Hot gas filter
Stack
Gas turbine
Steam turbine
Diesel
District
Heat Recovery
heating
Steam Generator
Fig. 10. Värnamo IGCC demonstration plant PFD during the BIOFLOW project.
Lastly, the Värnamo IGCC demonstration plant proved, with 8500 h The gasifier would no longer operate with air as a fluidizing
of gasifier operation and 3600 h of gas turbine operation running solely medium: oxygen would be required to provide the necessary heat of
on product gas, that large-scale high-pressure gasification is possible gasification, and steam would be needed to shift reactions equilibria to
and that such technology can gasify difficult fuels [122]. the higher H2 formation. Consequently, the product-gas would be ni-
trogen-free and would also possess a higher calorific value and H2
5.2.4. The CHRISGAS project content, as well as the lower content of tars [147,151]. Additionally,
After the completion of the BIOFLOW project, the Värnamo IGCC temperature range and pressures would also assume levels of
demonstration plant was shut down and placed under a conservation 900–950 °C and 10 bar, respectively [147].
program [122,147]. However, the Directive 2003/30/EC of the Eur- The hot gas filter would be designed to operate at high pressures
opean Council which defined a minimum percentage proposal of bio- and higher temperatures than in the original IGCC plant, approximately
fuels to replace gasoline and diesel for transport purpose [148],created above 650 °C, to avoid heat loss and to obtain higher efficiencies
an opportunity to continue the R&D activities at the Värnamo demon- [147,151]. The hot gas filter would be resistant to impurities, such as
stration plant and led to the conception of the CHRISGAS project [122]. alkali metals [151].
The CHRISGAS project (an acronym for Clean Hydrogen-Rich After the hot gas filter, an ATR reactor would decompose tars and
Synthesis gas) was a 5.5-year flagship project (2004–2010) funded by light hydrocarbons into H2 and CO [147,151]. Appropriate catalysts
the EC's 6th Framework Programme and the Swedish Energy Agency would be selected to enable lower ATR temperatures [147]. The con-
(SEA) and developed by 20 partners from industry and research fields. verted gas mixture would be cooled and directed to either a water-gas
The primary goal of the CHRISGAS project was to rebuild the Värnamo shift reactor or a hydrogenation/hydrogenolysis reactor to adjust the
demonstration plant for the manufacture of a hydrogen-rich gas mix- syngas H2/CO ratio, depending on the downstream processes specifi-
ture from renewable resources such as woody biomass [122,149,150], cations for the synthesis gas [147,151].
which would serve for further upgrading to liquid fuels like DME, The first main challenge in the development of the CHRISGAS
methanol, and Fischer-Tropsch-derived diesel [149–151]. Among the project was insufficient funding. Since the Värnamo facility was shut
specific objectives of the project, there is the conversion of lig- down for over seven years, capital was necessary for plant start-up
nocellulosic materials into medium calorific value gases by gasification according to the previous IGCC operating conditions, along with
at high pressures using steam and oxygen; the cleaning of the raw gas funding for the rebuild of the plant and the demonstration testing. The
through high-temperature filtration; and the purification of the raw gas plant start-up was financed by the European Commission and by SEA
via catalytic autothermal steam reforming [122,150]. [149], resulting in successful combined-cycle runs and week-long ga-
The first phase of the CHRISGAS project consisted in the conceptual sification operations at the IGCC plant by the end of 2007
design of the demonstration plant rebuild, mainly based on the ex- [147,150,152]. The plant rebuild plan, on the other hand, would be
periences of Termiska Processer AB (TPS). Fig. 11 depicts the PFD financed according to a conditional fund: 75% of the project's funds
proposed for the Värnamo plant rebuild. would be covered by the SEA, as long as industry sources supported the
In Fig. 11, the equipment in pink correspond to the original IGCC other 25%, so that industrial engagement and possible commerciali-
plant components, whereas the blocks in blue relate to the new ne- zation of the results would take place. However, due to insufficient
cessary equipment to ensure the generation of an H2-rich gas mixture. industrial participation, SEA decided in December 2007 to put on
Among the modifications, one can cite the use of a more efficient conditional hold the plant rebuild funding [122,150].
feeding system, changes in the gasifier operating conditions, as well as With the problems associated with the plant rebuild financing, the
the addition of a different hot gas filter, an autothermal reforming aims of the CHRISGAS project were adapted to perform further system
(ATR) reactor, a water-gas shift reactor, and a hydrogenation/hydro- research at the available laboratory pilot plants belonging to the con-
genolysis unit [147,151]. sortium partners and ensure an eventual future construction of the re-
The original feeding system, composed of a batch lock-hopper built plant demonstrated in Fig. 11. Thus, the CHRISGAS project was
system with screw feeders, would be substituted by a more efficient divided into different areas of study, such as: fuel supply and man-
continuous piston feed system. The feeding system would ensure the agement [153]; fuel drying [154]; pressurized fuel feeding [155]; ga-
feeding of 4000 kg/h of biomass with 15 wt% moisture content [147]. sification [112,156]; gas and aerosol particle characterization
1014
Gas cooler
Flare
Hot gas filter
Steam
+ O2 WGS
Biofuel
Reformer
Syngas
Steam Gas cooler Hydrogenation

+ O2 Burner
Steam
New syngas Stack Gas

turbine
Existing IGCC
District HRGS
heating Steam turbine By-passed
processes
Condenser
Fig. 11. PFD proposal for the future Värnamo demonstration plant during the CHRISGAS project (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure, the
reader is referred to the web version of this article.).
[157–159]; hot gas filtration [160]; steam reforming [161]; WGS [162]; gas cleaning and methanation technology [166,169].
ancillary and novel processes [163]; cost studies [164]; and socio- Fig. 12 presents the concept of the Bio2G plant.
economic studies [165]. The Bio2G concept presents modules of grinding, drying, feeding,
gasification, gas cleaning, adiabatic methane synthesis, air separation,
CHP, and pressurization to the appropriate bio-SNG final requirements.
5.2.5. The Bio2G project Biomass is first chipped and dried to a 15–20 wt% moisture content
The Bio2G project is a current E.ON Biofor Sverige AB initiative to using low-temperature belt dryers. Lock-hoppers then feed the pre-
conceptually design and implement a pressurized 200 MW bio-methane treated fuel into two parallel steam/O2 gasifiers (10 bar, 850 °C). Raw
plant in Landskrona, Sweden [11,166,167]. The project started in 2007 gas is partially cooled, pressurized, and led to the gas cleaning unit,
and the plant is expected to produce 21,000 m3/h of biomethane, 1.6 which includes hot gas filtering, catalytic reforming, and sulfur re-
TWh per year, and 10 MWe and 50 MWh for internal use on a 70–80% moval. Finally, clean gas is directed to the methane synthesis reactor
total efficiency [168]. The produced bio-methane will be distributed and then pressurized to 40–60 bar. A CHP is integrated to the plant to
through existing infrastructure for gas and might be of interest of other produce the required power ad heat [166]. The Bio2G plant is expected
markets such as heat and power, domestic and industrial use, and in to run on mainly forest residues from fellings and sawmills, and also on
liquid forms [166,167]. The Bio2G project receives funding (nearly € bark, stumps, fuel wood, recycled wood, and short rotation wood [170].
203 million) from the NER 300 program and works in co-operation with The project includes the following phases: (i) conceptual study; (ii)
a Finnish subsidiary of Andritz-Carbona, which provides the gasifica- pre-FEED (front-end engineering and design) to assess a number of
tion technology, and Haldor Topsoa A/S (Denmark), which offers the
Fig. 12. Bio2G plant concept.

[124].
1015
Low-temperature Carbo-V gasifier

gasifier Oxygen
Biomass
Pyrolysis gas
Steam
Gas scrubber
Syngas
BFW
Oxygen
Deduster
Mill
Char Residual
char/ash
Waste
Vitrified water
slag
Fig. 13. Process scheme of the Carbo-V® technology.

process design alternatives; (iii) FEED to develop the basic design of the goes through a particulate filter to remove the solids, which are re-
complete plant; (iv) construction and building; and (v) test and op- cycled back to the high-temperature gasifier. The filtered syngas is fi-
eration [166]. The first three phases have been concluded [170], in- nally scrubbed, removing ammonia and chlorides, and further treated
cluding gasification, gas cleaning, and tar reforming tests at the GTI (CO shift and trace sulfur removal) so that syngas becomes suitable for
pilot plant in Chicago [171]. Plant construction is scheduled for FTS purposes [175,176]. Several CHOREN facilities implemented the
2018–2020, and commissioning, start-up, and optimization are sched- Carbo-V® technology, such as the Alpha and Beta plants.
uled for 2020–2021 [170]. In 1998, the construction and commissioning of the Alpha plant
began. The Alpha plant consisted of an atmospheric pilot plant with
5.2.6. The CHOREN Carbo-V technology® Carbo-V® technology to demonstrate the physical use of the raw gas
The CHOREN (Carbon Hydrogen Oxygen RENewable) technology from Carbo-V® gasification to produce second-generation renewable
was the most successful and close to commercialization example of synthetic fuels [174]. The Alpha plant firstly produced methanol, and
pressurized biomass gasification [172]. then electrical power and Fischer-Tropsch diesel [174,177]. The Carbo-
After the German reunification in 1990, a group of engineers and V® gasifier was coupled to a 150-kW gas engine and a synthesis test rig.
scientists specialized in coal-based technologies started working on Numerous tests took place between 1998 and 2004, and the plant
more efficient ways of using biomass [173]. During the 1990's, the gathered more than 22,500 h of successful operation with a wide
CARBO-V® technology was developed [174] and, in 1998, the CHOREN variety of biomass sources, such as untreated wood, waste timber, dry
company was founded in the town of Freiberg [174,175]. stabilate material, meat and bone meal, lignite, and hard coal.
The Carbo-V® process consisted of a patented three-stage biomass [174,177]. During the Alpha plant commissioning, fuel was supplied to
gasification process that produces high-quality tar-free syngas. Fig. 13 DaimlerChrysler and Volkswagen for fleet testing [177].
illustrates the Carbo-V® process scheme. The operational success of the Alpha plant led to the construction of
The first gasification stage is a low-temperature gasifier a bigger, industrial-scale demonstration Carbo-V® pressurized proto-
(400–500 °C), which consists in an oxygen-blown stirred horizontal type plant (5–6 bar) in Freiberg, denominated Beta plant. The con-
reactor. Biomass (15–20 wt% moisture content) is fed by lock-hoppers, struction of the gasification section and the Fischer-Tropsch unit of the
and then partially oxidizes to form a tar-containing gas (volatile com- Beta plant started in 2003 and 2005, respectively [174,175,177]. The
ponents) and char, which are separately extracted. The volatile com- Beta plant received approximately € 100 million funds, which were
ponents subsequently flows to the second stage, which consists in a initially composed by federal and local state government investments
high-temperature gasifier that operates at temperatures above the ash (20%), and eight private investors (80%), which included Shell,
melting point (1300–1500 °C). In the high-temperature gasifier, volatile DaimlerChrysler, and Volkswagen [173,174,177]. Later on, the Beta
components are mixed with oxygen and steam and entirely cracked plant accounted for only private investors [177]. The Beta plant was
mainly into H2, CO, and CO2. The char portion is pulverized, grounded, mechanically complete by 2008 [175], and the commissioning of the
and blown into the third stage, which is the endothermic entrained-bed gasification section started at 2009 [177]. The commissioning phase
gasifier, also known as the chemical quench. The chemical quench met many technical challenges. Firstly, as in BIGCC and other biomass
operates at lower temperatures than the second stage (700–800 °C) gasification projects, it is much more difficult to obtain a syngas mix-
because char goes through endothermic reactions, reducing about ture with high enough quality (specific H2/CO ratio and purity) from
500 °C of the gasifier temperature. The high-temperature levels of the biomass gasification rather than coal and natural gas gasification.
high-temperature gasifier melt the ash components, forming a solid Secondly, no experience existed with biomass gasification at entrained-
layer on the refractory material within the burning chamber, which flow gasifiers at the scale of the Beta plant Carbo-V® gasifier, which
protects the refractory material from thermal stresses and permits meant that hundreds of technical problems were addressed for the first
longer lifetimes. The excess of melted ash accumulates in a water basin time. Finally, the CHOREN process would not become economically
below the gasifier, in which melted ash is rapidly cooled and converted feasible in the short run, since this would require a rise in oil prices
into vitrified slag. After the gasification section, syngas at approxi- [177].
mately 800 °C is cooled in the recuperator, generating steam for power The Beta plant ultimately overcame most of the technical chal-
generation. Since the char conversion in the chemical quench is not lenges, producing approximately 18,000 t of green diesel/year
complete, syngas still contains unconverted char and ash. Thus, syngas [173,175] and 45 MW of thermal energy [174,177] from a dry wood
1016
feed of 65,000 t/year. With such successful demonstration of the Carbo- cooperative project between energy crop company Ceres and CHOREN
V® technology, CHOREN had several plans to expand its business. In attempted to evaluate the composition of switchgrass and willow
2009, the company planned to perform an € 800 million investment to plants, as well as identify the most relevant compositional traits to
build the Sigma plant in Schwedt, Germany, an up-scaled version of the improve conversion and maximize fuel yields [173].
Beta plant, to produce 200,000 t of green diesel/year and address 0.7%
of the Germany demand of diesel at the time. Besides, a two-year 5.2.7.2. Pressurized fuel feeding. In a biomass pressurized gasification
bioenergy cooperative project was signed with the energy crop com- plant, a pressurized fuel feeding unit must be developed to ensure a
pany Ceres to evaluate the composition of a broad range of feedstocks. uniform pressurized fuel flow. The RENUGAS®, BIOFLOW, and
In 2010, an engineering, procurement and construction agreement was CHRISGAS projects dedicated efforts to create suitable pressurized
signed between the French group CNIM and CHOREN to construct a fuel feeding systems.
synthesis gas production facility with the Carbo-V® technology using IGT designed the first pressurized fuel feeding system for the
biomass feedstocks [173]. RENUGAS® gasifier. The feeding system contains a lock-hopper vessel, a
Despite the positive technical perspectives of CHOREN, the con- metering feed hopper vessel, and an injection screw. The lock-hopper
struction and commissioning of the Beta plant took more time and vessel is equipped with quick-opening and closing slide gate valves with
money than the company and its investors expected. Consequently, provisions for cyclic pressurization and depressurization during the
CHOREN's private investors eventually exited the initiative [177], and feeding. The feed hopper vessel is placed above the lock-hopper vessel
CHOREN filed for insolvency in 2011. Linde Engineering Dresden and equipped with a three-screw live bottom, which measures and
GmbH later purchased the Carbo-V® biomass gasification technology discharges the fuel into the gasifier via a transport-injector screw [128].
[173,174], and identified several areas of improvement, primarily re- IGT successfully tested this system in the pilot plant, and later up-scaled
lated to mechanical design problems [178]. and improved it in the Tampere facility. Moreover, IGT tested alternate
feeding systems [134]. On the other hand, the IGT pressurized feeding
5.2.7. Achievements and challenges in pressurized gasification system was not successful in the Maui gasification facility because the
5.2.7.1. Fuel supply and management. Although very promising, the use low density of the shredded bagasse caused biomass handling difficul-
of biomass resources encounters several difficulties related to quality ties, generating an irregular fuel flow into the gasifier [135].
assurance, logistics, costs, and sustainability. Firstly, the wide biomass The BIOFLOW project directive to use flexible and conservative
variability creates the challenge of assuring feedstock quality. Secondly, solutions led to the design and construction of a lock-hopper system
biomass availability is also a crucial factor since its production is similar to RENUGAS’. The system was conceived for wood chips and
seasonal, which indicates there will not be a feedstock supply for a fuels with equivalent density and heating value, but other carbonaceous
whole year. Thirdly, biomass costs and capital investments are usually sources were tested after the commissioning of the Värnamo demon-
higher than those of fossil fuels, and the instability and immaturity of stration plant. The main difficulty encountered referred to the feeding
the biomass market also hinder investments. Finally, social and of fuels with lower densities (e.g., straw, willow, bark, and sawdust)
environmental issues related to land use and degradation, similarly to the Maui facility, requiring a previous palletization step to
biodiversity, employment, and social equity arise [7]. As examples, ensure a stable feed into the gasifier [145]. Thus, the feeding of lower-
the CHRISGAS project and the CHOREN Beta plant somehow dealt with density biomass fuels created the necessity of biomass pretreatment.
the challenge of securing feedstock at reasonable quality and price over Finally, the CHRISGAS project also designed a new pressurized fuel
a plant's lifetime. feeding system with the intent to reduce the consumption of inert gases
During the CHRISGAS project, the Centre for the Development of usually required in the lock-hopper systems used in the Värnamo IGCC
Renewable Energy Sources (CEDER) in Spain performed an assessment facility and the RENUGAS® gasifier. Two prototypes of piston feeders
of quantification, logistics, and pretreatment of different biomass re- were designed and built in the project: a laboratory-scale one, with a
sources in three European regions. A central contribution of the CHR- capacity of 30–200 kg/h, and a triple-step prototype. Both prototypes
ISGAS program was the creation of a computer tool named BIORAISE, were successfully tested, and the power consumption of a full-scale
which can evaluate the availability, potential, and costs of harvesting feeder, based on the smaller scale results, was estimated to be around
and transport of different biomass types in 12 European countries. 1% of the biomass heating value. The main challenge associated with
The analysis showed that two specific regions were prone to the this piston feeder was the design of the full-scale triple-step prototype to
development of pressurized gasification and biomass-to-liquids (BtL) run on a feed rate of up to 6000 kg/h [150,152].
processes: the Värnamo surrounding areas and Southern European
countries like Spain. Värnamo, for instance, would be able to hold, 5.2.7.3. Gasification. The gasification section comprises the most
within a 150 km radius, a 400 ktonne/year DME plant supported by diverse difficulties in the development of pressurized gasifiers.
forest residues. On the other hand, Spain would have good availability In the BIOFLOW project, the first gasification difficulty regarded the
of agricultural residues for the installation of a BtL plant. However, two commissioning of the pressurized CFB gasifier since, at the time of the
main challenges exist in the development of BtL technologies in the last project, no experience existed from any biomass gasifier at the adopted
region. Firstly, agricultural residues such as straw, corn stover, olive pressure levels [144,145]. The second difficulty referred to the in-
branches, and husks are very difficult to gasify and may cause sintering tegration of both pressurized CFB gasifier and combined cycle unit: the
and corrosion of plant equipment. To solve this situation, agricultural gasifier was a slow system when it came to process control while the gas
residues would have to be blended and pelletized with much easier-to- turbine responded almost instantaneously. Hence, the plant demanded
gasify materials, such as wood residues. Secondly, the necessity to de- a well-established control, and small variations of pressure, tempera-
velop a large centralized pretreatment plant in the region would appear ture, and gas quality were expected [142,144].
[150,152]. Fuel flexibility was also a delicate matter in the BIOFLOW program
During the CHOREN Beta plant commissioning, the company not only due to feeding obstacles but also due to the generation of
identified that half of the production costs derived from biomass type different product characteristics from various fuels. For instance,
and supply sources [173], and that material handling highly influenced hardwood produced more benzene and tars; salix produced a gas mix-
capital costs [175]. Back in 2010, CHOREN proposed a strategy to re- ture with lower HHV; straw was a problematic fuel due to its high levels
duce such expenses. The first idea was to produce syngas and Fischer- of alkaline species and a considerable amount of ash in the fuel. Thus,
Tropsch fuels in countries where biomass was cheaper, and new plants the variability in fuels composition may produce process variability, as
outside Germany were considered. The second idea consisted in se- well as different downstream process requirements [145].
lecting biomass sources that produced higher amounts of H2. Thus, a The choice of the bed materials was also challenging due to
1017
performance and costs. Bed performance runs tested magnesite, dolo- complexity of the process concept was too high. After modifications, the
mite, and limestone as bed materials. Although all beds generated gas number of equipment reduced by more than 40%, reducing future
products with the suitable requirements for the gas turbine, the use of downtimes and maintenance costs [178].
limestone and dolomite caused the formation of deposits and fouling in Finally, certain pressurized gasifiers operate with oxygen as gasifi-
the gas cooler [142,144]. Thus, magnesite was chosen as the best-tested cation medium, which inserts the need for an air separation unit, as in
bed, but developers believed it still required further testing due to the the case of the RENUGAS® technology-based Flex-Fuel plant in Des
high costs of magnesite [144,145]. Plaines (Illinois), Värnamo plant during the CHRISGAS project, and
Gas quality was also an important issue. Even though the produced CHOREN Alpha and Beta plants. ASU systems are highly costly and, in
raw gas HHV was as expected in the BIOFLOW project, gas streams general, require the design of larger-scale systems to dilute the addi-
contained NOx compounds, which may affect the subsequent combined tional investments needed [57].
cycles of the Värnamo plant. Such NOx emissions tend to become higher
with the use of fuels with higher nitrogen contents, such as wheat straw, 5.2.7.4. Hot gas cleaning. Syngas cleaning is the stage that presents the
bark, and refuse-derived fuels (RDF) [179]. Thus, the variability of the highest costs and that prevents gasification from achieving commercial-
fuel composition variability once again imposed a challenge and needed scale technology readiness [11]. Therefore, most of the pressurized
to be overcome. Solutions for this project would only be searched gasification projects have dedicated efforts to the development of hot
throughout the CHRISGAS project, covered in subsection 5.2.7.5. gas cleaning processes, such as the RENUGAS®, VTT, BIOFLOW, and
The CHRISGAS program examined three risk areas in the gasifica- CHRISGAS projects.
tion field: the potential of bed agglomeration when testing different In the syngas conditioning unit, the RENUGAS® works focused on
beds; product gas specifications and tar formation with the use of the testing of a hot gas clean-up system compatible with a pressurized
magnesite as bed material; and the presence of sulfur-species in the raw bed gasifier and with the future operation of a gas turbine in the PDU
product gas. facility. The primary goal was to obtain a gaseous mixture that would
Silica sand, olivine, and magnesite were tested in a 50 kWth atmo- meet emission requirements, protect the internal components of the gas
spheric bubbling bed at TPS. Once again, magnesite was the best bed turbine and be adequate for power generation. In the PDU plant, the hot
analyzed, since there was no agglomeration even when challenging gas filter system consisted of a cyclone, a tar cracker, and a ceramic
fuels were gasified. Also, tests with magnesite as bed material at TU candle filter. The research assessed various aspects such as the use of
Delft in a 100 kWth CFB demonstrated that magnesite was also ad- the cyclone, the tar cracker temperature, the number of ceramic candles
vantageous regarding products compositions due to the high H2 yields in the filter, the characterization of the filter cake, among others.
obtained (H2/CO ~ 2) and low tar production. Although the research managed to obtain a stable system operation, the
Regarding the presence of sulfur-species in the raw product gas, tests faced a series of drawbacks. The first challenge referred to the tar
KTH tested sulfur-selective CuO/Cu sorbents for in-bed and down- cracker: even though it managed to decompose up to 82% of oil and tars
stream use. Bench-scale tests showed that in-bed sulfur sorbents were at temperatures around 815 °C, a tar cracker temperature of 600 °C was
not adequate because they may cause bed sintering. Downstream usage needed at the entering of the filter candles so that the latter would not
of CuO/Cu was deemed possible, but future research was yet necessary lose strength and degrade. However, the use of much smaller tem-
to prove that it was stable enough and easily regenerated [150,152]. peratures in the tar cracker would reduce overall efficiency and would
The CHOREN Carbo-V® technology also encountered gasification not decompose oil and tars adequately. The second challenge was re-
challenges in the low and hot temperature gasifiers. lated to pressure drops: apparent filter pressure drops and cake pressure
The main drawback of the Carbo-V® concept was the need to first drops happened due to the deposition of a coat of very fine carbon on
apply a low-temperature gasification step to partially oxidize the bio- each candle. The researchers suggested that this happened due to the
mass sources. To overcome this, CHOREN tested torrefaction as a feed use of the cyclone, which was not recommended ahead of the filter.
preparation stage to use a wider range of feedstocks and to be able to Thus, the researchers did not recommend the use of cyclones, tar
directly gasify biomass in the hot-temperature gasifier, similarly to the crackers, and temperatures above 600 °C [181], which indicates the
CHOREN coal gasification (CCG) technology [66]. Nonetheless, the restrictions of such hot gas cleaning system.
scale-up of the low-temperature gasifier presented mechanical pro- In the BIOFLOW project, once again the mechanical instability of
blems due to the presence of solid phases in physical and chemical ceramic candle filters was noticed at high temperatures. In the Värnamo
transformation [180]. Also, repeated shutdowns in the gasifier oc- facility, ceramic filter candles arranged in six groups with separate
curred. After the purchase of the Carbo-V® technology by Linde, the backpulsing were first tested. The ceramic filters initially demonstrated
low-temperature gasifier went through several adjustments such as the good filtration efficiency with steady pressure drops. However, two
optimization of the reactor paddles, improvement of the design of the breakages of ceramic candles occurred after 1200 and 1550 h of op-
transfer ducts where pyrolysis gas passed, and adoption of a more eration, which initiated troubleshooting assessments and modifications
simplified solids handling system [178]. in the filter by the plant developers. After unsuccessful attempts –
The refractory lining of hot-temperature gasifiers also possessed measurements of vibrations inside the pipework and steel structure;
several restrictions. Although a protective slag layer formed as ash installation of grids to support the candles; and installation of a metallic
melted in the quench system, the success of such operation highly de- police filter in case of hot gas filter breakdown – the developers decided
pended on ash composition and mostly viscosity. Ash viscosity was a to substitute the ceramic filter by metal filter candles, which demon-
key factor for the reactor design, and changes in ash physicochemical strated good filtration efficiency with stable pressure drop [144,145].
properties could lead to slag removal rates and, consequently, to An attempt to improve, rather than test or validate a hot gas
changes in reactor temperature and performance. Thus, the use of dif- cleaning system, was done in the CHRISGAS project. The hot gas
ficult-to-gasify biomass sources such as straw was limited to a certain cleaning studies aimed to design a process that would work at the
level, being admitted only in low and constant proportions [66]. After highest temperature possible – improving overall process efficiency –
the purchase of Carbo-V® technology and modifications by Linde, in- and to enhance removal efficiency and dust cake cleaning. Two ceramic
vestigations by universities and vendors proposed solutions to this and candle filters with unique innovative features of backpulsing and nickel
other technical issues, leading to the optimization of the combustion impregnation were tested in the TU Delft 100 kWth CFB gasifier.
chamber cooling; the layout of a new refractory concept; and the design Although the impregnation of nickel in the candle filters produced good
of a new slag discharge system, new deflection chambers, and en- conversions of naphthalene – a model compound used for assessment –
dothermic part of coke condensation to enhance [178]. an increase in pressure drops at high temperatures due to partial
According to Linde's assessment of the Carbo-V® technology, the blocking of the filter membrane pores was observed. This trend was
1018
especially observed with the use of magnesite as bed material in the 5.2.7.6. Pressurized sampling. A pressurized gasification process
gasifier. Moreover, partial membrane blocking could lead to filter requires unique pressurized sampling methods. The VTT PFB gasifier,
cracking, and the interaction of ash with the filter top layer would also the RENUGAS process, and the BIOFLOW project made efforts on this
cause failures [150,152]. matter.
In the development of the VTT pressurized fluidized bed gasifier, the In the first main development phase of the VTT pressurized fluidized
facility had to be fuel-flexible and needed to produce syngas free from bed, the laboratory developed a methodology to sample trace amounts
contaminants (tars, particulates, alkalis, and nitrogen compounds) to of vapor-phase alkalis from the hot pressurized gas streams. In the first
protect gas turbines, gas coolers, ceramic filters, and to prevent NOx experiments, the alkali samples went through sodium contamination
emissions [140]. Thus, the design of an economical and en- from the glass impingers, which led to misleading results. Also, the
vironmentally suitable gas cleaning system was fundamental. The main researchers had found that the ceramic filter seemed to have a sort of
idea was to develop ceramic filters to remove particulates and alkali alkali and chlorine memory, also interfering in the results. Therefore,
metals up to 700 °C, but the filters could only operate at intermediate the pressurized sampling methodology included the use of polyethylene
temperatures of 350–550 °C [140]. Moreover, some biomasses like impingers instead of glass-made ones, and the collection of data after
wood and peat produced higher levels of naphthalene and PAH com- longer runs at constant gasification and filtration temperatures [113].
ponents as temperature increased. Such contaminants could not be re- The RENUGAS® process developed a sampling system to acquire and
moved in cyclones and filters, requiring downstream catalytic tar analyze samples from pressurized gasification reactors. The system
cracking units [113]. depended on different cleaning and separation steps: hot filtration to
Finally, the Bio2G project conducted gasification and gas filtering remove particulates; staged condensation of the oils and unreacted
studies in the GTI pilot unit in Chicago. Hot gas filtration tests at 500 steam; and off-stream separation and extraction of the oils. Although
and 700 °C used Pall ceramic elements with metallic safety fuses and the developers stated that the system was simple and straightforward, it
refractory-lined housing, respectively. The 500 °C experiments were presented some limitations. Firstly, the method of sample acquisition
successful as expected, showing good filtration performance, very low and analysis was labor-intensive, since it required a meticulous clean of
dust slip, and no failures in post-test inspections. The 700 °C experiment vessels and lines with dichloromethane to recover the sample entirely
presented a rupture on one candle but, after a redesigned gasketing, and to leave the system clean for the next sampling period. Moreover,
filtration happened for over 95 h with no solid slip [171]. the use of large amounts of dichloromethane imposed a strict safety
With all the exposed, developing a resistant HGCU that operates at requirement for operators. Lastly, the acquisition of the separated
the highest temperatures possible is a profoundly tricky task since phases of the product was a little time-demanding, being unable to
candle failures occur as temperature increases. collect and analyze all phases quickly [130].
In the BIOFLOW project, a continuous online gas analysis system
5.2.7.5. Catalytic autothermal reforming and water-gas shift reactors. The named OPSIS gas analyzer was developed. Prior to the gas analyzer, a
aim of the CHRISGAS project to produce hydrogen-rich synthesis gas small flow of hot unclean gas was taken from the gasifier, directed to a
mixtures suitable for liquid fuels production led to the developed of slip-stream system, cooled in three gas coolers in series up to a
ATR and WGS processes. 300–550 °C temperature range, cleaned in a hot gas filter that contained
Catalytic ATR was chosen over partial oxidation due to the possi- two filter candles, and submitted to selective catalytic oxidation (SCO)
bility of working with smaller temperatures and enhancing H2 yield in of nitrogen compounds in a SCO reactor. The OPSIS gas analyzer con-
up to 13%. In this matter, different catalysts for methane reforming tinuously measured the contents of CO, CH4, CO2, H2O, NH3, and other
(commercial catalysts A and B, monolith catalysts, and monoliths using nitrogen compounds using IR and UV technology. The development of
Ni/M and Pt/M bimetallic active phases) were tested to assess their the OPSIS analyzer was a significant milestone of the BIOFLOW project
performance and deactivation. All the commercial catalysts presented since it enhanced the versatility of Värnamo plant and enabled the
some initial deactivation, regardless the biomass tested. The tests that performing of a broader range of tests [145].
used straw as fuel presented the highest deactivation. Monolith cata-
lysts, on the other hand, showed immediate and substantial methane 5.2.7.7. Scale-up, commissioning, and investments. Biomass gasification
conversion. Nevertheless, further studies were still necessary because is still on a demonstration technology readiness [6], especially when it
carbon precipitation on the surface of the catalyst was observed, which comes to applications such as fuel cells and BIGCC [7]. Thus, the
increased reaction inhibition, and the long-term effects on monolith biggest scale pressurized gasification projects, that is, CHRISGAS
catalysts were not known. Finally, to overcome catalyst deactivation in project at Värnamo, RENUGAS® scale-up at the Skive plant, and
the presence of contaminants, Ni-based monolith catalysts (Ni/M) were CHOREN Carbo-V® scale-up at the Beta plant faced the process
tested. Such materials presented better activity than commercial cata- development valley of death.
lysts, but deactivated in the presence of Cl and S, resulting in higher O2 The first financial barrier for a successful scale-up resides in need of
demands. In addition, such catalysts deactivated when problematic subsidies and incentives. The CHRISGAS project failed to receive suf-
biomasses were used upstream, requiring higher temperatures for the ficient investments because funding would only be assured if industry
conversion of CH4. However, higher temperatures sintered the active sources supported 25% of the total. Since the project achieved in-
sites of Ni/M. Thus, further studies are necessary to develop catalysts sufficient industrial engagement, the funding was put on hold by SEA,
for the ATR of CH4. and the plant rebuild was not performed [122,150].
In the case of the WGS studies, much more promising results were The second economic difficulty relates to the fact that there is
obtained. This process presents several advantages: high-pressure op- usually no experience in the scale-up from pilot to commercial of novel
eration did not affect the equilibrium and could also be advantageous technologies. Therefore, scale-up and commissioning take more time
since it would increase the capacity of the reactor at constant catalyst and money than investors expect. The Skive demonstration plant faced
volume; and a single HT-WGS step would be necessary for DME, many difficulties such as the lack of long-term gasification data, in-
Fischer-Tropsch or CH4 synthesis. In this matter, commercial and syn- tegrated plant control, and availability of subsidies. Fortunately, the
thesized FeCr catalysts were analyzed in HT-WGS tests in the presence project managed to overcome such challenges and the plant is now fully
of contaminants (H2S, NH3, and HCl). FeCr was a promising catalyst operational [32]. The CHOREN Beta plant faced similar issues but un-
because, despite initially deactivating in the presence of contaminants, fortunately did not have the same ending: the private investors gra-
the remaining activity was stable in long-term experiments. However, dually left the project, and CHOREN filed for insolvency. Finally, in
the only disadvantage of this catalyst was that, to compensate catalyst 2011, Linde Engineering Dresden GmbH purchased CHOREN, and de-
deactivation, a higher amount of catalyst was needed [150,152]. veloped a series of modifications in the Carbo-V® technology to solve
1019
existing technical issues [173,174]. or reproduce some of the figures in this paper.
6. Biomass gasification technology roadmap References
Gasification is a promising technology for biofuels production but, [1] Furlan FF, Filho RT, Pinto FHPB, Costa CBB, Cruz AJG, Giordano RLC, et al.
as presented in the course of this paper, has not reached full commercial Bioelectricity versus bioethanol from sugarcane bagasse: is it worth being flexible?
Biotechnol Biofuels 2013;6:142–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-6-142.
readiness [6,11] due to technical issues related to the high-scale op- [2] Dantas GA, Legey LFL, Mazzone A. Energy from sugarcane bagasse in Brazil: an
eration, high gas cleaning costs, biomass availability, biomass market assessment of the productivity and cost of different technological routes. Renew
instability, and investment difficulties. Nonetheless, much effort is Sustain Energy Rev 2013;21:356–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.
080.
currently underway to make gasification a mature and feasible biomass [3] Seabra JEA, Macedo IC. Comparative analysis for power generation and ethanol
conversion route. Many strategies that involve pressurized gasification production from sugarcane residual biomass in Brazil. Energy Policy
and biomass handling are pointed out by the Internal Energy Agency 2011;39:421–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.10.019.
[4] Akay G, Jordan CA. Gasification of fuel cane bagasse in a downdraft gasifier: in-
(IEA) and International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA): fluence of lignocellulosic composition and fuel particle size on syngas composition
Fuel supply and gasification: and yield. Energy Fuels 2011;25:2274–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef101494w.
[5] Ahmed II, Gupta AK. Sugarcane bagasse gasification: global reaction mechanism of
• Foment energy recovery from municipal waste to develop a homo- syngas evolution. Appl Energy 2012;91:75–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2011.07.001.
geneous waste fuel supply for thermochemical routes [6]; [6] International Energy Agency (IEA). Technology Roadmap: Delivering Sustainable
• Maximize energy efficiency of sugarcane bagasse gasification tech- Bioenergy; 2017.
[7] International Energy Agency (IEA). International renewable energy agency
nologies [6].
(IRENA). Biomass Heat Power - Technol Brief 2015.
Fuels and chemicals production: [8] Demirbas A. Emission characteristics of gasohol and diesohol. Energy Sources Part
• Develop BtL routes for the production of biodiesel and DME from A Recover Util Environ Eff 2009;31:1099–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
10916460801907120.
black liquor gasification [11];
•
[9] De Filippis P, Borgianni C, Paolucci M, Pochetti F. Gasification process of Cuban
Maturate pressurized gasification plants to produce bio-SNG, as in bagasse in a two-stage reactor. Biomass Bioenergy 2004;27:247–52. http://dx.doi.
the Bio2G project [11]; org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2003.11.009.
• Study hybrid biochemical and thermochemical routes [6]. [10] Rauch R, Kiennemann A, Sauciuc A. Fischer-Tropsch synthesis to biofuels (BtL
process). In: Triantafyllidis K, Lappas A, Stöcker M, editors. Role of catalysis for the
Power generation: sustainable production of bio-fuels and bio-chemicals 1st ed.Amsterdam: Elsevier
• Design and install grid-connected or decentralized gasification sys- B.V.; 2013. p. 397–443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-56330-9.00012-7.
[11] IRENA. REmap 2030: A renewable energy roadmap. Abu Dhabi.
tems for smaller-capacity co-generation (100–500 kW) [6];
• Perform studies to improve system performance and reduce costs of [12] Foust TD, Aden A, Dutta A, Phillips S. An economic and environmental comparison
of a biochemical and a thermochemical lignocellulosic ethanol conversion pro-
operations based on gasification and organic Rankine cycles [6]; cesses. Cellulose 2009;16:547–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10570-009-9317-x.
• Further develop biomass-fuelled solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC) to [13] Demirbas A. Biofuels sources, biofuel policy, biofuel economy and global biofuel
projections. Energy Convers Manag 2008;49:2106–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
ensure higher electricity generation efficiencies [6].
j.enconman.2008.02.020.
[14] Sun S, Sun S, Cao X, Sun R. The role of pretreatment in improving the enzymatic
7. Conclusions hydrolysis of lignocellulosic materials. Bioresour Technol 2016;199:49–58. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.08.061.
[15] Guerriero G, Hausman JF, Strauss J, Ertan H, Siddiqui KS. Lignocellulosic biomass:
Biomass gasification is a thermochemical technology that still in- biosynthesis, degradation, and industrial utilization. Eng Life Sci 2016;16:1–16.
spires further studying to become cost-competitive. Given this pa- http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/elsc.201400196.
norama, this paper aimed at presenting an overview of gasification [16] Brown RC. Introduction to thermochemical processing of biomass into fuels,
chemicals and power. In: Brown RC, editor. Thermochemical processing of bio-
concepts, emphasizing on some of the most challenging operating mass: conversion into fuels, chemicals and power 1st ed.Chichester: John Wiley &
parameters that are not typically discussed in detail in review papers: Sons; 2011. p. 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781119990840.ch1.
biomass moisture content and gasifier pressure. This review analyzed [17] Demirbas A. Thermochemical conversion processes. Biofuels - securing the planet's
future energy needs Trabzon: Springer; 2009. p. 261–304. http://dx.doi.org/10.
both settings from a chemical and operational point of view, based on 1007/978-1-84882-011-1_6.
laboratory, simulation, and demonstration-scale works. [18] Pinto F, André RN, Carolino C, Miranda M. Hot treatment and upgrading of syngas
Biomass moisture content is a factor that is strictly related to bio- obtained by co-gasification of coal and wastes. Fuel Process Technol
2014;126:19–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2014.04.016.
mass particle size, and it affects syngas contents, carbon conversion,
[19] Anukam A, Mamphweli S, Reddy P, Meyer E, Okoh O. Pre-processing of sugarcane
and cold gas efficiencies. Considering this, this paper presented diverse bagasse for gasification in a downdraft biomass gasifier system: a comprehensive
strategies to handle high-moisture content biomass materials, such as review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;66:775–801. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2016.08.046.
biomass pretreatment methods and co-gasification.
[20] Bain RL, Broer K. Gasification. In: Brown RC, editor. Thermochemical processing
High-pressure operations slightly affect syngas LHV and yields but of biomass: conversion into fuels, chemicals and power 1st ed.Chichester: John
increase exergy efficiencies, which justifies the attempts of developing Wiley & Sons; 2011. p. 47–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781119990840.ch3.
high-pressure gasification processes. Programs that include the [21] Mohanty P, Pant KK, Naik SN, Parikh J, Hornung A, Sahu JN. Synthesis of green
fuels from biogenic waste through thermochemical route - the role of hetero-
RENUGAS®, Ultra Clean Gas, and CHOREN Carbo-V® technologies, as geneous catalyst: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;38:131–53. http://dx.
well as the BIOFLOW, CHRISGAS, and Bio2G projects have made doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.011.
numberless efforts to develop pressurized gasification technologies. [22] Samiran NA, Jaafar MNM, Ng JH, Lam SS, Chong CT. Progress in biomass gasifi-
cation technique - With focus on Malaysian palm biomass for syngas production.
However, pressurized fluidized bed gasification still encounters several Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;62:1047–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.
operational and economic problems, being been thoroughly discussed 2016.04.049.
in this paper. [23] Business Insider. Commodities; 2017. 〈http://markets.businessinsider.com/
commodities〉. [Accessed 1 January 2017].
[24] Li YW, Xu J, Yang Y. Diesel from syngas. In: Vertés AA, Qureshi N, Blaschek HP,
Acknowledgements Yukawa H, editors. Biomass to biofuels: strategies for global industries Wiltshire:
John Wiley & Sons; 2010. p. 123–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470750025.
ch6.
The authors would like to thank Conselho Nacional de [25] LWrightBBoundyPCBadgerBPerlackSDavis. Table A.1 - lower and higher heating
Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) (140772/2016-2), values of gas, liquid and solid fuels. biomass energy data B. 4th ed., Oak Ridge;
and grants #2016/18546-8 and #2015/20630-4, São Paulo Research 2011.
[26] Hu J, Yu F, Lu Y. Application of Fischer-Tropsch synthesis in biomass to liquid
Foundation (FAPESP)/CAPES for the technical and financial support.
conversion. Catalysts 2012;2:303–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/catal2020303.
The authors would also like to thank Springer, John Wiley and Sons, [27] Din ZD, Zainal ZA. Biomass integrated gasification-SOFC systems: technology
Elsevier, and Formatex Research Centre for granting permission to use overview. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;53:1356–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1020
1016/j.rser.2015.09.013. [54] Pirola C, Fronzo A Di, Galli F, Bianchi CL, Comazzi A, Manenti F. Biosyngas
[28] Ahmad AA, Zawawi NA, Kasim FH, Inayat A, Khasri A. Assessing the gasification conversion by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis: experimental results and multi-scale si-
performance of biomass: a review on biomass gasification process conditions, mulation of a PBR with high Fe loaded supported catalysts. Chem Eng Trans
optimization and economic evaluation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;37:595–600. http://dx.doi.org/10.3303/CET1437100.
2016;53:1333–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.030. [55] Eliseev OL. Gas-to-liquid technologies. Russ J Gen Chem 2009;79:2509–19. http://
[29] Molino A, Chianese S, Musmarra D. Biomass gasification technology: the state of dx.doi.org/10.1134/S1070363209110395.
the art overview. J Energy Chem 2016;25:10–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. [56] Gómez-Barea A, Leckner B. Modeling of biomass gasification in fluidized bed. Prog
jechem.2015.11.005. Energy Combust Sci 2010;36:444–509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2009.12.
[30] Demirbas A. Biomass feedstocks. Biofuels: securing the planet's future energy 002.
needs. Trabzon: Springer; 2009. p. 45–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1- [57] Bain R. IEA bioenergy, Task 33, United States Country Report; 2011.
84882-011-1_2. [58] Sansaniwal SK, Pal K, Rosen MA, Tyagi SK. Recent advances in the development of
[31] Derham P. Annual Report 2017 - IEA Bioenergy; 2017. biomass gasification technology: a comprehensive review. Renew Sustain Energy
[32] Hrbek J. Status report on thermal biomass gasification in countries participating in Rev 2017;72:363–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.038.
IEA bioenergy task 33; 2016. [59] Puig-Arnavat M, Bruno JC, Coronas A. Review and analysis of biomass gasification
[33] Phitsuwan P, Sakka K, Ratanakhanokchai K. Improvement of lignocellulosic bio- models. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:2841–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
mass in planta: a review of feedstocks, biomass recalcitrance, and strategic ma- j.rser.2010.07.030.
nipulation of ideal plants designed for ethanol production and processability. [60] Kaewluan S, Pipatmanomai S. Gasification of high moisture rubber woodchip with
Biomass Bioenergy 2013;58:390–405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe. rubber waste in a bubbling fluidized bed. Fuel Process Technol 2011;92:671–7.
2013.08.027. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2010.11.026.
[34] Monlau F, Barakat A, Trably E, Dumas C, Steyer J-P, Carrère H. Lignocellulosic [61] Doherty W, Reynolds a, Kennedy D. Aspen Plus simulation of biomass gasification
materials into biohydrogen and biomethane: impact of structural features and in a steam blown dual fluidised bed. Mater Process Energy 2013:212–20.
pretreatment. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 2013;43:260–322. http://dx.doi.org/ [62] Puig-Arnavat M, Bruno JC, Coronas A. Modified thermodynamic equilibrium
10.1080/10643389.2011.604258. model for biomass gasification: a study of the influence of operating conditions.
[35] Phitsuwan P, Sakka K, Ratanakhanokchai K. Improvement of lignocellulosic bio- Energy Fuels 2012;26:1385–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef2019462.
mass in planta: a review of feedstocks, biomass recalcitrance, and strategic ma- [63] Alauddin ZABZ, Lahijani P, Mohammadi M, Mohamed AR. Gasification of lig-
nipulation of ideal plants designed for ethanol production and processability. nocellulosic biomass in fluidized beds for renewable energy development: a re-
Biomass Bioenergy 2013;58:390–405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe. view. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:2852–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
2013.08.027. rser.2010.07.026.
[36] Devendra LP, Kiran Kumar M, Pandey A. Evaluation of hydrotropic pretreatment [64] Corella J, Toledo JM, Molina G. A review on dual fluidized-bed biomass gasifiers.
on lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour Technol 2016;213:350–8. http://dx.doi.org/ Ind Eng Chem Res 2007;46:6831–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie0705507.
10.1016/j.biortech.2016.03.059. [65] Göransson K, Söderlind U, He J, Zhang W. Review of syngas production via bio-
[37] Zhao X, Zhang L, Liu D. Biomass recalcitrance. Part I: the chemical compositions mass DFBGs. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:482–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.
and physical structures affecting the enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulose. 1016/j.rser.2010.09.032.
Biofuels, Bioprod Bioref 2012;6:465–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1331. [66] E4Tech. Review of technologies for gasification of biomass and wastes - final re-
[38] Leal Silva JF, Grekin R, Mariano AP, Maciel Filho R. Making levulinic acid and port; 2009.
ethyl levulinate economically viable: a worldwide techno-economic and environ- [67] Christou C, Hadjipaschalis I, Poullikkas A. Assessment of integrated gasification
mental assessment of possible routes. Energy Technol 2017;5:1–28. http://dx.doi. combined cycle technology competitiveness. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
org/10.1002/ente.201700594. 2008;12:2459–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2007.06.010.
[39] Brandt A, Gräsvik J, Hallett JP, Welton T. Deconstruction of lignocellulosic bio- [68] Hossein Sahraei M, McCalden D, Hughes R, Ricardez-Sandoval LA. A survey on
mass with ionic liquids. Green Chem 2013;15:550–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/ current advanced IGCC power plant technologies, sensors and control systems.
c2gc36364j. Fuel 2014;137:245–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.07.086.
[40] Faba L, Díaz E, Ordóñez S. Recent developments on the catalytic technologies for [69] Klimantos P, Koukouzas N, Katsiadakis A, Kakaras E. Air-blown biomass gasifi-
the transformation of biomass into biofuels: a patent survey. Renew Sustain Energy cation combined cycles (BGCC): system analysis and economic assessment. Energy
Rev 2015;51:273–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.06.020. 2009;34:708–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2008.04.009.
[41] Modesto M, Aoki AC, Lodi A, Pina EA. Assessment of the potential to increase [70] Breault RW. Gasification processes old and new: a basic review of the major
electricity generation from sugarcane straw in Brazilian sugarcane cogeneration technologies. Energies 2010;3:216–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en3020216.
plants. Chem Eng Trans 2016;50:193–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.3303/CET1650033. [71] Kirkels AF, Verbong GPJ. Biomass gasification: still promising? A 30-year global
[42] Wright MM, Brown RC. Costs of thermochemical conversion of biomass to power overview. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:471–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.
and liquid fuels. In: Brown RC, editor. Thermochemical processing of biomass: 1016/j.rser.2010.09.046.
conversion into fuels, chemicals and power 1st ed.John Wiley & Sons; 2011. p. [72] Long III HA, Wang T. Parametric techno-economic studies of coal/biomass co-
307–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781119990840.ch10. gasification for IGCC plants with carbon capture using various coal ranks, fuel-
[43] Dayton DC, Turk B, Gupta R. Syngas cleanup, conditioning, and utilization. In: feeding schemes, and syngas cooling methods. Int J Energy Res 2016;40:473–96.
Brown RC, editor. Thermochemical processing of biomass: conversion into fuels, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/er.3452.
chemicals and power 1st ed.Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2011. p. 78–123. [73] Bridgwater AV. Upgrading fast pyrolysis liquids. In: Brown RC, editor.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781119990840.ch4. Thermochemical processing of biomass: conversion into fuels, chemicals and
[44] Demirbas A. Converting biomass derived synthetic gas to fuels via Fischer-Tropsch power 1st ed.Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2011. p. 157–99. http://dx.doi.org/
synthesis. Energy Sources Part A Recover Util Environ Eff 2007;29:1507–12. 10.1002/9781119990840.ch6.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567030601003676. [74] Patel M, Zhang X, Kumar A. Techno-economic and life cycle assessment on lig-
[45] Tijmensen MJA, Faaij APC, Hamelinck CN, Van Hardeveld MRM. Exploration of nocellulosic biomass thermochemical conversion technologies: a review. Renew
the possibilities for production of Fischer Tropsch liquids and power via biomass Sustain Energy Rev 2016;53:1486–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.
gasification. Biomass Bioenergy 2002;23:129–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ 070.
S0961-9534(02)00037-5. [75] Wu C, Yin X, Ma L, Zhou Z, Chen H. Operational characteristics of a 1.2-MW
[46] Wang H, Yan J, Dong L. Simulation and economic evaluation of biomass gasifi- biomass gasification and power generation plant. Biotechnol Adv 2009;27:588–92.
cation with sets for heating, cooling and power production. Renew Energy http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2009.04.020.
2016;99:360–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.07.001. [76] Huynh C Van, Kong SC. Performance characteristics of a pilot-scale biomass ga-
[47] Villetta M La, Costa M, Massarotti N. Modelling approaches to biomass gasifica- sifier using oxygen-enriched air and steam. Fuel 2013;103:987–96. http://dx.doi.
tion: a review with emphasis on the stoichiometric method. Renew Sustain Energy org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.09.033.
Rev 2017;74:71–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.02.027. [77] Bronson B, Gogolek P, Mehrani P, Preto F. Experimental investigation of the effect
[48] Niu M, Huang Y, Jin B, Wang X. Simulation of syngas production from municipal of physical pre-treatment on air-blown fluidized bed biomass gasification. Biomass
solid waste gasification in a bubbling fluidized bed using Aspen Plus. Ind Eng Bioenergy 2016;88:77–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.03.009.
Chem Res 2013;52:14768–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie400026b. [78] Doherty W, Reynolds A, Kennedy D. The effect of air preheating in a biomass CFB
[49] Karamarkovic R, Karamarkovic V. Energy and exergy analysis of biomass gasifi- gasifier using ASPEN Plus simulation. Biomass Bioenergy 2009;33:1158–67.
cation at different temperatures. Energy 2010;35:537–49. http://dx.doi.org/10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.05.004.
1016/j.energy.2009.10.022. [79] Mirmoshtaghi G, Skvaril J, Campana PE, Li H, Thorin E, Dahlquist E. The influence
[50] Kalinci Y, Hepbasli A, Dincer I. Comparative exergetic performance analysis of of different parameters on biomass gasification in circulating fluidized bed gasi-
hydrogen production from oil palm wastes and some other biomasses. Int J Hydrog fiers. Energy Convers Manag 2016;126:110–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
Energy 2011;36:11399–407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.04.025. enconman.2016.07.031.
[51] Rauch R, Kiennemann A, Sauciuc A. Fischer-Tropsch synthesis to biofuels (BtL [80] Pfeifer C, Koppatz S, Hofbauer H. Steam gasification of various feedstocks at a dual
process). In: Triantafyllidis Kostas, Lappas ASM, editors. The role of catalysis for fluidised bed gasifier: impacts of operation conditions and bed materials. Biomass
the sustainable production of bio-fuels and bio-chemicals 1st ed.Elsevier B.V; Convers Biorefinery 2011;1:39–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13399-011-
2014. p. 397–443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-56330-9.00012-7. 0007-1.
[52] Galadima A, Muraza O. Waste to liquid fuels: potency, progress and challenges. Int [81] Horvat A, Kwapinska M, Xue G, Rabou LPLM, Pandey DS, Kwapinski W, et al. Tars
J Energy Res 2015;39:1451–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/er.3360. from fluidized bed gasification of raw and torrefied miscanthus x giganteus.
[53] Manganaro J, Chen B, Adeosun J, Lakhapatri S, Favetta D, Lawal A. Conversion of Energy Fuels 2016;30:5693–704. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.
residual biomass into liquid transportation fuel: an energy analysis. Energy Fuels 6b00532.
2011;25:2711–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef200327e. [82] Lahijani P, Zainal ZA. Gasification of palm empty fruit bunch in a bubbling
1021
fluidized bed: a performance and agglomeration study. Bioresour Technol In: Bridgwater AV, editor. Progress in thermochemical biomass conversion
2011;102:2068–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.09.101. Cornwall: Wiley Blackwell; 2008. p. 499–508. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
[83] Tong ASF, Lai KCK, Ng KTW, Tsang DCW, Liu T, Liu J, et al. Renewable energy 9780470694954.ch40.
generation by full-scale biomass gasification system using agricultural and forestal [108] Lu YJ, Jin H, Guo LJ, Zhang XM, Cao CQ, Guo X. Hydrogen production by biomass
residues. Pract Period Hazard Toxic Radioact Waste Manag 2007;11:177–83. gasification in supercritical water with a fluidized bed reactor. Int J Hydrog
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-025X(2007)11:3(177). Energy 2008;33:6066–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.07.082.
[84] Ross D, Noda R, Horio M, Kosminski A, Ashman P, Mullinger P. Axial gas profiles [109] Mayerhofer M, Mitsakis P, Meng X, De Jong W, Spliethoff H, Gaderer M. Influence
in a bubbling fluidised bed biomass gasifier. Fuel 2007;86:1417–29. http://dx.doi. of pressure, temperature and steam on tar and gas in allothermal fluidized bed
org/10.1016/j.fuel.2006.11.028. gasification. Fuel 2012;99:204–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.04.022.
[85] Narváez I, Orıo A, Aznar MP, Corella J. Biomass gasification with air in an at- [110] Hannula I, Kurkela E. A parametric modelling study for pressurised steam/O2-
mospheric bubbling fluidized bed. Effect of six operational variables on the quality blown fluidised-bed gasification of wood with catalytic reforming. Biomass
of the produced raw gas. Ind Eng Chem Res 1996;35:2110–20. http://dx.doi.org/ Bioenergy 2012;38:58–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.02.045.
10.1021/ie9507540. [111] Wan W. An innovative system by integrating the gasification unit with the su-
[86] van Der Drift A, van Doorn J, Vermeulen JW. Ten residual biomass fuels for cir- percritical water unit to produce clean syngas for solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC):
culating fluidized-bed gasification. Biomass Bioenergy 2001;20:45–56. http://dx. system performance assessment. Int J Hydrog Energy 2016;41:22698–710. http://
doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(00)00045-3. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.09.146.
[87] Han Z, Zeng X, Yao C, Wang Y, Xu G. Comparison of direct combustion in a cir- [112] Siedlecki M, de Jong W. Biomass gasification as the first hot step in clean syngas
culating fluidized bed system and decoupling combustion in a dual fluidized bed production process - gas quality optimization and primary tar reduction measures
system for distilled spirit lees. Energy Fuels 2016;30:1693–700. http://dx.doi.org/ in a 100 kW thermal input steam-oxygen blown CFB gasifier. Biomass Bioenergy
10.1021/acs.energyfuels.5b02265. 2011;35:S40–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.05.033.
[88] Kitzler H, Pfeifer C, Hofbauer H. Pressurized gasification of woody biomass-var- [113] Kurkela E, Ståhlberg P, Laatikainen J, Simell P. Development of simplified IGCC-
iation of parameter. Fuel Process Technol 2011;92:908–14. http://dx.doi.org/10. processes for biofuels: supporting gasification research at VTT. Bioresour Technol
1016/j.fuproc.2010.12.009. 1993;46:37–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0960-8524(93)90052-D.
[89] Xu G, Murakami T, Suda T, Tani H, Mito Y. Efficient gasification of wet biomass [114] Hannula I, Kurkela E. A semi-empirical model for pressurised air-blown fluidised-
residue to produce middle caloric gas. Particuology 2008;6:376–82. http://dx.doi. bed gasification of biomass. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:4608–15. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.partic.2008.07.004. org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.01.072.
[90] Xu Guangwen, Murakami Takahiro, Suda Toshiyuki, Matsuzawa Yoshiaki, Tani [116] Gallmetzer G, Ackermann P, Schweiger A, Kienberger T, Gröbl T, Walter H, et al.
Hidehisa. Enhancing High Water Content Biomass Gasification with Impregnated The agnion Heatpipe-reformer-operating experiences and evaluation of fuel con-
Ca in Fuel Drying. AIChE J. 2006;52(10):3555–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aic. version and syngas composition. Biomass Convers Biorefinery 2012;2:207–15.
10969. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13399-012-0046-2.
[91] Zhang Y, Zheng Y. Co-gasification of coal and biomass in a fixed bed reactor with [117] Evans P, Paskach T, Reardon J. Detailed kinetic modeling to predict syngas
separate and mixed bed configurations. Fuel 2016;183:132–8. http://dx.doi.org/ composition from biomass gasification in a PBFB reactor. Environ Prog Sustain
10.1016/j.fuel.2016.06.066. Energy 2010;29:184–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ep.10464.
[92] Wang WC, Tao L. Bio-jet fuel conversion technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev [118] Gas Technology Institute. A GTI historical timeline; 2018. 〈http://timeline.
2016;53:801–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.016. gastechnology.org/〉.
[93] Wei J, Guo Q, Chen H, Chen X, Yu G. Study on reactivity characteristics and sy- [119] National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Gasification technology for clean, cost-
nergy behaviours of rice straw and bituminous coal co-gasification. Bioresour effective biomass electricity generation; 1997. 〈http://www.nrel.gov/docs/
Technol 2016;220:509–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.08.116. legosti/fy97/22315.pdf〉.
[94] Valdés CF, Chejne F, Marrugo G, Macias RJ, Gómez CA, Montoya JI, et al. Co- [120] J. Patel. Gasification I. In: Proceedings of the international conference on ther-
gasification of sub-bituminous coal with palm kernel shell in fluidized bed coupled mochemical conversion science. Chicago; 2011.
to a ceramic industry process. Appl Therm Eng 2016;107:1201–9. http://dx.doi. [121] Illinois P. Renewable gasoline from wood: a transportation fuel of the future?
org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.07.086. 2014. 〈http://www.progressillinois.com/quick-hits/content/2014/06/06/
[95] Pinto F, André R, Miranda M, Neves D, Varela F, Santos J. Effect of gasification renewable-gasoline-wood-transportation-fuel-future〉.
agent on co-gasification of rice production wastes mixtures. Fuel [122] Bengtsson S. The CHRISGAS project. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:S2–7. http://dx.
2016;180:407–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2016.04.048. doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.08.012.
[96] Zhu Y, Piotrowska P, Van Eyk PJ, Boström D, Wu X, Boman C, et al. Fluidized bed [123] E. Kurkela, I. Hannula, M. Kurkela. Improved process concepts for cost-effective
co-gasification of algae and wood pellets: gas yields and bed agglomeration ana- production of syngas from biomass. Bioenergy from For. Conference, Helsinki;
lysis. Energy Fuels 2016;30:1800–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels. 2014.
5b02291. [124] Möller BF, Molin A, Ståhl K. Bio2G – A full-scale reference plant in Sweden for
[97] Arena U, Di Gregorio F. Fluidized bed gasification of industrial solid recovered production of bio-SNG (biomethane) based on thermal gasification of biomass. In:
fuels. Waste Manag 2016;50:86–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016. Proceedings of the international conference on thermochemical conversion sci-
02.011. ence; 2013, p. 1–18.
[98] Brachi P, Chirone R, Miccio F, Miccio M, Picarelli A, Ruoppolo G. Fluidized bed co- [125] M. Deutmeyer. Commercialization of short rotation coppice in Germany; 2009.
gasification of biomass and polymeric wastes for a flexible end-use of the syngas: 〈http://www.uchile.cl/documentos/commercialization-of-short-rotation-coppice-
focus on bio-methanol. Fuel 2014;128:88–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel. in-germany-michael-deutmeyer_57122_26_5935.pdf〉.
2014.02.070. [126] Development of the IGT RENUGAS process. In: Proceedings of the 29th inter-
[99] Grigoras IF, Stroe RE, Sintamarean IM, Rosendahl LA. Effect of biomass pretreat- society energy conversion engineering conference, Monterey, 1994, p. 1–9.
ment on the product distribution and composition resulting from the hydrothermal [127] Lau FS. The Hawaiian project. Biomass Bioenergy 1998;15:233–8. http://dx.doi.
liquefaction of short rotation coppice willow. Bioresour Technol org/10.1016/S0961-9534(98)00017-8.
2017;231:116–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.01.056. [128] J. Gissy, R.A. Knight, M. Onischak, R.H. Carty, S.P. Babu. Technology develop-
[100] Gollakota ARK, Kishore N, Gu S. A review on hydrothermal liquefaction of bio- ment and commercialization of the RENUGAS process. Us-finl. Biofuels Work. II,
mass. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016:1–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser. Espoo, 1992, p. 1–19.
2017.05.178. [129] A.R.A.R. Trenka, C.M.C.M. Kinoshita, P.K.P.K. Takahashi, V.D.V.D. Phillips, C.C.
[101] Berrueco C, Recari J, Güell BM, Alamo G. Pressurized gasification of torrefied Caldwell, R. Kwok, et al. Demonstration plant for pressurized gasification of bio-
woody biomass in a lab scale fluidized bed. Energy 2014;66:849–59. http://dx. mass feedstocks. In: Klass DL, editor. Energy from biomass wastes XV conference,
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.12.035. Institute of Gas Technology, Chicago; 1991, p. 1–14.
[102] Kurkela E, Kurkela M, Hiltunen I. The effects of wood particle size and different [130] Knight RA. Experience with raw gas analysis from pressurized gasification of
process variables on the performance of steam-oxygen blown circulating fluidized- biomass. Biomass Bioenergy 2000;18:67–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0961-
bed gasifier. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 2014;33:681–7. http://dx.doi.org/10. 9534(99)00070-7.
1002/ep. [131] Gas Technology Institute . The GTI gasification process: 1–9. https://www.netl.
[103] Srinivas T, Gupta AVSSKS, Reddy BV. Thermodynamic equilibrium model and doe.gov/File Library/research/coal/energysystems/gasification/gasifipedia/
exergy analysis of a biomass gasifier. J Energy Resour Technol 2009;131:31801. GTIGasificationProcess9_18_07.pdf; 2007.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.3185354. [132] M.L. Rollins, L. Reardon, D. Nichols, P. Lee, M. Moore, M. Crim et al. Economic
[104] Feng F, Song G, Shen L, Xiao J. Simulation of bio-syngas production from biomass evaluation of CO2 sequestration technologies. Task 4, biomass gasification-based
gasification via pressurized interconnected fluidized beds. In: Qu S, Zhang L, processing - final technical report; 2002.
Zhang X, Li Z, editors. Lecture notes in electrical engineering, 250. Berlin: [133] Yates JG, Lettieri P. Conversion of biomass and waste fuels in fluidized-bed re-
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg; 2012. p. 1145–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ actors. Fluid. React. Process. Oper. Cond. London: Springer; 2016. p. 111–36.
978-3-642-37922-2_122. [134] K. Salo, A. Horvath, J. Patel. Pressurized gasification of biomass. In: Proceedings of
[105] Song G, Chen L, Xiao J, Shen L. Exergy evaluation of biomass steam gasification the international gas turbine aeroengine congress and exhibition, Stockholm;
via interconnected fluidized beds. Int J Energy Res 2013;37:1743–51. http://dx. 1998, p. 1–11.
doi.org/10.1002/er.2987. [135] Babu SP. Thermal gasification of biomass; 1999.
[106] Zuber C, Hochenauer C, Kienberger T. Test of a hydrodesulfurization catalyst in a [136] Knight RA. Experience with raw gas analysis from pressurized gasification of
biomass tar removal process with catalytic steam reforming. Appl Catal B Environ biomass. Biomass Bioenergy 2000;18:67–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0961-
2014;156–157:62–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2014.03.005. 9534(99)00070-7.
[107] Romey I, Adorni M, Wartmann J, Herdin G, Beran R, Sjöström K, et al. Concept for [137] Bain RL, Overand RP, Craig KR. Gasification for heat and power, methanol and
a decentralised combined heat and power generation unit for biomass gasification. hydrogen. In: Rosillo-Calle F, Bajay SV, Rothman H, editors. Industrial uses of
1022
biomass energy: the example of Brazil. London: Taylor & Francis; 2000. p. 200–16. biombioe.2011.04.036.
[138] M.T. Hansen. Thermal biomass gasification - in Denmark. In: Proceedings of the [161] Basile F, Albertazzi S, Barbera D, Benito P, Einvall J, Brandin J, et al. Steam re-
EBA Workshop: Contribution of biogas towards European renewable energy policy forming of hot gas from gasified wood types and miscanthus biomass. Biomass
beyond 2020, Brussels; 2017. Bioenergy 2011;35:S116–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.06.047.
[139] CCorporation , CHeatPRationale. Carbona to deliver biomass gasification plant to [162] Einvall J, Parsland C, Benito P, Basile F, Brandin J. High temperature water-gas
Denmark; 2004. shift step in the production of clean hydrogen rich synthesis gas from gasified
[140] Kurkela E Gasification-based energy production systems for different size classes - biomass. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:S123–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
potential and state of R&D n.d. p. 155–66. 〈http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/ biombioe.2011.04.052.
NCLCollectionStore/_Public/29/045/29045771.pdf〉. [163] Sánchez JM, Barreiro MM, Maroño M. Hydrogen enrichment and separation from
[141] I. Hannula.Hydrogen production via thermal gasification of biomass in near-to- synthesis gas by the use of a membrane reactor. Biomass Bioenergy
medium term; 2009. 2011;35:S132–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.03.037.
[142] Ståhl K, Neergaard M. IGCC power plant for biomass utilisation, Värnamo, [164] Huisman GH, Van Rens GLMA, De Lathouder H, Cornelissen RL. Cost estimation of
Sweden. Biomass Bioenergy 1998;15:205–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0961- biomass-to-fuel plants producing methanol, dimethylether or hydrogen. Biomass
9534(98)00025-7. Bioenergy 2011;35:S155–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.04.038.
[143] Lundqvist RG. The IGCC demonstration plant at Värnamo. Bioresour Technol [165] Baudin A, Nordvall HO. What are the challenges of setting up a biomass fueled
1993;46:49–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0960-8524(93)90053-E. dimethylether plant in Växjö? Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:S167–74. http://dx.
[144] K. Ståhl, L. Waldheim, M. Morris, U. Johnsson, L. Gårdmark. Biomass IGCC at doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.06.049.
Värnamo, Sweden – Past and Future. GCEP Energy Work., Stanford; 2004, p. 1–16. [166] B.F. Möller, K. Ståhl, A. Molin. Bio2G - a full-scale reference plant for production
[145] Ståhl Krister, Neergaard Magnus, Nieminen J. Progress report: varnamo biomass of bio-SNG (biomethane) based on thermal gasification of biomass in Sweden. In:
gasification plant. 1999 Gasif. In: Proceedings of the technologies conference, San Proceedings of the 21st European biomass conference and exhibition, vol. 1,
Francisco, California; 1999, p. 1–16. Copenhagen; 2013, p. 1–4. 〈http://dx.doi.org/10.5071/21stEUBCE2013-4AO.
[146] Ståhl K, Neergaard M, Nieminen J. Final report: värnamo demonstration pro- 5.3〉.
gramme. In: Bridgwater AV, editor. Progress in thermochemical biomass conver- [167] I.R. Skov, B.V. Mathiesen, D. Connoly. A review of biomass gasification technol-
sion Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd; 2001. p. 549–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ ogies in Denmark and Sweden. Aalborg; 2013.
9780470694954.ch44. [168] B.F. Möller. Gasification development at E.ON. In: Proceedings of the SCG inter-
[147] Bengtsson S. VVBGC demonstration plant activities at Värnamo. Biomass national seminar on gasification 2010; 2010, p. 1–15.
Bioenergy 2011;35:S16–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.03.034. [169] A.I. Horvath. Synthesis gas generation for transportation fuel production synthesis
[148] European Parliament and Council . Directive 2003/30/EC of the European gas generation for transportation fuels content. In: Proceedings of the gasification
Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of technologies conference 2014, Washington; 2014, p. 1–16.
biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport. Off J Eur Union; 2003. 〈http:// [170] European Comission. Bio2G - NER 300; 2016.
www.ebb-eu.org/legis/JOpromotion EN.pdf〉. [Accessed 1 January 2017]. [171] B.F. Möller. Status of Bio2G and gasification testing at GTI. In: Proceedings of the
[149] Brandin J, Liliedahl T. Unit operations for production of clean hydrogen-rich SCG international seminar on gasification 2014 - Bio2G; 2014, p. 1–11.
synthesis gas from gasified biomass. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:S8–15. http://dx. [172] Lappas A, Heracleous E. Production of biofuels via Fischer-Tropsch synthesis:
doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.05.025. biomass-to-liquids. In: Luque R, Campelo J, Clark J, editors. Handbook of biofuels
[150] S. Bengtsson. CHRISGAS project - publishable final activity report; 2010. production: processes and technologies. Abington; 2011. p. 1–658.
[151] Albertazzi S, Basile F, Brandin J, Einvall J, Hulteberg C, Fornasari G, et al. The [173] Runge W. Technology entrepreneurship: a treatise on entrepreneurs and en-
technical feasibility of biomass gasification for hydrogen production. Catal Today trepreneurship for and in technology ventures 2. Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific pub-
2005;106:297–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2005.07.160. lishing; 2014. p. 1–1266. http://dx.doi.org/10.5445/KSP/1000036460. (No
[152] J. Brandin, T. Liliedahl. CHRISGAS - intermediate report. Växjö; 2008. Title).
[153] Esteban LS, Carrasco JE. Biomass resources and costs: assessment in different EU [174] Rauch R, Hrbek J, Hofbauer H. Biomass gasification for synthesis gas production
countries. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:S21–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. and applications of the syngas. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Energy Environ
biombioe.2011.03.045. 2014;3:343–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wene.97.
[154] Lerman P, Wennberg O. Experimental method for designing a biomass bed dryer. [175] R. Rapier. Visit to new Choren BTL Plant; 2008. 〈http://www.
Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:S31–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011. energytrendsinsider.com/2008/05/03/visit-to-new-choren-btl-plant/〉. [Accessed
04.033. 14 April 2018].
[155] P. Friehling, K. Petersen, T. Koch. Development of a piston feeder for high pressure [176] Higman C, van der Burgt M. Gasification processes. Gasification. 2nd ed.
gasification. In: Proceedings of the 15th European biomass conference and ex- Burlington MA: Elsevier; 2008. p. 1–391.
hibition, Berlin; 2007, p. 1189–92. [177] R. Rapier. What happened at Choren? 2011.〈http://www.energytrendsinsider.
[156] Liliedahl T, Sjöström K, Engvall K, Rosén C. Defluidisation of fluidised beds during com/2011/07/08/what-happened-at-choren/〉. [Accessed 16 April 2018].
gasification of biomass. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:3–10. http://dx.doi.org/10. [178] Kittelmann H. Carbo-V® biomass gasification technology: status after application
1016/j.biombioe.2011.05.006. of sound engineering practices. IAE Work; 2014.
[157] Gustafsson E, Lin L, Seeman MC, Rodin J, Strand M. Characterization of particu- [179] Goldschmidt B, Padban N, Cannon M, Kelsall G, Neergaard M, Ståhl K, et al.
late matter in the hot product gas from atmospheric fluidized bed biomass gasi- Ammonia formation and NOx emissions with various biomass and waste fuels at
fiers. Energy Fuels 2011;25:1781–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef101710u. the Värnamo 18 MWth IGCC plant. In: Bridgwater AV, editor. Progress in ther-
[158] Porbatzki D, Stemmler M, Müller M. Release of inorganic trace elements during mochemical biomass conversion Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd; 2001. p. 524–35.
gasification of wood, straw, and miscanthus. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:S79–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470694954.ch42.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.04.001. [180] Basile F, Trifirò F. Biomass gasification for second-generation fuel production. In:
[159] Stemmler M, Müller M. Chemical hot gas cleaning concept for the “CHRISGAS” Fornasiero P, Graziani M, editors. Renewable resources and renewable energy, a
process. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:S105–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. global challenge. 2nd ed.Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2012. p. 1–480.
biombioe.2011.03.044. [181] B.C. Wiant, D.M. Bachovchin, M. Onischak, R.H. Carty, M. Ratcliff. Biomass ga-
[160] Simeone E, Nacken M, Haag W, Heidenreich S, de Jong W. Filtration performance sification: hot gas filter testing results. In: Proceedings of the International gas
at high temperatures and analysis of ceramic filter elements during biomass ga- turbine aeroengine congress exhibition, Birmingham; 1996, p. 1–8.
sification. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:S87–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
1023

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews: Sciencedirect

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews: Sciencedirect

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

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews: Sciencedirect

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 94 (2018) 998–1023

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

Biomass gasiﬁcation in ﬂuidized beds: A review of biomass moisture content T

1. Introduction electricity, and transportation fuels [4], enhancing diversity of energy

alcohol [36]. These features confer to lignin its primary functions:

Gasiﬁcation is a process initially employed for the conversion of

vg generic formula for biomass is assumed to be CHxOy, and thus stoi-

Combustion CO + H2O Electricity

Gasification CO + H2 Water gas shift CO2 + H2 Hydrogen

Fig. 3. Gasiﬁcation and syngas applications.

LHVsyngas × syngas flow rate 3.3. Gasiﬁers

Partial combustion C + 0.5O2 ⇌ CO − 111

Syngas Flue gas

Fig. 6. Simpliﬁed scheme of a BIGCC process without CCS.

E.ON bio-SNG plant

Fig. 7. Pressurized biomass ﬂuidized bed gasiﬁcation sites.

Fig. 8. Scheme of the RENUGAS® PDU at Chicago.

Tars and nitrogen

Booster Gas cooler

Steam Gas cooler Hydrogenation

New syngas Stack Gas

Fig. 12. Bio2G plant concept.

Low-temperature Carbo-V gasifier

Fig. 13. Process scheme of the Carbo-V® technology.

6. Biomass gasiﬁcation technology roadmap References

You might also like