- Email: [email protected]
Characteristics of the Solid Fuels for the Plasma Gasification
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect ScienceDirect Available onlineatatwww.sciencedirect.com www.sciencedirect.com Available online Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 ScienceDirect ScienceDirect
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Energy (2017) 000–000 282–286 EnergyProcedia Procedia141 00 (2017) www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
4th International Conference on Power and Energy Systems Engineering, CPESE 2017, 25-29 2017, Berlin, Germany 4th International Conference September on Power and Energy Systems Engineering, CPESE 2017, 25-29 September 2017, Berlin, Germany The 15th International Symposium District andGasification Cooling Characteristics of the Solid Fuelsonfor the Heating Plasma
Characteristics of the Solid Fuels for the Plasma Gasification Aytacthe Sanlisoy*, Halil Melez, Melda Ozdinc Assessing feasibility of using the heatCarpinlioglu demand-outdoor Aytac Sanlisoy*, Halil Melez, Melda Ozdinc Carpinlioglu University, Mechanical Engineering Department, Gaziantep 27310 Turkey temperature Gaziantep function for a long-term district heat demand forecast Gaziantep University, Mechanical Engineering Department, Gaziantep 27310 Turkey
I. Andrića,b,c*, A. Pinaa, P. Ferrãoa, J. Fournierb., B. Lacarrièrec, O. Le Correc
Abstract a IN+ Center for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research - Instituto Superior Técnico, Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal Abstract b Recherchefuels & Innovation, 291going Avenue Daniel, Limay, France In this study, c characteristics Veolia of 6 different which are to Dreyfous be gasified in a78520 plasma reactor are analyzed. The types of Département Systèmes Énergétiques et Environnement IMT Atlantique, 4 rue Alfred Kastler, 44300 Nantes, France fuels Russian coal, South coal,fuels Sırnak-Turkey coal, hornbeam sawdust, pine tree sawdust and polyethylene. In thisare study, characteristics of Africa 6 different which are going to be gasified in a plasma reactor are analyzed. The typesThe of characteristics of these examined measuring heating values, densities performing the proximate and ultimate fuels are Russian coal, fuels Southare Africa coal, by Sırnak-Turkey coal, hornbeam sawdust,and pine tree sawdust and polyethylene. The analysis on their composition. carbonbyand hydrogenheating contentvalues, have densities a favorable on the heating value and meanwhile, characteristics of these fuels areThe examined measuring andinfluence performing proximate ultimate moisture, ash, oxygen, nitrogenThe and carbon sulphurand havehydrogen an adverse effect. Thisa fact is alsoinfluence confirmed by proximate and ultimate analysis on their composition. content have favorable on heating value meanwhile, Abstract analysis. According to the results and it is observed that the South Africa have the higher values because of moisture, ash, oxygen, nitrogen sulphur have an Russian adverse and effect. This fact coals is also confirmed byheating proximate and ultimate their highAccording carbon and hydrogen content. Meanwhile theRussian moisture and volatile matter which arehigher high inheating sawdust is the cause of analysis. to the results it is observed that the and South Africa coals have the values because District heating networks are commonly addressed in the literature as one of the most effective solutions for decreasing the reduction heating Polyethylene Meanwhile has the highest heating value in calculation, although it high couldinnot be measured directly their high in carbon andvalues. hydrogen the moisture volatile matter which are sawdust is the cause of greenhouse gas emissions from content. the building sector. These systemsand require high investments which are returned through the heat by a bombincalorimeter. reduction heating values. Polyethylene has the highest heating value in calculation, although it could not be measured directly sales. Due to the changed climate conditions and building renovation policies, heat demand in the future could decrease, © 2017 Thecalorimeter. Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. byprolonging a bomb the investment return period. Ltd. © 2017 The Authors. Published by Peer-review under responsibility of Elsevier the organizing committee of CPESE 2017. © 2017 The Authors. Published Ltd. The main scope this paper isby to Elsevier assess the feasibility of using demand –Conference outdoor temperature for heat demand Peer-review underofresponsibility of the scientific committee of thethe 4thheat International on Power function and Energy Peer-review under responsibility of thelocated organizing committee of CPESE forecast.Engineering. The district of Alvalade, in Lisbon (Portugal), was2017. used as a case study. The district is consisted of 665 Systems Keywords: Proximate analysis ultimate analysis higher and lower heating value fuel characteristics
buildings that vary in both construction period and typology. Three weather scenarios (low, medium, high) and three district renovation scenarios were developed (shallow, intermediate, deep). To estimate the error, obtained heat demand values were compared with results from a dynamic heat demand model, previously developed and validated by the authors. 1. Introduction The results showed that when only weather change is considered, the margin of error could be acceptable for some applications 1.(the Introduction error in annual demand was lower than 20% for all weather scenarios considered). However, after introducing renovation In this study, characteristics solid fuels areonexamined byand proximate, and evaluating scenarios, the errorthe value increased up of to the 59.5% (depending the weather renovationultimate scenariosanalysis combination considered). heating values of the solid fuels. As an input to the system, the solid fuel characteristics especially the heating value In this study, the characteristics of the solid fuels are examined by proximate, ultimate analysis and evaluating The value of slope coefficient increased on average within the range of 3.8% up to 8% per decade, that corresponds to the have great forheating the thermochemical processes. Thesolid performance of the on process depends on the value input heating values the solid fuels. As an of input to the system, fuel characteristics especially the heating decrease in importance the of number of hours 22-139h during the the heating season (depending the combination of weather and energy. In the thermochemical input energy inincreased case of chemical anddecade the energy renovation scenarios considered). On the the otherfuels hand,are function intercept forof7.8-12.7% per (depending on is the have great importance for the process thermochemical processes. The performance the form process depends on amount the input coupledInscenarios). The values could be the usedmost to modify function parametersthe forheating the considered, and indicated by heating value.suggested In the literature, common value are amount the bomb energy. thethe thermochemical process the fuels are input energytheinways case to of calculate chemical form andscenarios the energy is improve the of heat demand estimations. indicated by accuracy the heating value. In the literature, the most common ways to calculate the heating value are the bomb Keywords: Proximate analysis ultimate analysis higher and lower heating value fuel characteristics
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and * Corresponding author. Tel.: +905349485684; Cooling.
E-mail address:author. [email protected] * Corresponding Tel.: +905349485684; E-mail address: [email protected] Keywords: Heat demand; Forecast; Climate change 1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review the organizing committee 1876-6102 ©under 2017responsibility The Authors. of Published by Elsevier Ltd. of CPESE 2017. Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CPESE 2017.
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling. 1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 4th International Conference on Power and Energy Systems Engineering. 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.11.106
Aytac Sanlisoy et al. / Energy Procedia 141 (2017) 282–286 Aytac Sanlisoy et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
283
calorimeter test or the empirical equations derived from the data of proximate and ultimate analysis [1]. There are numerous studies to find the heating value by using the proximate and ultimate analysis with the content restrictions [2-8]. For the solid fuels analyzed in this study, the equations derived by Channiwale & Parikh used to calculate the HHV [3] and Finet to calculate the LHV [4] by using the proximate and ultimate analysis data. Also, the heating value is measured by using the adiabatic bomb calorimeter. This study aimed to investigate the solid fuels characteristics which are going to be gasified in a plasma gasification system; MCw Gasifier. The input energy amount should be evaluated to find out the performance. The energy content of these fuels were evaluated by both bomb calorimeter measurement and the empirical equation which gives the heating values by using the proximate and ultimate analysis. 2. Experimental procedure The measurement procedure of density of solid fuels, proximate and ultimate analysis of solid fuels and higher heating value of them are presented in this section. 2.1. Density Density of solid samples are measured by using Eltra 84 Analytical Balance. 100 mL measuring cylinder is filled for the each sample and the mass is measured. The density is determined by the ratio of mass to volume. 2.2. Proximate analysis Proximate analysis indicate the contents of moisture, volatile matter, fixed carbon and ash in the fuels in percentage by weight. For the determination of contents of matter, the methodology is given below. Moisture content: Moisture content is determined by removing water from the sample fuel by the specified method without causing any chemical change to the fuel. Approximately, 1 g of fine powdered coal is weighed in the crucible which is covered by the lid. The crucible-lid is placed inside the oven where the temperature is maintained at 105-110� for 1 hour. Then sample is taken out and weighed. The loss in weight is giving the moisture content in fuel. Moisture content is calculated by using equation 1. Moisture �%� �
Initial weight of the sample � final weight of the sample � ��� ��� Initial weight of the sample
Volatile Matter: Volatile matter is determined by holding the dried fuel sample in the oven where the temperature is maintained at ��� � � ��� for 7 minute. Then the sample is weighted again. The losses in weight of dry fuel sample gives the volatile components. The percentage of the volatile matters can be calculated as equation 2. Volatile matter �%� �
Initial weight of the dr� sample � final weight of the sample � ��� ��� Initial weight of the sample
Ash content: Rest of the fuel sample in the crucible after the volatile matter measurements is held in the oven without using the lid at 700� + 50� for half an hour. After the burning of the fuel, the residue in the crucible gives the ash content. The amount is measured and the percentage ash is determined as equation 3. Ash �%� �
Residual weight of the sample � ��� ��� Initial weight of the sample
Fixed carbon: The difference between the initial weight of the sample and the sum of the moisture, volatile matter and ash gives the fixed carbon content. The percentage of the fixed carbon can be determined as equation 4.
Aytac Sanlisoy et al. / Energy Procedia 141 (2017) 282–286 Aytac Sanlisoy et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
284
Fixed carbon �%� � ��� � �ercen�age o� � �oi���re � �o�a�i�e �a��er � ��� � ���
2.3. Ultimate analysis
Ultimate analysis give the elementary composition of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen and Sulphur in the percentage by weight. LECO CHN 628 model analyzer is used to perform the experiments. The LECO CHN628 utilizes pure oxygen in the furnace to complete combustion and recovery of the elements of interest. Carrier gas sweeps the combustion gas to separate infrared cells utilized for the detection of H2O and CO2, while a thermal conductivity cell is used for the detection of nitrogen. 2.4. Higher heating value The heating value of fuels is determined by using adiabatic bomb calorimeter. In this method, coal samples are screened to 0.1 mm size while the sawdust are screened to 1mm size and 1 g sample is taken for analysis of each solid fuel. The heat resistance wire is measured and coiled to heat up and ignite the coal sample. The fuel sample capsule is produced by the press where the coil part of wire stays inside the capsule. Then the ends of wire coil are assembled to heater electrodes. The coal sample which is connected to poles of the heater is located in the crucible. The crucible is located in the bomb tank. The bomb tank is filled by compressed oxygen which has 10 bar pressure. After that the bomb tank is immersed into 2.5 Liter water in the bucket. The electric cable is connected to the cable ports of the bomb tank. The thermocouple is also immersed to the water bucket to monitor the temperature variation. Water in the bucket has the mixer to get the uniform temperature. When ignition is started, the temperature is measured and time counter is started. The electric current is applied to the wire coil in coal until the current is shorted. The maximum temperature of water and time are recorded. Then the Higher heating value (HHV) is calculated by using equation 5. ��� �
������ � � � ��� � �� � � �� � �� ��� ����� ������
������ is the amount of water in the bucket, c is the specific heat of water (4.187kJ/kg�), �� is the corrected initial temperature, �� is the corrected final temperature, �� is the correction parameter for the Sulphur in the sample, �� is the correction parameter for the heat resistance wire and ����� ������ is the weight of the fuel sample. �� and �� are neglected for the calculation because of the very small amounts of values for this experimentation.
The heating value of fuels are also calculated by using empirical equations described by Channiwala and Parikh [3] for the calculation of HHV and described by Finet [4] for calculation the LHV in equation 6 and equation 7 respectively. MJ HH� � ������� � ������H � ������� � ������O � ������� � ������a�� � � ��� kg
�H� � HH��� � H� O� � �����H� O � �H� �
3. Results
MJ � ��� kg
The properties of solid fuels are examined by measuring particle sizes, density, proximate and ultimate analysis and heating values. In the table 1, the particle sizes and the density of them are given. The each sample is meshed to the desired size as given in the table 1. While coals have much higher density, the densities of two sawdust and polyethylene are closer to each other. From coals, the Sırnak coal has the highest density with approximately 930 kg/m3.
Aytac Sanlisoy et al. / Energy Procedia 141 (2017) 282–286 Aytac Sanlisoy et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
285
Table 1: Density and size of the solid fuels for the gasification process Solid fuel
Particle sizes (mm)
Russian coal
0.1
South Africa coal Şırnak Coal
0.1 0.1
Hornbeam sawdust
1
Pine sawdust
1
Polyethylene
-
Density (kg/m3) 701.03 749.79 929.79 230.07 218.87 211,86
In the table 2, the proximate analysis results are given in terms of moisture, volatile matter, fixed carbon and ash contents. While coals include less moisture in the level of %3, sawdust include moisture in the level of %20. The moisture content decreases the heating value content. Similar results are presented for the volatile matter. While the volatile matter content is approximately %26 for coals, it jumps to the %70 level for sawdust. For polyethylene, the high percentage of the content includes the volatile matters. The high volatile matter content means that the high proportion of the fuel distill over as gas or vapour. It burns with the long flame, high smoke and has the adverse effect on the heating value. The fixed carbon content is desired for the higher heating value and this is the highest for the Russian coal which includes %67.46. Then the South Africa coal has the %56 fixed carbon. The Sırnak coal has less than %21 and sawdust have approximately the %10 fixed carbon. The ash content is not combustible matter and it reduces the heating value of the fuel. The results showed that Russian coal has the lowest ash with %5.87 while the South Africa coal has %14.71 and Sırnak coal has the %41.43 ash content. The sawdust have the ash content less than %1. In the table 3, the ultimate analyze results are presented. While the hydrogen and carbon content constitute the heating value, the oxygen, nitrogen, Sulphur and ash contents decrease the heating value of the fuel. The polyethylene has the highest carbon and hydrogen content in solid fuels with the contents of 69.6 carbon and 10.26 hydrogen. On the other hand, the sawdust have relatively less carbon and hydrogen in the fuels with contents of %36.15 and %39.66 for carbon and %6.24 and %6.45 for hydrogen in the hornbeam and pine sawdust relatively. In coals, the Russian coal (%66.81 Carbon, %4.49 Hydrogen) and the South Africa coal ((%62.56 Carbon, %4.08 Hydrogen) have similar carbon and hydrogen content, but the Sırnak coal (%42.18 Carbon, %3.75 Hydrogen) has relatively less carbon and hydrogen content. Table 2: Proximate analysis of the solid fuels Solid fuel Russian coal South Africa coal Şırnak Coal Hornbeam sawdust Pine sawdust Polyethylene
Moisture (%) 3.15 3.40 0.85 17.39 21.35 0.19
Volatile matter (%) 23.51 25.94 36.67 72.58 69.54 94.90
Fixed carbon (%) 67.46 55.94 21.05 10.02 8.53 0.91
Ash (%) 5.87 14.71 41.43 0.69 0.58 5.44
Table 3: Ultimate analysis of the solid fuels Solid fuel
Carbon (%)
Hydrogen (%)
Oxygen (%)
Nitrogen (%)
Russian coal
66.81
4.49
21.72
1.00
South Africa coal
62.56
4.08
17.61
0.64
Şırnak Coal
42.18
3.75
5.96
0.35
Hornbeam sawdust
36.15
6.24
56.92
0.00
Pine sawdust
39.66
6.45
53.30
0.00
Polyethylene
69.6
10.26
16.14
0.00
Sulphur (%) 0.11 0.40 6.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
In the table 4, the measured and calculated heating values are presented. While coals have greater higher heating value when compared with sawdust, the Sırnak coal has the lowest heating value in the coal types. The Russian and South Africa coal have also similar heating values. This is also result of similar carbon and hydrogen contents in
Aytac Sanlisoy et al. / Energy Procedia 141 (2017) 282–286 Aytac Sanlisoy et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
286
ultimate analysis. The heating value of the polyethylene is not available to measure by the adiabatic bomb calorimeter while it has great heating value potential which is found from the calculation. Table 4: Higher heating value of the solid fuel samples Adiabatic bomb calorimeter Solid fuel
HHV(kJ/kg)
Russian coal
31336.05
South Africa coal Şırnak Coal
30758.85 19954.03
Hornbeam sawdust
21352.90
Pine sawdust
17941.66
Polyethylene
-
Empirical equation HHV(kJ/kg) LHV(kJ/kg) 26240.19
24350.76
ERROR (%) 16
24546.44
22732.93
20
18284.11 14072.47
17284.45 9830.65
8 34
15921.67
10585.04
11
34633.44
32309.91
4. Conclusion The selected 6 different solid fuels which are commonly studied for gasification in the literature are examined to determine their characteristics. The Russian and South Africa coals have the maximum high heating value capacity while the Şırnak coal has significantly poor for the heating value. The polyethylene is also rich for the heating value even it includes the high amount of volatile matters. The sawdust have high moisture and volatile matter which causes the decrease in the heating value. The gasification of the selected fuels is going to be conducted to determine their energy conversion performance. Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of this work by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) under the contract number 115M389. References [1] Telmo C, Lousada J. Heating values of wood pellets from different species. Biomass and Bioenergy 2011:35:2634-9. [2] Demirbaş A. Calculation of higher heating values of biomass fuels. Fuel 1997:76:431-4. [3] Channiwala SA, Parikh PP. A unified correlation for estimating HHV of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels. Fuel 2002:81:1051-63. [4] Finet C. Heating value of municipal solid waste. Waste Management & Research 1987:5:141-5. [5] Demirbas A. Combustion characteristics of different biomass fuels. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 2004:30:219-30. [6] Demirbaş A. Relationships between lignin contents and heating values of biomass. Energy Conversion and Management 2001:42:183-8. [7] Sheng C, Azevedo JLT. Estimating the higher heating value of biomass fuels from basic analysis data. Biomass and Bioenergy 2005:28:499-507. [8] Parikh J, Channiwala SA, Ghosal GK. A correlation for calculating HHV from proximate analysis of solid fuels. Fuel 2005:84:487-94.
ScienceDirect ScienceDirect Available onlineatatwww.sciencedirect.com www.sciencedirect.com Available online Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 ScienceDirect ScienceDirect
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Energy (2017) 000–000 282–286 EnergyProcedia Procedia141 00 (2017) www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
4th International Conference on Power and Energy Systems Engineering, CPESE 2017, 25-29 2017, Berlin, Germany 4th International Conference September on Power and Energy Systems Engineering, CPESE 2017, 25-29 September 2017, Berlin, Germany The 15th International Symposium District andGasification Cooling Characteristics of the Solid Fuelsonfor the Heating Plasma
Characteristics of the Solid Fuels for the Plasma Gasification Aytacthe Sanlisoy*, Halil Melez, Melda Ozdinc Assessing feasibility of using the heatCarpinlioglu demand-outdoor Aytac Sanlisoy*, Halil Melez, Melda Ozdinc Carpinlioglu University, Mechanical Engineering Department, Gaziantep 27310 Turkey temperature Gaziantep function for a long-term district heat demand forecast Gaziantep University, Mechanical Engineering Department, Gaziantep 27310 Turkey
I. Andrića,b,c*, A. Pinaa, P. Ferrãoa, J. Fournierb., B. Lacarrièrec, O. Le Correc
Abstract a IN+ Center for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research - Instituto Superior Técnico, Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal Abstract b Recherchefuels & Innovation, 291going Avenue Daniel, Limay, France In this study, c characteristics Veolia of 6 different which are to Dreyfous be gasified in a78520 plasma reactor are analyzed. The types of Département Systèmes Énergétiques et Environnement IMT Atlantique, 4 rue Alfred Kastler, 44300 Nantes, France fuels Russian coal, South coal,fuels Sırnak-Turkey coal, hornbeam sawdust, pine tree sawdust and polyethylene. In thisare study, characteristics of Africa 6 different which are going to be gasified in a plasma reactor are analyzed. The typesThe of characteristics of these examined measuring heating values, densities performing the proximate and ultimate fuels are Russian coal, fuels Southare Africa coal, by Sırnak-Turkey coal, hornbeam sawdust,and pine tree sawdust and polyethylene. The analysis on their composition. carbonbyand hydrogenheating contentvalues, have densities a favorable on the heating value and meanwhile, characteristics of these fuels areThe examined measuring andinfluence performing proximate ultimate moisture, ash, oxygen, nitrogenThe and carbon sulphurand havehydrogen an adverse effect. Thisa fact is alsoinfluence confirmed by proximate and ultimate analysis on their composition. content have favorable on heating value meanwhile, Abstract analysis. According to the results and it is observed that the South Africa have the higher values because of moisture, ash, oxygen, nitrogen sulphur have an Russian adverse and effect. This fact coals is also confirmed byheating proximate and ultimate their highAccording carbon and hydrogen content. Meanwhile theRussian moisture and volatile matter which arehigher high inheating sawdust is the cause of analysis. to the results it is observed that the and South Africa coals have the values because District heating networks are commonly addressed in the literature as one of the most effective solutions for decreasing the reduction heating Polyethylene Meanwhile has the highest heating value in calculation, although it high couldinnot be measured directly their high in carbon andvalues. hydrogen the moisture volatile matter which are sawdust is the cause of greenhouse gas emissions from content. the building sector. These systemsand require high investments which are returned through the heat by a bombincalorimeter. reduction heating values. Polyethylene has the highest heating value in calculation, although it could not be measured directly sales. Due to the changed climate conditions and building renovation policies, heat demand in the future could decrease, © 2017 Thecalorimeter. Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. byprolonging a bomb the investment return period. Ltd. © 2017 The Authors. Published by Peer-review under responsibility of Elsevier the organizing committee of CPESE 2017. © 2017 The Authors. Published Ltd. The main scope this paper isby to Elsevier assess the feasibility of using demand –Conference outdoor temperature for heat demand Peer-review underofresponsibility of the scientific committee of thethe 4thheat International on Power function and Energy Peer-review under responsibility of thelocated organizing committee of CPESE forecast.Engineering. The district of Alvalade, in Lisbon (Portugal), was2017. used as a case study. The district is consisted of 665 Systems Keywords: Proximate analysis ultimate analysis higher and lower heating value fuel characteristics
buildings that vary in both construction period and typology. Three weather scenarios (low, medium, high) and three district renovation scenarios were developed (shallow, intermediate, deep). To estimate the error, obtained heat demand values were compared with results from a dynamic heat demand model, previously developed and validated by the authors. 1. Introduction The results showed that when only weather change is considered, the margin of error could be acceptable for some applications 1.(the Introduction error in annual demand was lower than 20% for all weather scenarios considered). However, after introducing renovation In this study, characteristics solid fuels areonexamined byand proximate, and evaluating scenarios, the errorthe value increased up of to the 59.5% (depending the weather renovationultimate scenariosanalysis combination considered). heating values of the solid fuels. As an input to the system, the solid fuel characteristics especially the heating value In this study, the characteristics of the solid fuels are examined by proximate, ultimate analysis and evaluating The value of slope coefficient increased on average within the range of 3.8% up to 8% per decade, that corresponds to the have great forheating the thermochemical processes. Thesolid performance of the on process depends on the value input heating values the solid fuels. As an of input to the system, fuel characteristics especially the heating decrease in importance the of number of hours 22-139h during the the heating season (depending the combination of weather and energy. In the thermochemical input energy inincreased case of chemical anddecade the energy renovation scenarios considered). On the the otherfuels hand,are function intercept forof7.8-12.7% per (depending on is the have great importance for the process thermochemical processes. The performance the form process depends on amount the input coupledInscenarios). The values could be the usedmost to modify function parametersthe forheating the considered, and indicated by heating value.suggested In the literature, common value are amount the bomb energy. thethe thermochemical process the fuels are input energytheinways case to of calculate chemical form andscenarios the energy is improve the of heat demand estimations. indicated by accuracy the heating value. In the literature, the most common ways to calculate the heating value are the bomb Keywords: Proximate analysis ultimate analysis higher and lower heating value fuel characteristics
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and * Corresponding author. Tel.: +905349485684; Cooling.
E-mail address:author. [email protected] * Corresponding Tel.: +905349485684; E-mail address: [email protected] Keywords: Heat demand; Forecast; Climate change 1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review the organizing committee 1876-6102 ©under 2017responsibility The Authors. of Published by Elsevier Ltd. of CPESE 2017. Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CPESE 2017.
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling. 1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 4th International Conference on Power and Energy Systems Engineering. 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.11.106
Aytac Sanlisoy et al. / Energy Procedia 141 (2017) 282–286 Aytac Sanlisoy et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
283
calorimeter test or the empirical equations derived from the data of proximate and ultimate analysis [1]. There are numerous studies to find the heating value by using the proximate and ultimate analysis with the content restrictions [2-8]. For the solid fuels analyzed in this study, the equations derived by Channiwale & Parikh used to calculate the HHV [3] and Finet to calculate the LHV [4] by using the proximate and ultimate analysis data. Also, the heating value is measured by using the adiabatic bomb calorimeter. This study aimed to investigate the solid fuels characteristics which are going to be gasified in a plasma gasification system; MCw Gasifier. The input energy amount should be evaluated to find out the performance. The energy content of these fuels were evaluated by both bomb calorimeter measurement and the empirical equation which gives the heating values by using the proximate and ultimate analysis. 2. Experimental procedure The measurement procedure of density of solid fuels, proximate and ultimate analysis of solid fuels and higher heating value of them are presented in this section. 2.1. Density Density of solid samples are measured by using Eltra 84 Analytical Balance. 100 mL measuring cylinder is filled for the each sample and the mass is measured. The density is determined by the ratio of mass to volume. 2.2. Proximate analysis Proximate analysis indicate the contents of moisture, volatile matter, fixed carbon and ash in the fuels in percentage by weight. For the determination of contents of matter, the methodology is given below. Moisture content: Moisture content is determined by removing water from the sample fuel by the specified method without causing any chemical change to the fuel. Approximately, 1 g of fine powdered coal is weighed in the crucible which is covered by the lid. The crucible-lid is placed inside the oven where the temperature is maintained at 105-110� for 1 hour. Then sample is taken out and weighed. The loss in weight is giving the moisture content in fuel. Moisture content is calculated by using equation 1. Moisture �%� �
Initial weight of the sample � final weight of the sample � ��� ��� Initial weight of the sample
Volatile Matter: Volatile matter is determined by holding the dried fuel sample in the oven where the temperature is maintained at ��� � � ��� for 7 minute. Then the sample is weighted again. The losses in weight of dry fuel sample gives the volatile components. The percentage of the volatile matters can be calculated as equation 2. Volatile matter �%� �
Initial weight of the dr� sample � final weight of the sample � ��� ��� Initial weight of the sample
Ash content: Rest of the fuel sample in the crucible after the volatile matter measurements is held in the oven without using the lid at 700� + 50� for half an hour. After the burning of the fuel, the residue in the crucible gives the ash content. The amount is measured and the percentage ash is determined as equation 3. Ash �%� �
Residual weight of the sample � ��� ��� Initial weight of the sample
Fixed carbon: The difference between the initial weight of the sample and the sum of the moisture, volatile matter and ash gives the fixed carbon content. The percentage of the fixed carbon can be determined as equation 4.
Aytac Sanlisoy et al. / Energy Procedia 141 (2017) 282–286 Aytac Sanlisoy et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
284
Fixed carbon �%� � ��� � �ercen�age o� � �oi���re � �o�a�i�e �a��er � ��� � ���
2.3. Ultimate analysis
Ultimate analysis give the elementary composition of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen and Sulphur in the percentage by weight. LECO CHN 628 model analyzer is used to perform the experiments. The LECO CHN628 utilizes pure oxygen in the furnace to complete combustion and recovery of the elements of interest. Carrier gas sweeps the combustion gas to separate infrared cells utilized for the detection of H2O and CO2, while a thermal conductivity cell is used for the detection of nitrogen. 2.4. Higher heating value The heating value of fuels is determined by using adiabatic bomb calorimeter. In this method, coal samples are screened to 0.1 mm size while the sawdust are screened to 1mm size and 1 g sample is taken for analysis of each solid fuel. The heat resistance wire is measured and coiled to heat up and ignite the coal sample. The fuel sample capsule is produced by the press where the coil part of wire stays inside the capsule. Then the ends of wire coil are assembled to heater electrodes. The coal sample which is connected to poles of the heater is located in the crucible. The crucible is located in the bomb tank. The bomb tank is filled by compressed oxygen which has 10 bar pressure. After that the bomb tank is immersed into 2.5 Liter water in the bucket. The electric cable is connected to the cable ports of the bomb tank. The thermocouple is also immersed to the water bucket to monitor the temperature variation. Water in the bucket has the mixer to get the uniform temperature. When ignition is started, the temperature is measured and time counter is started. The electric current is applied to the wire coil in coal until the current is shorted. The maximum temperature of water and time are recorded. Then the Higher heating value (HHV) is calculated by using equation 5. ��� �
������ � � � ��� � �� � � �� � �� ��� ����� ������
������ is the amount of water in the bucket, c is the specific heat of water (4.187kJ/kg�), �� is the corrected initial temperature, �� is the corrected final temperature, �� is the correction parameter for the Sulphur in the sample, �� is the correction parameter for the heat resistance wire and ����� ������ is the weight of the fuel sample. �� and �� are neglected for the calculation because of the very small amounts of values for this experimentation.
The heating value of fuels are also calculated by using empirical equations described by Channiwala and Parikh [3] for the calculation of HHV and described by Finet [4] for calculation the LHV in equation 6 and equation 7 respectively. MJ HH� � ������� � ������H � ������� � ������O � ������� � ������a�� � � ��� kg
�H� � HH��� � H� O� � �����H� O � �H� �
3. Results
MJ � ��� kg
The properties of solid fuels are examined by measuring particle sizes, density, proximate and ultimate analysis and heating values. In the table 1, the particle sizes and the density of them are given. The each sample is meshed to the desired size as given in the table 1. While coals have much higher density, the densities of two sawdust and polyethylene are closer to each other. From coals, the Sırnak coal has the highest density with approximately 930 kg/m3.
Aytac Sanlisoy et al. / Energy Procedia 141 (2017) 282–286 Aytac Sanlisoy et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
285
Table 1: Density and size of the solid fuels for the gasification process Solid fuel
Particle sizes (mm)
Russian coal
0.1
South Africa coal Şırnak Coal
0.1 0.1
Hornbeam sawdust
1
Pine sawdust
1
Polyethylene
-
Density (kg/m3) 701.03 749.79 929.79 230.07 218.87 211,86
In the table 2, the proximate analysis results are given in terms of moisture, volatile matter, fixed carbon and ash contents. While coals include less moisture in the level of %3, sawdust include moisture in the level of %20. The moisture content decreases the heating value content. Similar results are presented for the volatile matter. While the volatile matter content is approximately %26 for coals, it jumps to the %70 level for sawdust. For polyethylene, the high percentage of the content includes the volatile matters. The high volatile matter content means that the high proportion of the fuel distill over as gas or vapour. It burns with the long flame, high smoke and has the adverse effect on the heating value. The fixed carbon content is desired for the higher heating value and this is the highest for the Russian coal which includes %67.46. Then the South Africa coal has the %56 fixed carbon. The Sırnak coal has less than %21 and sawdust have approximately the %10 fixed carbon. The ash content is not combustible matter and it reduces the heating value of the fuel. The results showed that Russian coal has the lowest ash with %5.87 while the South Africa coal has %14.71 and Sırnak coal has the %41.43 ash content. The sawdust have the ash content less than %1. In the table 3, the ultimate analyze results are presented. While the hydrogen and carbon content constitute the heating value, the oxygen, nitrogen, Sulphur and ash contents decrease the heating value of the fuel. The polyethylene has the highest carbon and hydrogen content in solid fuels with the contents of 69.6 carbon and 10.26 hydrogen. On the other hand, the sawdust have relatively less carbon and hydrogen in the fuels with contents of %36.15 and %39.66 for carbon and %6.24 and %6.45 for hydrogen in the hornbeam and pine sawdust relatively. In coals, the Russian coal (%66.81 Carbon, %4.49 Hydrogen) and the South Africa coal ((%62.56 Carbon, %4.08 Hydrogen) have similar carbon and hydrogen content, but the Sırnak coal (%42.18 Carbon, %3.75 Hydrogen) has relatively less carbon and hydrogen content. Table 2: Proximate analysis of the solid fuels Solid fuel Russian coal South Africa coal Şırnak Coal Hornbeam sawdust Pine sawdust Polyethylene
Moisture (%) 3.15 3.40 0.85 17.39 21.35 0.19
Volatile matter (%) 23.51 25.94 36.67 72.58 69.54 94.90
Fixed carbon (%) 67.46 55.94 21.05 10.02 8.53 0.91
Ash (%) 5.87 14.71 41.43 0.69 0.58 5.44
Table 3: Ultimate analysis of the solid fuels Solid fuel
Carbon (%)
Hydrogen (%)
Oxygen (%)
Nitrogen (%)
Russian coal
66.81
4.49
21.72
1.00
South Africa coal
62.56
4.08
17.61
0.64
Şırnak Coal
42.18
3.75
5.96
0.35
Hornbeam sawdust
36.15
6.24
56.92
0.00
Pine sawdust
39.66
6.45
53.30
0.00
Polyethylene
69.6
10.26
16.14
0.00
Sulphur (%) 0.11 0.40 6.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
In the table 4, the measured and calculated heating values are presented. While coals have greater higher heating value when compared with sawdust, the Sırnak coal has the lowest heating value in the coal types. The Russian and South Africa coal have also similar heating values. This is also result of similar carbon and hydrogen contents in
Aytac Sanlisoy et al. / Energy Procedia 141 (2017) 282–286 Aytac Sanlisoy et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
286
ultimate analysis. The heating value of the polyethylene is not available to measure by the adiabatic bomb calorimeter while it has great heating value potential which is found from the calculation. Table 4: Higher heating value of the solid fuel samples Adiabatic bomb calorimeter Solid fuel
HHV(kJ/kg)
Russian coal
31336.05
South Africa coal Şırnak Coal
30758.85 19954.03
Hornbeam sawdust
21352.90
Pine sawdust
17941.66
Polyethylene
-
Empirical equation HHV(kJ/kg) LHV(kJ/kg) 26240.19
24350.76
ERROR (%) 16
24546.44
22732.93
20
18284.11 14072.47
17284.45 9830.65
8 34
15921.67
10585.04
11
34633.44
32309.91
4. Conclusion The selected 6 different solid fuels which are commonly studied for gasification in the literature are examined to determine their characteristics. The Russian and South Africa coals have the maximum high heating value capacity while the Şırnak coal has significantly poor for the heating value. The polyethylene is also rich for the heating value even it includes the high amount of volatile matters. The sawdust have high moisture and volatile matter which causes the decrease in the heating value. The gasification of the selected fuels is going to be conducted to determine their energy conversion performance. Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of this work by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) under the contract number 115M389. References [1] Telmo C, Lousada J. Heating values of wood pellets from different species. Biomass and Bioenergy 2011:35:2634-9. [2] Demirbaş A. Calculation of higher heating values of biomass fuels. Fuel 1997:76:431-4. [3] Channiwala SA, Parikh PP. A unified correlation for estimating HHV of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels. Fuel 2002:81:1051-63. [4] Finet C. Heating value of municipal solid waste. Waste Management & Research 1987:5:141-5. [5] Demirbas A. Combustion characteristics of different biomass fuels. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 2004:30:219-30. [6] Demirbaş A. Relationships between lignin contents and heating values of biomass. Energy Conversion and Management 2001:42:183-8. [7] Sheng C, Azevedo JLT. Estimating the higher heating value of biomass fuels from basic analysis data. Biomass and Bioenergy 2005:28:499-507. [8] Parikh J, Channiwala SA, Ghosal GK. A correlation for calculating HHV from proximate analysis of solid fuels. Fuel 2005:84:487-94.