frox.Energy Combusr. SCI Vol. 21, pp.

239-268, 1995
Pergamon Copyright 0 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0361X1285/95 $29.00

0360-1285(95)00005-4

FLUIDIZED BED COMBUSTION OF ALTERNATIVE SOLID FUELS;

STATUS, SUCCESSES AND PROBLEMS OF THE TECHNOLOGY

E. J. Anthony
CANMET, 555 Booth St, Oitawa. Ontario. Canada KIA OGl

Received 10 May 1995

Abstract-Fluidized bed combustion can be used for energy production or incineration for almost any
material containing carbon, hydrogen and sulphur in a combustible form, whether it be in the form of a
solid, liquid, slurry or gas. The technology’s fuel flexibility arises from the fact that the fuel is present in
the combustor at a low level and is burnt in the mass of a thermally inert bed material (typically this is
limestone if sulphur capture is required, otherwise sand). However, fuel flexibility must either be built
into the design of the combustor or alternatively the FBC system must be tailored for a specific fuel or
combination of fuels. In addition, the designer must consider issues like heat release patterns, ash
characteristics (particularly if the ash has any potential for agglomeration or fouling of heat transfer
surfaces or blockage of the return valve in the case of a circulating FBC) and any special requirements of
the fuel such as the need for sulphur or HCI capture. This paper surveys the literature on some of the
more important alternative fuels and also makes specific recommendations about problems or major
issues with those fuels. Particular attention is given to the use of FBC for petroleum coke, coal wastes,
wood pulp sludges, and biomass residues. These fuels are emphasized because of their current economic
importance, particularly in North America.

CONTENTS

Acronyms 240
I. Introduction 240
2. An Overview of FBC Technology 240
3. Petroleum Coke 242
3.1. Fuel origin and characteristics 242
3.2. Full-scale FBC boilers burning petroleum coke 243
3.2. I. Foster Wheeler boilers 243
3.2.2. CPC boiler burning petroleum coke 243
3.2.3. Pyropower experience 243
3.2.4. JapaneseFBCpetroleumcokeexperience 244
3.2.5. Asea Brown Boveri (ABB) 245
3.2.6. Asea Brown Boveri: The Chatham boiler trials 245
3.2.7. Asea Brown Boveri: The Scott Paper boiler trials 245
3.2.8. Asea Brown Boveri: Texas New Mexico CFBC 246
3.3. Gas emissions from petroleum coke 246
3.3.1. The SO, capture process 246
3.3.2. NO, formation 247
3.4. Nitrous oxide emissions from FBC petroleum coke firing 248
3.5. Corrosion and materials wastage issue with petroleum coke 249
3.6. Ash agglomeration and fouling problems when burning petroleum coke 250
3.7. Ash issues for petroleum coke FBC combustion 250
3.7.1. CFBC ash disposal 250
4. Coal Mining/Cleaning Wastes 251
4.1. Installations and experience by country 251
4. I. I. Australia 251
4. I .2. Belgium 252
4. I .3. Canada 252
4. I .4. China 253
4.1.5. France 253
4.1.6. Germany 255
4.1.7. India 255
4. I .8. Japan 255
4. I .9. South Africa 256
4.1. IO. United Kingdom 256
4.1. I I United States of America 257
4.2. General conclusions on the combustion of coal rejects 257
5. Peat 257
6. Pulp and Paper Wastes 257
6.1. Introduction 257
6.2. Industrial FBC boiler experience on paper sludges firing 258

239
240 E. J. Anthony

7. Municipal Solid and Industrial Wastes 258

7. I. Municipal solid wastes 258
7.2. Industrial waste fuels 259
8. Sewage Sludge 260
9. Waste Tyres 260
10. Agricultural/Food Processing Wastes 261
IO.1. Agricultural wastes 261
10.2. Food processing wastes 262
1I. Discussion 262
12. Conclusion 263
Acknowledgements 263
References 263

ACRONYMS
ABBAsea Brown Boveria ICAL International Combustion Africa
ARIPPAAnthracite Region Independent IEA IEA Coal Research
Power Producers Association JTA John Thompson Africa
ASME American Society of Mechanical KHI Kawashi Heavy Industries
Engineers LHV Lower Heating Value
ASR Autoshredder residue MCR Maximum capacity rating
BFBC Bubbling fluidized bed combustion MHI Mitsui Shipbuilding & Engineering
BHEL Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd Company
B&W Babcock &Wilcox MSFB Multi solids fluidized bed
CANMET Canada Centre for Mineral and MSW Municipal solid wastes
Energy Technology NBEPC New Brunswick Electric Power
CdF Charbonnage de France Commission
CFBC Circulating Fluid&d Bed NISCO Nelson Industrial Steam Company
Combustion PC Pulverized coal
CIBO Council of Industrial Boiler Owners PCB Polychlorinated biphenyls
CPC Combustion Power Company PCDD/CDF Polychlorodibenzo-p-dioxins and
CRIC Centre de Recherche Industrielle du polychloridibenzofurans
Quebec PERD Program on Energy Research and
CSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial Development
Research PFBC Pressurized fluidized bed
CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Indus- combustion
trial Research Organization RDF Refuse derived fuel
EC European Community SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
EMR Energy, Mines and Resources TCDD Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
EPI JWP-Energy Products of Idaho TCLP Toxic Characteristic Leachate
EPRI Electric Power Research Institute Procedure
ERL Energy Research Laboratories TDF Tyre derived fuel
FBC Fluidized bed combustion TVA Tennessee Valley Authority
FGD Flue gas desulphurization UBC University of British Columbia
HSE Hitachi Shipbuilding & Engineering WRI Western Research Institute
Company

1. INTRODUCTION 2. AN OVERVIEW OF FBC TECHNOLOGY

Alternative fuels cover a very wide range of materi-
als that can react exothermically with air. They in-
clude materials like petroleum coke and tyres which
have a calorific value equalling or exceeding good
quality coals, and others which in many cases require
a supplementary fuel in order to bum well, e.g.
materials of high water content, such as pulp sludges,
or high ash content, up to 60% or more. In addition,
these fuels may contain elevated sulphur levels of 6%
or more and elements like chlorine which make them
problematic to bum in an environmentally satisfac-
tory way. Fluidized bed combustion very often is the
best (and only) available combustion technology for
such fuels. The fluidized bed combustion system
must, of course, be designed to burn the fuels of
interest, or be of such a design as to accept a wide
range of fuels. The present survey examines experi-
ence in the use of FBC on the more important
existing alternative fuels.
Several FBC technologies are currently available
or are under development for the combustion of coal
and alternative fuels. The two basic types are bub-
bling bed FBC and circulating bed FBC, hereafter
referred to by the acronyms BFBC and CFBC.
Hybrid systems are also being developed, e.g. combus-
tors providing BFBC at the bottom and CFBC
higher up. Combustion of coal by FBC at elevated
pressure, termed PFBC, is under development. How-
ever, some of the advantages sought by use of PFBC,
such as combined-cycle operation (running a gas
turbine with the gaseous products), would be much
harder to realize with typically low-quality or highly
variable-quality waste coal streams or with a boiler
co-fired with alternative fuels. At present, PFBC is
not under consideration for these fuels, and there is
no prospect of it becoming attractive for such fuels
within the foreseeable future; however, the interested
reader is referred to a new book on the subject.’
 Fluidized bed combustion
Readers not versed in the fundamentals of atmos-
pheric pressure FBC should look to a number of
textbooks and references published either exclusively
on or dealing with combustion in FBC systems.2-6
There are also a number of excellent books on fluid-
ization which can compliment texts on FBC.7m9 The
literature on R&D is very extensive; the proceedings
of the biannual international conferences sponsored
by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) are a good starting point, the next of which,
the 14th Conference on FBC, will be held in Van-
couver, British Columbia, Canada in May 1997. In
addition, the biannual Circulating Fluidized Bed Con-
ferences are becoming increasingly important and
there is also a biannual conference organized by the
Institute of Energy (UK) on FBC, which although
typically held for only 2 days, covers the complete
range of FBC topics from bubbling and circulating
to pressurized FBC.
Only the briefest introduction can be offered here.
In short, in an FBC the combustor contains a charge
or ‘bed’ of solid particles. When sulphur-capture is
an issue, the combustor is typically fed with limestone
particles which calcine and then fix the SO2 evolved
in combustion as CaSO,. The bed in this case consists
of ‘sorbent ash’ made up of limestone particles at
various degrees of sulphation and ‘fuel ash’, including
the mineral debris contained in the fuel along with
the combustible matter and the intrinsic ash. In the
case of some alternative fuels such as coal-washery
rejects, the mineral debris (rock) is a major compo-
nent of the fuel and can also be a major component
of the bed. If the debris is partly limestone or shale,
it can also contribute to sulphur capture. On the
other hand, when sulphur capture is not an issue,
and so limestone is not employed, sand or other
inert mineral particles may have to be used in order
to maintain a bed (intrinsic ash in particular, i.e. the
ash, having its origin in the metallic elements oc-
curring in the coal ‘molecule’, is usually very fine
and is quickly blown out of the combustor by the
gases).
Combustion chambers for FBC typically have verti-
cal walls. The floor assembly typically includes a
‘distributor’ whose function is to introduce primary
combustion air more or less uniformly over the base
of the combustor. When secondary air is used, it is
introduced higher up. When no air is flowing, the
particle bed is ‘slumped’, i.e. at rest on the bottom.
When air is introduced, the bed at first remains
static while the pressure drop across it increases with
increasing flow rate. When the pressure drop equals
the bed weight per unit area, the bed is suspended
and further increases in gas flowrate thereafter cease
to significantly affect the pressure drop. The bed is
then said to be fluidized. The superficial gas velocity
at the onset of this state is called the minimum
fluidizing velocity. The gas flow in excess of the
minimum for fluidization first passes through the
bed largely in the form of bubbles or slugs. These
241
typically provide intense agitation and mixing of the
bed, one of the useful characteristics of ‘bubbling
bed’ fluidization. The agitation also causes the ejec-
tion of bursts and clouds of particles upward out of
the bed. The larger particles will drop back. How-
ever, if there are fines in the bed, as is always the
case in FBC, some of these will stay in suspension
and be elutriated (swept out of the combustor). A
cyclone separator is usually used to capture the bulk
of the elutriated particles. If the elutriation is heavy,
a part of the catch may be recycled to improve
combustion efficiency and/or help maintain the bed.
In a typical BFBC operation, the bed occupies the
lower part of the combustor, and the space above it,
called the freeboard, is tall, providing ample room
for fallout of particles with terminal settling velocity
less than the superficial gas velocity.
When the gas flow rate is increased still further,
the elutriation becomes increasingly heavy and at the
same time the bubbling action blurs and gives way to
a more chaotic agitation. At some point the distinc-
tion between bed and freeboard dissolves and the
whole combustor is filled with a strongly agitated,
highly dispersed, suspended, elutriating particle bed.
Under these conditions, a significant particle charge
can be maintained only by very heavy recirculation
of cyclone catch. This normally requires a large
cyclone which, in FBC, must be hot when operated,
thus refractory lined, to help maintain the bed tem-
perature. This mode of operation in FBC, with an
elutriating bed that fills the combustor and is main-
tained only by heavy recirculation, is known as circu-
lating fluidized bed combustion or CFBC.
FBC combustors are, for various reasons, operated
at bed temperatures well below the adiabatic combus-
tion temperature of the fuel, typically in the range
800-900 “C. Some of these reasons include the tem-
perature limits of combustor walls and exposed com-
ponents, ash softening and optimum sulphur capture
by limestone. One practical benefit of this is that
virtually no thermal NO, is produced. To keep the
bed temperature so far below the adiabatic combus-
tion level, heat on the order of one-half the com-
bustion heat release must be extracted. In BFBC,
this is done with in-bed heat exchange tubes and/or
water-cooled walls. In CFBC, obstructions inside
the combustor are not acceptable, so water-cooled
combustor walls and heat exchangers outside the
combustor in the recycle loop with the cyclone are
employed.
In steady operation of an FBC combustor, fuel,
and limestone or inert bed makeup material are fed
continuously. The fuel burns as fast as it is bed and
the combustible-content of the bed (mainly char) is
typically very low, in the order of 1%. Ash is continu-
ously withdrawn.
FBC combustors are typically round, square or
rectangular in cross-section. In characterizing this
geometry hereinafter, a designation such as ‘an 85 mm
dia. combustor’ implies a round cross-section, ‘100
242 E. J. Anthony
Furnace
Fig. 1. Delayed coking process.
mm sq. combustor’ implies a square cross-section,
and ‘150 mm x 250 mm combustor’ suggests a rec-
tangular cross-section.
3. PETROLEUM COKE
3.1. Fuel Origin and Characteristics
Petroleum coke is a byproduct from the upgrading
of heavy oil fractions to produce lighter hydrocar-
bons, i.e. gasoline, diesel and middle oil ranges, e.g.
lubricating oil. 3*10 While the coking process has
many variants, all of them involve thermal cracking
of the feed.
There are two major types of petroleum coke:
delayed coke, and fluid or flexicoke. Delayed coke is
produced at about 415-45O’C (780-840°F) while
fluid coking occurs at about 480-565’C (900-
1050’F). Both methods produce a coke residue com-
posed of solid hydrocarbon polymer containing pri-
marily semi-graphitic or amorphous carbon. Since
fluid coke results from a higher temperature process
it contains significantly less volatiles than delayed
coke. The fluidization process by which it is made
also ensures that it is significantly finer. Most refiner-
ies produce delayed coke. In Canada, only Syncrude
Canada Ltd and Imperial Oil Ltd use the fluid
coking process (Figs 1 and 2).
The term ‘delayed coke’ has been coined to de-
scribe the long residence time in the coke drum. This
is preceded by a short thermal cracking cycle in a
fired heater. The reactions associated with the crack-
ing process continue in the insulated coke drum. The
coke is deposited on the wall of the vessel until
eventually it is full, whereupon the coke is removed
in a batch process. Depending on its appearance,
delayed coke may also have other names, e.g. shot
coke. (N.B. Shot coke is formed under special circum-
stances, often in ‘off spec’ conditions and it may
have a higher volatile matter content than typical for
petroleum coke.)
In fluid coking, the process occurs at higher tem-
peratures and shorter residence times than in delayed
coking in order to increase the yield of liquid prod-
ucts. Fluid coking employs two vessels, a reactor and
a burner, and coke is circulated between them to
transfer heat. A fraction of the coke serves as fuel in
the burner.
Cokes produced in both processes often have a
high sulphur content (up to 8%) and a high nitrogen
content (up to 4%). In addition, the cokes can have
high vanadium and nickel contents since these are
concentrated from the parent feedstock. The ash
content is typically less than 1% but can be as high
as 5%. The coking process also ensures that volatiles
are low, typically about 46% for fluid cokes and 7-
13% for delayed cokes.iO~”
If the coke has a low sulphur content it may be
used for electrode manufacture by the metallurgical
industry for coking or as a chemical feedstock for
some other high value purpose.
Generally, coke has relatively little value and is
used as fuel either in cement kilns or conventional
PC boilers, sometimes with no sulphur emissions
control. This option is becoming increasingly limited,
so petroleum coke firing is likely to require a flue gas
desulphurization process (FGD). Alternatively, the
coke may simply be landfilled.
The amount of coke being generated is steadily
increasing as refineries are forced to process more
sour and heavy crudes. The types of cokes likely to
result from such processing will tend to have higher
sulphur contents and will be unsuitable for anode
grade material or for use in the chemical industry.
As a fuel, coke has an excellent heating value (about
34-35 MJ/kg or 14,000-15,000 Btu/lb) and it can be
 Fluidized bed combustion 243

&2ineer
- sti”k
GasOil 4 --_

Recycle * \/

Reactor

F---p

Fig. 2. Fluid coking process.

extremely cheap. In the United States the price can 3.2.2. CPC boiler burning petroleum coke
be about 0.19-0.38$t/GJ (0.2-0.4$/MMBtu) com-
Combustion Power Company Inc. (CPC) was the
pared to 1.9%/GJ (2.00$/MMBtu) for natural gas,
first North American company to carry out signifi-
while coal can be 2-8 times as expensive.‘*~‘”
cant industrial-scale work on petroleum coke firing
using FBC technology. It has also built more such
facilities than any other vendor although these boilers
3.2. Full-scale FBC Boilers Burning Petroleum Coke have been of a smaller size as CPC uses a hybrid
bubbling bed design. The boilers operated are fired
3.2.1. Foster Wheeler boilers either entirely with petroleum coke (5 units) or co-
fired with petroleum coke and coal (2 units) or gas (1
Foster Wheeler boilers that are operating or have
unit) and are listed in Table 3.’1*18--21The design of
operated on petroleum coke are listed in Table 1. ’5
these units, which are low-profile and modular in
The most important Foster Wheeler petroleum
construction, permits shop fabrication, facilitates con-
coke project and certainly their largest is the NISCO
struction and scale-up. Typical construction times
cogeneration project. This resulted from a partner-
for these units were 12-16 months which is competi-
ship between the Nelson Industrial Steam Company
tive with any other FBC technology. These plants
(NISCO), Citco Petroleum Company, Conoco Inc.,
are reported to have achieved 106% maximum capac-
Vista Chemical Company and Gulf States Utilities
ity rating (MCR) and to have high availabilities.
formed in January 1990. The contract to build two
The five CPC in the San Francisco Bay units are
100 MWe CFBC reheat steam generators was
nominally 19 MWe net each and burn fluid coke.
awarded to Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation.
The typical sulphur content of the fluid coke for the
Bechtel Power Corporation engineered the project
five units is 2-3x. The Hanford project is a nominal
design. The first of these units came on stream in
22 MWe cogeneration project that supplies steam to
July and the second in September 1992. The CFBC
an Armstrong tyre plant.
boilers are located in Westlake, Louisiana.
This project has been described in detail in three
recent reports ‘**16,17and boiler conditions are given 3.2.3. Pyropower experience
in Table 1. The coke being burned is Conoco delayed
Pyropower has limited experience with petroleum
coke with a heating value of 31.2 MJ/kg (13,450
coke firing from two boilers being operated in
Btu/lb) and feed size of 6.4 x 0 mm ($’ x 0). Table
Korea.** One of these, commissioned in 1984, was
2 gives the composition (ultimate analysis) for the
supplied to the Oriental Chemical Co. in Inchon.
fuel.
This unit has been fired with either 100% petroleum
coke or 100% high sulphur coal and is used for
cogeneration (see Table 4 for steam conditions).
7 Unless stated otherwise all $ values are pressed in Another Korean unit was supplied to the Kukdong
U.S.S. Oil Company Ltd. in Seosan in 1988. This boiler is
244 E. J. Anthony

Table 1. Steam characteristics for Foster Wheeler CFBC boilers fired on petroleum coke

Capacity Pressure Temperature

Customer (kg/s) (MPa) (“C) Start-up date

Fort Howard Paper 40.3 10.3 510 2/1988*

Company, Rincon, GA
City of Manitowoc, WI 25.2 6.7 485 411991
NISCO Cogen, 103.9/91.6 11.213.2 541/541 811992and 911992
Westlake, LA:
2 at 110 MWe RH UNITS
* Here the first number refers to the month and the second four digits refer to the year, i.e. 2/1988 is
February 1988.

Table 2. Ultimate analysis of Conoco coke used at NISCO, wet basis

Carbon Hydrogen Nitrogen Sulphur Ash Oxygen Moisture

79.74% 3.31% 1.67% 4.47% 0.27% 0.00% 10.60%

Table 3. CPC Inc. boilers

Project Rating Fuel Start-up Status

GWF-Bay 1, 22.0 kg/s Fluid coke Dee 1990 Operating

Pittsburg, CA 10.3 MPa
540°C
GWF-Bay 2, 22.0 kg/s Fluid coke Jan 1990 Operating
Pit&burg, CA 10.3 MPa
540°c
GWF-Bay 3, 22.0 kg/s Fluid coke Sept 1990 Operating
Antioch, CA 10.3 MPa
540°C
GWF-Bay 4, 22.0 kg/s Fluid coke Ott 1989 Operating
Antioch, CA 10.3 MPa
54OOC
GWF-Bay 5,* 22.0 kg/s Fluid coke Mar 1990 Operating
Pittsburg, CA 10.3 MPa
540°c
Rincon, GA 40.3 kg/s Coal, petroleum coke act 1991 Operating
10.3 MPa
540°c
Green Bay, WI 50.4 kg/s Coal, petroleum coke July 1992 Operating
6.0 MPa
480°C
GWF-Armstrong, 28.7 kg/s Petroleum coke, Converted to Operating
Hanford, CA 10.3 MPa natural gas petroleum
510°C coke, Ott 1990
* According to independent information, this unit is currently on standby to allow renegotiation of its
contract.

periodically fired with either 100% petroleum coke or
70% oil and petroleum coke, with limestone addition,
and is used for cogeneration. This unit was designed
solely for petroleum coke firing (delayed coke with 5%
sulphur) and the claimed availability of the boiler is in
the mid-1990s. The SO, removal is quoted as 90%
(600-800 ppm) with a nominal Ca/S mole ratio of 2,
and NO, emissions are approximately 4&50 ppm.
Pyropower also built a 59 MW boiler for the
Portland Cement Company in Colton, California.
This boiler, which started up in 1985, was designed
to burn coal but the operator ran 65% petroleum
coke (delayed coke, with 5% sulphur) starting in
1990 for just under a year.” However, there seems
to be no other information available on these trials.
3.2.4. Japanese FBCpetroleum coke experience
There are at least 41 FBC boilers operating in
Japan (31 BFBC and 10 CFBC) and several of these
bum petroleum coke23 (Table 5 lists boilers that
have burned petroleum coke in Japan).
Idemitu Kosan Company Ltd. has experience with
petroleum coke combustion using a Multi Solids
 Fluidized bed combustion 245

Table 4. Operating conditions for Pyropower boilers using petroleum coke

Start-up
Project Rating Fuel date Status

Oriental Chemical 33.3 kg/s 100% petroleum coke/coal 1984 Operating

Co., Inchon, Korea 10.9 MPa
23O’C
Kukdong Oil 33.3 kg/s 100% petroleum cake/70% 1985 Operating
Company Ltd, 10.8 MPa oil
Seosan, Korea 520°C
California Portland 24.1 kg/s 100% coal/co-fired with 1985 Operating
Cement Co., CA 4.5 MPa petroleum coke (I year)
440°C

Table 5. Japanese industrial FBC experience with petroleum coke

Site Steam t/h Manufacturer Type Start-up Fuel Emissions

Naruto Energy Co.* 75 (182,263 lb/h) KHI BFBC 1985 Anthracite/ NO, 250 ppm;
Petroleum coke SO, 366 ppm (or
100 mg/Nm3)
Chuetsu Co. 20 (48,604 lb/h) HSE BFBC 1984 Petroleum coke ?
Taisei Kensetetsu Co., Two units, each 1 Seiwakiko BFBC 1990 Petroleum coke ?
Chitose PC Works
Nihon Cement Co. 63 (153,101 lb/h) MHI CFBC 1989 Petroleum coke ?
Key: HSE is Hitachi Shipbuilding & Engineering Co.; KHI is Kawashi Heavy Industries; MHI is Mitsui Shipbuilding &
Engineering Co.
* After problems with ,fouling, the fuel was changed to coal

Fluidized Bed (MSFB) (Riley Stoker technology) 3.2.6. Asea Brown Boveri: The Chatham boiler trials
which was brought on stream in 1989. Kawashi
The Chatham 22 MWe CFB boiler was built under
Heavy Industries (KHI) has also carried out trials on
a jointly sponsored project by Energy, Mines and
petroleum coke in 1985 on its own FBC system with
Resources (EMR) and New Brunswick Electric
a patented ash recycle system. The boiler had an
Power Commission (NBEPC) as part of a $27 million
evaporation rate of 59 t/h (18.0 kg/s or 143,000 lb/h
demonstration program of CFBC technology in
of steam). The fuel used by Naruto Energy Corpora-
Canada. The unit was designed to produce 26.5 kg/s
tion was Texaco Wilmington coke (possible from the
(210,000 lb/h) of steam at 6.2 MPa (900 psig) and
Delaware refinery) with a sulphur content of 1.5%
482OC (900’F) to meet the requirements of an existing
and a V,O, content of 24.6% in the ash; however,
turbine.
the ash content of the coke was only 0.25%. The SO,
The Chatham CFBC boiler was initially designed
emissions were about 250 ppm and NO, levels about
to burn high sulphur coal using Albert county oil
80 ppm (for 4% 0, level). This result is quite remark-
shale and limestone for sulphur capture. The oil
able considering that the coke has a nitrogen content
shale proved to have insufficient calcium content to
of about 2.8%.24
justify its use and the unit had a number of problems
related to sulphur capture and cyclone performance
3.2.5. Asea Brown Boneri (ABB) which were largely resolved during the demonstration
program.
ABB has done limited work both at pilot-scale and
The Chatham CFBC boiler performed well on
industrial-scale on petroleum coke and has bid on a
delayed Conoco coke. ABB reports from the
number of petroleum coke projects. The following is
Chatham work that higher excess air, higher combus-
a summary of a presentation given by ABB on its
tor temperatures and lower secondary air resulted in
FBC experience with petroleum coke.
reduced carbon loss while increasing sorbent particle
ABB believes that CFB technology is particularly
sizes improved the sulphur capture.
suited to petroleum coke combustion, since it can
provide efficient combustion with low emissions, in-
bed sulphur removal and has a tolerance to heavy
3.2.7. Asea Brown Boveri: The Scott Paper boiler
meta1s.25 ABB has carried out experimental work
trials
using the University of British Columbia (UBC)
pilot-scale combustor, the 22 MWe Chatham CFBC The Scott Paper CFBC unit is located in Chester,
and the 65 MWe Scott Paper unit (Table 6). Pennsylvania and provides steam and electricity. The
unit, which is of Lurgi design, has been described in
detail e1sewhere.26 The boiler was designed to pro-
246 E. J. Anthony
Table 6. ABB experience with petroleum coke combustion
Coke Facility Location
Delayed, fluid and breeze Small pilot plant UBC
Delayed (Conoco: Chatham: 22 MWe New Brunswick
4.9% S) Chester, PA
Fluid coke (7.3% S) Scott Paper:
65 MWe
duce 81.9 kg/s (650,000 lb/h) of steam at 10 MPa
(1450 psig) and 510°C (950’F) while burning a wide
range of fuels including anthracite culm.
ABB has indicated that it also burned fluid petro-
leum coke in this 65 MWe unit in a number of short
trials. ABB claims that its Scott Paper work demon-
strated that the small particle size of the coke was
not detrimetal to the operation of the units and that
there was no cyclone afterburning or additional
carbon loss for the original fuel. In addition, the
petroleum coke co-firing was beneficial since its high
heating value stabilized the performance of the com-
bustor and helped the economics of the plant.
3.2.8. Asea Brown Boveri: Texas New Mexico CFBC
Very recently petroleum coke has been co-fired
with lignite at Texas New Mexico Power’s 320 MWth
CFBC plant. As in the case of the work being done
with the 160 MWe unit being operated by Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA), the price advantage of petro-
leum coke is providing the incentive for the project.
Current indications are that co-firing with petroleum
coke has been completely successful.”
3.3. Gas Emissions from Petroleum Coke
3.3.1, The SO, capture process
Sulphur capture for petroleum coke in FBC sys-
tems is within the normal range associated with coal.
In principle, the FBC SO, capture process for petro-
leum coke should be better than that for high volatile
coals, pitches or tars as a substantial volatile plume
reduces sulphur capture. This occurs because sulphur
compounds can bypass either the bed or the primary
reaction circuit under reducing conditions (the vola-
tile fraction in coal can contain a significant amount
of the sulphur). 28-31 In the case of petroleum coke,
volatile contents are relatively low and because the
fuel char is comparatively unreactive it is more prob-
able that it will be evenly distributed throughout the
bed particularly if the recycle ratio is large.
However, for bubbling bed or hybrid designs there
can also be the problem of secondary combustion in
the freeboard of the fines from fluid cokes which can
prevent good sulphur capture. These problems can
be prevented by operating at sufficiently low fluidiz-
Duration Date Condition
3 weeks ? Sole fuel
3 weeks Jan 1988 100% heat input
I week Aug 1988 15% heat input
8 weeks Apr 1991 (sweetener for culm)
ing velocities or ensuring high recycle like CPC de-
signs. One can also speculate that the high carbon
loadings in the return leg might enhance either sul-
phide production of the reverse sulphation process,
particularly if local thermal excursions are produced
in regions where air is used for pneumatic conveying
of solids (e.g. the return leg). However, there are no
reports in the open literature of particular problems
with petroleum cokes in terms of either sulphide
formation or low sulphur capture for petroleum coke
firing.
In earlier work supported by the Canadian Centre
for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET), it
was claimed that 90% capture with a Ca/S molar
ratio of 1.O: 1.3 was achieved with Syncrude coke
and Fort McMurray limestone.32 The most probable
explanation for these results is that true steady state
had not been achieved. A possible explanation for
such data may be that significant conversion of SO2
to SO3 occurs in the presence of vanadium, particu-
larly in the back pass of a boiler. In that case,
attempts to calculate the sulphur capture based on
SO2 measurements might well give very misleading
results and this has been suggested as an explanation
for some work done for CANMET on Conoco
coke.33*34
This type of phenomenon could be demonstrated
in the absence of limestone addition by measuring
the total SO,, either by wet chemistry and separate
measurement of the SO2 emissions or a direct meas-
urement of SO, (a unique analyser designed to meas-
ure SO, is available from Sevem Science Ltd).
Bench-scale tests in a fixed bed reactor do appear to
have demonstrated that ash from the petroleum coke
can catalyze SO2 to SO3 conversion.34 It should be
noted that limited and unpublished BFBC work by
CANMET on a delayed coke did not demonstrate
any such effect, but if the SO3 was preferentially
captured by the limestone, this may not be surprising.
Clearly, more work needs to be done to resolve this
issue.
Another possible difference for the sulphur capture
process is that the maximum capture appears to occur
at a somewhat higher temperature in the 900-95O’C
range. 32,35*36There is no definitive explanation for
this phenomenon, or for that matter the existence of
the 850°C SO, capture maximum. However, one might
speculate that higher temperatures are associated with
a lower bed carbon loading and hence their contribu-
 Fluidized bed combustion 247

Table 7. Emissions and conversion of fuel nitrogen from pilot-scale CFBC Conoco coke combustion33

Emissions from Conoco coke combustion Conversion of fuel nitrogen%*

Ca/S
Run Temp. molar N,O* NO,*
no. (“C) Ut (m/s) ratio @pm) @pm) NO, N,O Total

17-1 882 1.0 0.0 3.8 181 268 9.18 12.41 21.59
17-2 848 6.Y 2.5 4.3 191 58 1.99 13.09 15.08
I l-3 861 7.1 3.2 4.3 154 66 2.26 IO.56 12.82
25-l 849 6.4 0.0 4.9 243 175 6.00 16.66 22.65
25-2 859 6.4 2.5 5.2 212 97 3.32 14.53 17.85
25-3 894 6.7 2.8 5.0 I49 I12 3.84 10.21 14.05
25-4 847 5.3 2.4 3.8 I75 69 2.36 12.00 14.36
25-5 877 1.3 2.4 3.0 154 72 2.41 10.56 13.02
25-6 856 7.0 1.1 4.2 191 60 2.06 13.09 15.14
* Gas emissions corrected to 3% 0,.
t U = fluidizing velocity.

tion to the reverse sulphation reaction (1) is reduced:37
CaSO, + CO := CaO + SO, + CO,.
Finally, in some CANMET supported work using
a 380 sq. m BFBC for a 3% sulphur, delayed coke,
using primarily sand as the bed material, the sulphur
was found to be concentrated in the unburned char.
S/C molar ratios adopted values up to three times
higher than those associated with the original coke.36
This resulted in an effective apparent capture of
80: 20% between 83&1020°C. Such a phenomenon
would evidently reduce the apparent sulphur capture
as the bed temperature increased. However, it is
difficult to know if this phenomenon is common.
Certainly it does not appear to occur to any signifi-
cant extent for either Syncrude or Suncor petroleum
coke, the two cokes for which fuels CANMET has
extensive FBC experience. Nonetheless, this possi-
bility should be investigated further when exam-
ining the FBC combustion of a new petroleum coke
fuel.
3.3.2. NO, formation
As petroleum cokes contain significant fuel nitro-
gen, NO, formation might be expected to be a signifi-
cant concern with these fuels. However, from the
experimental data available, it appears that typically
relatively little of the fuel nitrogen is actually con-
verted to NO,. Despite this, the NO, levels are often
high. It seems that these high emissions are simply a
reflection of the relatively high inherent nitrogen
content in these fuels. Thus, for instance, Moritomi
and co-workers3* note that for their experiments
with a CFBC pilot plant, only 2% of the coke nitro-
gen is converted to NO, for petroleum coke combus-
tion, compared to 10.7% of the fuel nitrogen for one
of the coals they examined. This coal had a fuel
nitrogen of 1.1% while the petroleum coke contained
2.4% N. Table 7 shows that CANMET supported
work on a pilot CFBC which also gave very similar
results.
The most likely explanation for this relatively low
conversion is that the char which is present in rela-
(1)
tively high concentrations (e.g. for the CANMET
funded work mentioned above, the bed carbon load-
ing was about 4%) is effective in reducing overall
NO, emissions by catalyzing the reduction of NO by
C0.3g.40 This view has also been advanced by Mori-
tomi and his co-workers. Fortunately, it appears
that this reduction is directly to nitrogen rather than
N,0.38
Amand and co-workers (1991)40 performed some
critical experiments to study the reduction of NO
and the reduction and oxidation of N,O in a CFBC
environment which were subsequently supported by
Moritomi and co-workers (1991).38 In this work,
they injected separately 400 ppm of both NO and
N,O into the bottom of a 0.1 m (0.33 ft) dia., 5 m
(16.4 ft) high CFBC pilot plant with petroleum coke
as a fuel. They observed that, as was the case without
adding additional NO and N,O, NO decreased as a
function of reactor height while N,O increased (the
latter observation suggests that formation reactions
dominate destruction reactions from char with
N,O).
The added NO had little or no influence on N,O
production, supporting the contention that it is re-
duced directly to nitrogen rather than N,O. Likewise,
the added N,O did not influence overall NO emis-
sions. This suggests that N,O is not oxidized to NO
but rather reduced to nitrogen, although it has been
argued that under alternating oxidizing and reducing
conditions, NO formation from N,O decomposition
over sulphated limestone is possible.41
A very important difference between coal combus-
tion and petroleum coke combustion was demon-
strated in CANMET supported pilot plant trials
with Conoco petroleum coke.33 Here, limestone addi-
tion caused a net decrease in NO, levels from about
180 ppm (at 3% 0,) to 60-110 ppm range. Also,
there was no systematic increase in NO, emissions
as a function of increasing Ca/S molar ratio. Thus,
very much like results for N,O, limestone seems
248 E. J. Anthony

Table 8. Influence of FBC parameters on nitrous oxide emissior@

Parameter Nature of effect Support an effect

Increasing bed temperature Decreases N,O emissions 16outof16

NH, injection Increases N,O emissions 7outof7
Increasing fuel volatile content Decreases fuel-nitrogen conversion to N,O 10outof11
Increasing excess air Increases N,O formation 9outof 11
Air staging Decreases N,O 3outof4

to produce a net reduction in emissions above some
threshold value, but then has little additional
influence at higher levels. Table 7 gives the degree
of conversion of fuel nitrogen to NO, and N20 for
these trials.
The most tenable explanation for the relatively
low conversion of fuel nitrogen to NO, depends on
the fact that petroleum cokes have relatively low
volatile contents. This in turn means that the domi-
nant source of NO, and N,O is from the char. NO,
production with high volatile coals can be seen as a
competitive process between oxidation of NH, aris-
ing from fuel volatiles (which is then catalyzed by
CaO) and reduction of NO by CO over that catalyzed
by CaO, and perhaps CaSO,. If volatiles are effec-
tively absent, then any NO derived from NH3 pro-
duced from fuel volatiles will be absent. Thus, one
would expect that limestone would cause a net de-
crease in NO, emissions for petroleum coke combus-
tion, as observed. This argument was in fact first
advanced by Lyngfelt and Leckner (1 989)42 and has
subsequently been supported in the literature.41 How-
ever, this is a major difference between petroleum
coke and coal, for which NO, production increases
with increasing Ca/S mole ratio, and may often not
be understood.
3.4. Nitrous Oxide Emissions from FBC Petroleum
Coke Firing
It is well known that N,O emissions from coal
combustion in FBC systems can be elevated when
compared to conventional suspension firing without
Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR), i.e. 20-
200 ppm compared with c 5 ppm.43*44 For a high
nitrogen containing fuel like petroleum coke, these
emissions might intuitively be expected to be in the
upper range of emissions from FBC systems. This
observation is supported by pilot-scale CFBC tests
carried out by Moritomi and co-workers (1991),‘*
and CANMET supported pilot-scale CFBC tests
with petroleum coke. 33 However, since N,O emis-
sions are not regulated, there appear to be no pub-
lished data on emissions from full-scale boilers.
In the study by Moritomi and co-workers,‘s the
conversion of fuel nitrogen to N,O for petroleum
coke and coal were comparable at 22.6 and 20.5x,
respectively. These data are also similar to CANMET
funded work for Conoco petroleum coke combustion
in a 150 sq. mm (5.9 sq. in.) CFBC combustor
(Table 7) and by Amand and co-workers ( 1991)40 for
petroleum coke combustion in a 12 MWth CFBC.
Thus, fuel nitrogen appears to be very important in
terms of overall production of N,O and char forma-
tion of N,O appears to dominate char reduction of
N,O for petroleum coke firing.
The importance of char nitrogen in N,O produc-
tion was also supported by CANMET work on
bituminous coal, which showed NzO increased as a
function of reactor height for a small pilot-scale
BFBC.45 This is consistent with observations that
N,O emissions are high with petroleum coke from
pilot-scale FBC trials. Thus since fuel nitrogen con-
version from char appears to be comparable with
coal, as found in previous studies33*3s the presence
of fuel nitrogen at factors of 2 or 3 times greater
than coal should result in elevated N,O emissions.
It is interesting that Amand and Leckner (1991)39
and Amand and co-workers (1991)40 have also sup-
ported the key role of char nitrogen in the N,O
production by suggesting that HCN is of minor
importance in N,O formation when compared to
char nitrogen.
Johnsson notes that there is disagreement as
to the effect of various parameters on N,O emis-
sions. His summary of those differences of opinion
obtained from a literature survey are present in
Table 8.
NH, has been used by CPC in particular for some
of their FBC boilers for deN0, because the NO,
levels were relatively high for petroleum coke firing
compared to the emission levels in California. It
should be noted that Iisa and co-workers (1991)46
have suggested that CaO must be present to permit
the conversion of NH3 to N,O and that for their
results conversions ranged from l-15% which is in
contrast to the work of Shimizu and co-workers
(1991)“’ who observed N,O formation from NH,
addition for a small BFBC using a quartz bed. How-
ever, since fuel grade petroleum coke will require
limestone use for sulphur control, this point may be
moot.
The formation of secondary N,O with NH, addi-
tion has also been supported by other workers4**49
and has also been reported for a full-scale unit by
Brown and Muzio (1991),50 i.e. there was a 20%
increase in N,O production for a corresponding 80%
reduction in NO, levels for the TVA, 160 MWe
boiler. Unfortunately, N,O production from urea
injection in a 4 MW BFBC boiler was reported to be
 Fluidized bed combustion
significantly greater. N,O production doubled for a
mole ratio of urea of 0.8 (where the mole ratio is
defined as the number of moles of urea divided by
the number of moles of NO at the point of injec-
tion). 48 This effect parallels the behaviour of urea
in SNCR systems for conventional coal combus-
tion where N,O emissions of over 50 ppm have
been reported.41 Interestingly, tests on a 1 MW
BFBC reactor by Bramer and Valk (1991)49 also
found acetonitrile produced “remarkable amounts
of N,O”. It would seem likely that if deN0, is to
be used for petroleum coke combustion in FBC
systems, NH, will remain the best choice as a
reducing agent.
Johnsson (1991)43 notes that the effect of lime-
stone on N,O are somewhat complicated and reports
work carried out in Sweden at Chalmers University,
demonstrating that some limestones seem to show
no effect while others appear to be able to decrease
N,O formation. A similar conclusion was reached
by Cabrita and co-workers (1991)” who observed
no catalytic effect for experiments in which the Ca/S
ratio was varied from O-4.5 in trials carried out with
a small BFBC reactor. This result was also supported
by Brown and Muzio (1991)50 who observed no
effect due to limestone level on N,O emissions for
test work at the Nucla plant. However, most workers
have reported that CaO is an effective agent for the
destruction of N,0.38,46~52~54
While it is difficult to interpret much of the litera-
ture because of the use of a wide range of facilities
and fuels, part of the failure to see an effect may be
due to the fact that the net reduction in N,O is not a
strong function of the Ca/S molar ratio, as is the
case with NO, production for CFBC reactors burn-
ing coal. Thus in CANMET supported work, as dis-
cussed above, limestone was shown to produce a net
reduction in N,O in the 30% range (Table 7) while
varying the Ca/S molar ratio over a normal range
did not alter the degree of reduction, i.e. the effect of
limestone is related to some threshold level and
higher levels do not produce any benefits in terms of
net reduction of N,0.33 This same observation has
also been made by Gourichon and co-workers
(1991)55 for coal combustion trials with a 0.5 MW
CFBC. In this work a 20-30x reduction in N,O
(from levels near 110 ppm at 6% 0, to levels in
the 70-90 ppm at 6% 0,) was observed in the pres-
ence of limestone but no variation was seen in this
reduction over a Ca/S molar ratio range of
l&2.8 and this is also consistent with the observa-
tions of Brown and Muzio (1991)50 for the Nucla
CFBC plant.
The fact that limestone either produces no effect
on N,O emissions, or more typically a small net
reduction of the order of 20-30%, is an important
difference in terms of limestone behaviour with coal
combustion for NO,, where increases in Ca/S molar
ratio produce corresponding increases in NO, pro-
duction.
249
3.5. Corrosion and Materials Wastage Issue with
Petroleum Coke
As petroleum cokes often contain high levels of
vanadium (0.15% or more), the vanadate corrosion
experienced on superheater and reheaters for conven-
tional boilers firing high vanadium fuels might be
expected. 56 Both Battelle Columbus Laboratories
and CANMET have carried out experimental investi-
gations to try and quantify this phenomenon.57 6o
Battelle appear to have had some difficulties with
their experiments and no data appear to have been
published on their results for FBC systems. However,
they did not see major evidence of significant corro-
sion in their trials but were uncertain as to whether
this was related to fuel properties or a failure to
reach appropriate specimen temperatures.
CANMET work in this area was carried out by its
Physical Metallurgy Research Laboratories and its
Mineral Sciences Laboratories using a small 100 mm
(3.9 in.) dia. CFBC reactor.61 In these trials three
nominally 12.7 mm (0.5 in.) dia. type 304 stainless
steel tubes were used as corrosion probes and ex-
posed at 850°C (1562’F) in the combustion zone of
the reactor for about 125 h at steady state operation.
The fuel used for these trials was Syncrude coke, a
fluid coke with 7% sulphur and 1760 ppm vanadium
(or 4.47% V,O, in the ash). The coke was fired with
Fort McMurray (or Athabasca) limestone as the
sulphur sorbent.
In addition to the trials on Syncrude coke, three
other tubes were exposed for a similar time in the
combustor when burning 8% sulphur Minto coal
from New Brunswick. In both cases, metallurgical
examination indicated that the tubes had suffered
severe intergranular sulphidization/oxidation on the
bottoms where deposits formed to a depth of about
70pm for the Syncrude coke and up to 120 pm for
the Minto trials. Negligible attack was seen on the
top of the tubes and the area and depth of the
attack on the tubes appeared to be quite similar for
both fuels, and comparable with that observed with
austenitic alloys exposed to a BFBC environ-
ment.62*63 No evidence suggested that the vanadium
in the Syncrude coke played a role in the
corrosion.
The scale produced by the corrosion of the stain-
less steel tubes exposed in the reactor was also exam-
ined with an electron probe microanalyser. It was
shown to be principally composed of calcium, sul-
phur and silica and appeared to contain negligible
vanadium (0.44 and 0.05% for the non-magnetic and
magnetic fractions, respectively). The magnetic frac-
tion represents materials spalled from close to the
metal surface and the absence of vanadium in this
deposit also suggests that vanadium does not play an
important role in the corrosion. For comparison, in
conventional boilers where vanadium has contrib-
uted to corrosion, there is evidence that the deposit
had been liquid, with a melting point in the 500-
250 E. J. Anthony
650°C (932-1202°F) range and the V,O, concentra-
tions could be of the order of 2G34%.60 This view-
point was also confirmed in a 17-country survey,
made as part of an evaluation of FBC technology
for burning petroleum coke which indicated no evi-
dence of any special corrosion or metal wastage
problem with FBC technology burning this class of
fuels.24
3.6. Ash Agglomeration and Fouling Problems when
Burning Petroleum Coke
Perhaps the most significant problem reported for
petroleum coke firing in FBC systems is that of
fouling of heat transfer surfaces and the buildup of
agglomerates. At present there is no confirmed
mechanistic explanation for such effects, although,
since Mg containing salts appeared to reduce the
problem, it is possible that vanadates are impli-
cated. This problem is currently being studied by
CANMET, whose work in this area does not suggest
that low melting vanadates are involved. Instead, it
indicates that the agglomeration is caused by pro-
longed sintering and sulphation of the CaSO,, result-
ing in a ‘molecular cramming’ phenomenon which,
in the absence of a significant ‘inert’ ash fraction,
leads to the formation of dense, impermeable layers
of limestone residue, in which almost all of the
availagle Ca has been converted to sulphate.64 If so,
this phenomenon appears to be similar to a mecha-
nism described by researchrs from Abe Akademi in
Finland,65 which they call ‘chemical reaction sinter-
ing’ and which they report as occurring in both FBC
and PC environments. If this explanation is correct,
then the benefits of adding a Mg containing com-
pound are really those of adding an inert nonsulphat-
ing material which prevents the build up of these
agglomerates by mechanical means. This would also
mean that it would be possible to achieve the same
effects more cheaply by adding any inert fluidizable
solid.
The severity of this problem appears to vary but
has on occasion been sufficiently severe to prohibit
using petroleum coke. For instance, one Japanese
company operated for about one year (or 6000 h
total operating time) using petroleum coke for an
industrial scale bubbling FBC boiler.24 However, the
boiler’s in-bed tubes (evaporator and final super-
heater) developed a coating on their surface contain-
ing Na, K and V. This fouling adversely affected the
heat transfer efficiency, requiring that the tubes be
cleaned. No satisfactory methods were found to pre-
vent the fouling and the company decided to aban-
don the use of petroleum coke in favour of anthracite
which has since given them trouble-free operation.
In a case involving another boiler, the only signifi-
cant problem after the initial start-up was that of
fouling or clogging of the loop seal. The operators
initially believed that this was due to use of too fine
limestone and they operated with a coarser limestone.
Although this did help to reduce the problem, it did
not prevent it altogether, and the unit must be
cleaned at least every four months, the longest period
of operation being 130 days. The boiler operators
have also tried a number of other approaches, includ-
ing installing additional air nozzles in the loop seal,
with no significant success to date.66 Similar, if less
severe, problems have also been seen with other FBC
boilers. For the perhaps most significant petroleum
coke combustion project to date, the NISCO project,
the operators believe that they may have found a
mechanical solution, at least as far as J-valve fouling
is involved, and they currently report over 190 days
of continuous operation. 67 However, this solution is
not necessarily applicable to other subsystems in the
FBC boiler.
3.7. Ash Issues for Petroleum Coke FBC Combustion
3.7.1. CFBC ash disposal
Probably the single most important issue for FBC
technology when applied to high sulphur fuels is that
of ash management. As calcium utilization efficiencies
are seldom more than 45% and often much lower,
considerable amounts of excess limestone must be
transported and disposed of. Attempts to utilize ash
are also only now being developed. The characteris-
tics of FBC ashes have been described in detail in
several CANMET reports and papers.68m70 A good
overview of the state of the art in FBC ash manage-
ment technology can be found in a 1990 IEA Coal
Research report” or in the proceedings of a seminar
organized for Nova Scotia Power.‘*
Petroleum cokes are different from other fuel in
that they possess very little fuel derived ash, and
these ashes are low in dehydroxylated clays that are
typically found in coals. This leads to very different
behaviour and reduced effectiveness in terms of the
cementitious reactions that can occur with FBC coal
derived ashes. This has been born out in a limited
number of unpublished studies. Thus, for example,
the Western Research Institute (WRI) indicated that
the petroleum coke ash samples from California
(origin unspecified) did not appear promising for
construction application and showed poor strength
development.73 Similar conclusions were drawn by
Dearborn who carried out a study for Environment
Canada on the ashes from the Chatham CFBC unit
when burning a delayed coke.74 The residues pro-
duced by CFBC combustion of petroleum coke were
also found to contain significant unreacted lime; in
some cases higher quantities than were found in coal
derived residues from the Chatham CFBC boiler
burning S-7% sulphur containing coals.75
An approximate composition for the ashes from
the Chatham unit for combustion trials is given in
Table 9 together with data for combustion trials on
 Fluidized bed combustion
Table 9. Analysis from Chatham CFBC derived ashes
Component Coke trials Minto trials Devco trials
CaSO, 40.0 24.2 29.5
CaO 29.5 33.5 22.4
Ash 5.5 32.9 39.2
C 25.0 9.4 8.9
the same boiler with Minto and Devco coal for
comparison.
It should be noted that the above analysis ignores
the presence of a number of other minor components
often present in FBC ashes, particularly CaS which
is present at approximately the 0.5% level for the
two coal derived ashes, and CaCO,, present at the
6.3 and 3.4% level for the Minto and Devco derived
ashes, respectively. Nevertheless, the analysis shows
clearly the difference in composition of the ashes, in
particular the presence of a much higher percentage
of unburned carbon, lower fuel derived ashes content
and proportionately higher CaSO, concentrations
for the petroleum coke derived fuel.
There is little or nothing available in the published
literature on ash disposal and utilization of CFBC
ashes from petroleum coke firing. What little informa-
tion already obtained comes mainly through direct
conversations rather than the open literature. Thus,
CPC is known to have operated a number of its
boilers at elevated Ca/S mole ratio in order to dilute
the vanadium content in the ashes to prevent their
wastes from being classified hazardous and to permit
them to be used as a cement additive.
NISC017,76 appears to be able to sell its bottom
ash for treating acidic waste (the remainder being
landfilled) and claims that value of the waste ash
sold is sufficient to ensure that ash production repre-
sents a net credit to the process. However, to the
author’s knowledge, this is the only case where such
an advantageous situation has been achieved. For
other Foster Wheeler units, i.e. the City of Mani-
towoc and the Fort Howard boilers, it appears that
straight ash disposal is the method used.24
Two graphs distributed by Foster Wheeler at
CIBOs 8th annual conference on FBC in December
1992 indicated that for the city of Manitowoc units
at about 4% sulphur in the fuel mix (either petroleum
coke/coal/rubber or petroleum coke/coal), the de-
creased fuel costs equalled the increased sorbent costs
at about 5 x 1O-3 $/GJ (5 x 10e3 $/MMBtu). This
suggests that in some situations the sheer amount of
ash produced (due to limestone addition) can be a
significant issue in deciding whether it is economical
to fire petroleum coke in a CFBC.
4. COAL MINING/CLEANING WASTES
Coal washery rejects represent an important class
of waste fuels. Typically, they have high ash and
251
moisture contents and sometimes elevated sulphur
contents. These problematic characteristics can be
well handled by FBC technology. In the past, virtu-
ally no use was made of these materials and they
accumulated in heaps as mine-waste dump sites. Now
around the world FBC is being applied to utilize the
energy value of these low-grade fuels and to eliminate
the often environmentally objectionable heaps (which
produce water pollution, are a fire hazard, waste
land, and are aesthetically offensive).
4.1. Installations and Experience by Country
Since local circumstances vary widely, the many
R&D programs on coal waste fuels will be examined
country by country.
4.1.1. Australia
Australia produces a substantial amount of wash-
ery rejects. For instance in 1991-1992 Australia pro-
duced 41 Mt/a of washery rejects77 and predictions
for the minimum quantities to be produced by the
year 2000 are as high as 60 Mt/a.78 To date, all the
Australian R&D has been done under the auspices
of the Australian government organization, the Com-
monwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Org-
anization (CSIRO). Most of CSIRO’s work is con-
cerned with the evaluation of different quality rejects
in a series of BFBC pilot plant combustors.78~n2
The combustors employed in much of this work was
2.6 x 1.6 m in cross-section and capable of firing
fuel at a maximum rate of 2 t/h with a heat release
equivalent to 4.5 MWth. 78~81In addition, trials were
also carried out in a smaller 0.3 m dia. combustor.82
The coarse rejects were first crushed to < 19 mm
and then fed by a screw feed system to the combus-
tor. The tailings, which contained up to 95% mois-
ture, were first thickened and then stored in a stirred
tank prior to being pumped to the combustor. They
were fed overbed into the combustor by means of a
water cooled screw. Both sole firing and co-firing of
coarse rejects and tailings were examined. The tail-
ings were fed with moisture levels of up to 76% and
heating values as low as 8.1 MJ/kg.
CSIRO reported that for solid contents of less
than 40x, difficulty was experienced in maintaining
combustion without the use of air preheater or auxil-
iary fuel. No other difficulties, such as agglomeration
or problems with the fuel feed system, were reported
with low sulphur fuels. 7g*80.81However, evidence of
agglomeration was encountered for a subituminous
coal from South Australia, Bowmans, and Esperance
lignite from Western Australia in the 0.3 m dia.
combustor.” Both of these fuels have sulphur con-
tents of about 5% (dry basis) and an as-received
moisture content of 55-60% (dry basis).
Little information has been given on ash disposal
characteristics, although CSIRO expressed the view
252 E. J. Anthony

that reduction in mass of material to be disposed of 41.3. Canada

by about 30% could be achieved. In addition, the
All of the FBC work carried out on washery
reduction in size or elimination of tailings ponds and
rejects in Canada appears to have been done under
the elimination of the potential for fires in waste
the auspices of CANMET. The three studies that
heaps constitute major benefits of the FBC combus-
have been published in the open literature involve:
tion option. It was also CSIRO’s opinion that the
??An examination of the behaviour of washery rejects
leachate characteristics of FBC wastes were unlikely
from British Columbia (Hat Creek coal wastes);”
to pose a greater hazard than leaching from the
??An economic evaluation of the use of washery
present coarser refuse embankments.‘* CSIRO also
rejects for a coal drying plant and power
indicated that it was desirable to maintain as much
production;**
ash in the bed as possible because coarse material
??A study on the use of FBC combustion for coal
can be more easily disposed of.*’ With the coarse
water slurries and tailings combustions9
rejects in the CSIRO trials, an average of 56% and a
Hat Creek coal wastes were burned in a 240 mm
maximum of 760/, of ash was retained in the bed.
dia. BFBC reactor. The fuel contained 44% ash and
However, it was found that tailings varied widely in
17% moisture (dry basis), had a heating value of 8.7
their ability to provide bed ‘makeup’, with some
MJ/kg and was fed pneumatically. High combustion
tailings elutriating completely and others forming
efficiencies (up to 99%) were achieved and there were
spherical pellets which had to be removed to prevent
no emission problems. Approximately 50% of the
defluidization.
ash was retained in the bed and no agglomeration
Currently plans are at an advanced stage for a
problems were reported. It was hoped initially that
full-scale FBC boiler project (100 MWe). These plans
the ash, which contains high levels of Al,O, (about
are based on 200 h FBC trials carried out by
30%) could be used as a non-bauxite feedstock for
CSIR0s3 and this venture, named the Redbank
aluminium production, and indeed CANMET devel-
project, will utilize coal tailings in the Hunter Valley,
oped processes for producing cell-grade alumina with
New South Wales. The partners in this project in-
this ash. However, despite the technical feasibility of
clude CSIRO, National Power Company of Oakland,
these processes, economic evaluation suggested that
California and ES1 of West Palm Beach, Florida.84
they would not be competitive with the Bayer
Construction is expected to start in mid-1995, with a
processgo
start-up in late 1997.85
In 1984 CANMET commissioned an economic
and technical feasibility study** for Luscar Ltd for a
4.1.2. Belgium CFBC plant to produce hot flue gases for coal drying
and up to 30 MWe power generation at Luscar’s
A Belgian colliery retrofitted a PC boiler to permit
Coal Valley mine site in Alberta. This study involved
it to bum tailings. 86 The unit was converted into a
the development of preliminary plant/process designs
bubbling FBC system consisting of three compart-
and capital investment estimates for three power
ments, each of 7 mz (75 ft’) base area, that could be
production scenarios (IO, 20 and 30 MWe). It was
regulated individually. It then produced 40 t/h of
concluded that such a project was technically but not
steam at temperatures of 390400°C and a pressure
economically feasible at the time of the study. Cur-
of 3.8 MPa. The fuel consisted of coarse washed
rently, Luscar Ltd is re-examining the feasibility of
shale which was crushed to a top size of 8 mm, and
using its washery rejects and other local fuels for
tailings of 1 mm maximum size. The proportion of
power generation alone.91
washed shales to tailings was about 9 : 1. The heating
In 1983, CANMET commissioned Babcock &
value of the shale was about 2.5 MJ/kg and that of
Wilcox Ltd (B&W) to study the behaviour of coal/-
the tailings was about 5 MJ/kg (LHV).* The ash
water slurries and tailings in FBC. Tests were con-
contents were respectively 84 and 70% and the mois-
ducted on a beneficiated coal/water slurry (60% solids),
ture contents were 9.9 and 28% (all dry basis). Both
an unbeneficiated coal/water slurry (60% solids) and
materials were screw-fed into the bed. The process
a thickener underflow (30% solids).89 The two slurries
appears to meet proposed EC guidelines for lime-
were supplied by AB Carbogel of Sweden and
stone addition but shows NO, emissions about 2&
Scotia-Liquicoal of Nova Scotia, Canada, and had
30% higher than the guideline value of 650 mg
heating values of 25.3 and 16.2 MJ/kg (wet basis),
(N0,)/Nm3 at 6% OZ.
respectively. The thickener underflow was from a
It was reported that attempts were being made to
coal-cleaning facility in Alberta and had a heating
find uses for the bed ashes in the ceramics industry
value of 3.8 MJ/kg (wet basis). The work was carried
and for the production of paving tiles and sewage
out using B&W’s 305 sq. mm BFBC test facility at
pipes, but the success of this is unknown.
the Alliance Research Center in Ohio. The slurries
were fed inbed through a water-cooled injection lance
using a Moyno pump. Successful combustion was
* Except where otherwise stated all heating values quoted obtained for the two coal/water slurries but stable
in this paper are higher heating values. combustion with the thickener underflow could only
 Fluidized bed combustion
be achieved by co-firing with an ancillary fuel contrib-
uting at least one third of the combustion heat release
in the bed.
The two slurry fuels demonstrated excellent com-
bustion performance. However, attempts to feed the
thickener underflow by itself led to severe agglomera-
tion problems which were attributed to its high mois-
ture content. Some problems were also experienced
with blockage of the feed system but since these were
resolved by screening the slurry, they were attributed
to the presence of large particles in the ‘as-received’
thickener underflow cake.
4.1.4. Chinn
There are a number of bubbling bed boilers in
China using coal washery rejects as a fuel, some
dating back to the early eighties. In general, they are
small (4-10 t/h of steam) and are used to supply
steam for industry (e.g. fertilizer, textiles industry) or
for coal mines operations. Most of these projects are
located in Southeast China in the provinces of
Jiangxi, Fujian and Guangdong, although there are
also some in Sichuan and Shandong. The lower
heating value of the rejects is typically 4.2-8.4 MJ/kg.
Recently, some larger units were being produced
(around 33 t/h) for thermal power generation. CAN-
MET’s enquiries indicate that these fuels are screw-
fed into the boilers.”
A number of papers have been published by re-
searchers at Zheijang University on the combustion
of washery rejects and coal water slurries. They
indicate that about 6 Mtja of low-grade rejects
are produced in China. 93-gs In an overview paper
on FBC combustion of low-grade fuels in China,g6
the Ministry for the Chinese coal industry reported
that a total of 570 FBC boilers have been commis-
sioned since 1968, with a total steam generation
rate of 3800 t/h. The ash from these plants is
apparently used in the cement industry as a sand
replacement.
Experimental work has been carried out in a series
of small BFBC combustors (80, 250 and 500 mm
dia.).g3.g4*g5The fuels examined varied in water con-
tent from 30-75% (wet basis) and in heating value
from 4.2 to 16.4 MJ/kg. It was found that the fuels
have some tendency to agglomerate but it was noted
that for fines this could result in improved combus-
tion efficiency.
Cen and his co-workersg4’g5 then extended their
work to retrofit a spreader/stoker-fired boiler with a
nominal production of 10 t/h of steam for FBC
boiler operation. This plant was used to burn wash-
ery tailings (size ~0.5 mm). At 20% moisutre (wet
basis) these tailings behaved as a solid fuel. However,
the tailings properties were strongly dependent on
moisture content (Table 10). Fuel preparation re-
quired removing oversized material using a vibrating
* F is French francs.
253
Table 10. Physical properties of tailings as a function of
moisture content
Moisture (%) Physical description
(wet basis)
20% or less Behaves as a solid
20628% Mud-like
28-35% Paste-like
35% or more Behaves as a slurry and can be
pumped
screen system and then adjusting the water moisture
content. The fuel was then fed via a 159 mm dia., 21
m long pipe to the feeder. Tests were carried out
extruding the fuel (with a moisture content of about
25-30x) either overbed or directly inbed.
4.1.5. France
The only significant project of this type in France
appears to be the 125 MWe Emile Huchet plant at
Carling in north-east France, near the German
border. However, this unit is the largest CFBC boiler
in the world burning coal/water slurries. It has been
the subject of many papers and articles and won
Electric Power International’s Powerplant Award for
1992.g7~g8~gg~‘oo The project was developed in con-
junction with Lurgi and an architect engineering
company, CdF Ingtnerie Coreal which in turn is a
subsidiary of Charbonnage de France (CdF), the
French national coal company. The boiler is now
owned and operated by Houilleres du Bassin de
Lorraine which is also a division of CdF. The client
for the power produced is Electricit& de France, the
French national power company.
The Emile Huchet power station produces 1200
MWe. The main fuel is dried coal washery rejects
(by French law, CdF can only fire waste coal). These
are pumped from the washing plant in the form of a
black liquid and are then concentrated, vacuum fil-
tered and dried to about 8% moisture prior to being
pulverized for suspension firing. The use of pumping
is convenient as the area is heavily congested by
industry and road traffic. It is cheaper than rail or
road transportation (about 38F*/t compared to 41.38
and 51.17 F/t respectively for rail and road in
1986).“’ Since 1950, rejects have also been sent to
settling ponds. In total, about 8 Mt can be found
unevenly distributed over 12 old settling ponds in the
Lorraine coalfields. The rejects are referred to as
‘schlamms’. There has been some confusion over this
term in that it has occasionally been assumed that
‘schlamm’ is synonymous with slurry. This is not so
and the simplest translation is ‘fine coal rejects’.
Until the advent of the 125 MWe CFB project in
1987, no attempt was made to use washery rejects
from the settling ponds. The reason is that the ma-
terial has a high clay content and induces severe
slagging on boiler tube surfaces. In addition, drying is
difficult and if not correctly done, then the grinding
254
1 -UmestoneFeed
P-CoalFeed
3-SandFeed
4.Aiflnlets 4
; - yY&‘“t
10
7:stack
8 - Baghouse
9.AshandSlagRemoval
10.Sla9Removal
11 - Water and Steam Circulation
12 - fluidized Bed Combustor
Fig. 3. FBC Emile Huchet plant at Carling, France.
and pulverization processes are found to be exces-
sively demanding and expensive for conventional
suspension firing. However, there were three incen-
tives to use this fuel. First there is a desire on the
part of CdF to clear and remediate the settling
ponds. Second, new legislation has been introduced
to control SO2 and NO, emissions from coal fired
systems which provided an incentive to use CFBC
technology.102 Finally, as the fuel is the property of
CdF, it is available for the cost of extraction and
preparation.
In addition to the schlamms already deposited,
fresh schlamms are being produced by coal prepara-
tion plants at Freyming-Merlebach, La Houle and
de Vemejoul. The fine by-product materials (< 1
mm) are first concentrated at the washing plant and
are then transported by two pipelines to the Emile
Huchet plant. There they are vacuum filtered, ther-
mally dried, ground, and finally burned in the pulver-
ized coal-fired boilers operating at the Carling site.
CdF examined two possible methods of conveying
coal slurries: (a) turbulent flow with about 35%
solids and (b) laminar flow with 70% solids. Al-
though the pumping energy for a turbulent flow
system would be less, CdF decided to use the laminar
flow system because the slurries so produced (with
70% solids contents) can be burnt directly in the
CFBC combustor thus avoiding the cost of drying
prior to feeding the slurried fuel. CdF was successful
E. J. Anthony
1
!
/ j
in developing a feed system for slurries with about
30% moisture without the use of additives just by
appropriate screening of the fuels to be slurried and
by blending of the reclaimed waste and fresh
schlamms.
Following final preparation, the slurries are
pumped 680 m to six storage tanks each having a
capacity of 120 m3. The slurry is kept in suspension
by air injected at the base of the tank. Although the
slurry is considered to be quite stable, air injection
prevents any problem that might be caused by set-
tling and helps the feeding of thick sediments to the
pump. The slurry is then fed into the bottom of the
combustor by six independent feed systems at a total
flow rate of about 18 t/h. Each feed system is com-
prised of two Schwing piston pumps and a pipeline
which leads to an atomization lance in the base of
the combustor.
Each atomization lance can be isolated so that it
can be immediately water flushed and air cleaned if
it becomes fouled for any reason. Each line is also
equipped with a water cleaning system which is used
when it is out of operation for an extended period. If
the lance is blocked due to drying and coking of the
slurry fuel, then the lance can be removed and its
port isolated so that the lance can be cleaned or
replaced. When lances are not to be used for an
extended period, they are removed.
The system (Fig. 3) is designed to simultaneously
 Fluidized bed combustion 255

Table I 1.Steam conditions for 125 MWe CFBC boiler will burn high sulphur lignites. These will be fired both
in the form of raw coal and coal/water slurry. CdF also
Parameter Level
intends to target markets in the third world where they
Steam flow 367 t/h believe the potential exists for 10 GWe of coal based
Feedwater temperature 242°C thermal power over the next decade. Their technology
Superheater steam temperature 545°C evidently has strong development possibilities.
Superheater steam pressure 13.4 MPa
Reheat steam slow 338 t/h
Reheat steam pressure 3.0 MPa 4. I .6. Germany
Inlet steam reheat temperature 351°C
Outlet reheat steam temperature 540°C Germany is the home of Lurgi, which is a major
manufacturer of FBC boilers. However, there is little
Table 12. Emission levels for the 125 MWe Emile Huchet in the open literature concerning the FBC combus-
CFBC boiler tion of washery rejects there even though significant
quantities are produced (2.7 Mtja in 1977).lo3 There
Emission Guaranteed Actual appears to be a 114 t/h CFBC boiler burning coal
330 mg/Nm3 250 Mg/Nm3* washery rejects in Luenen.lo4 The only technical
SO, (6% 0,)
NO, (6% O,)t 300 mg/Nm3 < 200 mg/Nm3$ publication I found in the open literature is on work
Dust (6% 0,) 50 mg/Nm3 < 50 mg/Nm3 by Babcock-BSH’03 on the combustion of fine coal
* At a typical Ca/S molar ratio of 1.9. separated by flotation. The unit used for the test
t Expressed as NO,. work was a 0.6 m dia. BFBC combustor. The slurries
2 The average NO, is I70 mg/Nm3 for the dry schlamms were fed inbed with a water cooled ‘slurry lance’.
and 120 mg/Nm3 for the slurry. Maximum solids contents were 55-57x and attempts
to use higher concentrations led to unacceptable
bum coal/water slurry (33% water) and dry schlamms levels of agglomeration. It is interesting to note that
in any proportion up to a 1OO’Aslurry. It has oper- agglomeration problems have been resolved with
ated for over a week on slurry fuel alone. The excess slurry fuels for the 125 MWe CFBC at Carling,
air is adjusted to 20% when burning coal/water slurry France, which is also of Lurgi design.
only. It is increased when burning dry schlamms to
maintain the same flue gas flow. The system can also
4.1 .I. Indiu
accept up to 30% of its thermal input value from gas.
The CFBC unit was expected to operate at Ca/S India has an active FBC program which, for coal,
mole ratio of 2.5 and the limestone consumption was is led by Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (BHEL).
predicted to be about ‘7 t/h with a total annual cost They have been involved in the development of FBC
of 7-8 million F or 1 centifranc per kWh. However, in systems since 1975.105~‘06 Typical fuels have calorific
practice this limestone feed rate is about 2.3-2.7 t/h values of 6.7-10.9 MJjkg and ash contents of 60-
for the current reject fuel which has about 1% or less 70%. As of 1982, about 4.5 Mtja of washery rejects
sulphur content, giving a Ca/S mole ratio of 1.9. The were generated from coking coal alone.
limestone size is in the O-200 pm range and the To date, six BFBC plants each of 10 MWe capacity
average particle size is very small with a d,, of about have been installed to burn washery rejects at various
60 pm. The limestone is injected pneumatically into washeries in India.“’ By April 1991, the time logged
the bottom of the bed. by one of these plants was 19,000 h. In these systems,
Steam conditions are given in Table 11 and are rejects are fed dry with a top size of 6 mm. The ash
comparable to the levels seen in conventional coal- retention in the bed is around 50%. Ashes ready for
fired boilers. The CFBC boiler is a natural circulation disposal are mixed with water and pumped to the
boiler with moderate steam pressure. It should be disposal area. There appear to be no significant
noted that this boiler is a retrofit of an old PC boiler problems in burning the materials using BHEL’s
and that the previous ‘water circuits’ (i.e. turboset, FBC technology.
cooling tower and water feed system) have been
preserved with only relatively minor modifications.
4.1.8. Japan
Emission levels are given in Table 12.
In 1991, the boiler had an availability of 83%. In Japan is one of the world leaders in FBC technol-
1992, the availability increased to 93.8%. No signifi- ogy. However, there is relatively little reported work
cant operational problems of any kind have been on FBC of coal washery rejects as might be expected
reported. given Japan’s position as a major coal importer. As
This project has been so successful that CdF In- of 1982, annual production of coal washery rejects
gtnerie Coreal has carried out two feasibility studies was 4 Mtja. lo8
for projects in eastern Europe involving schlamms: Babcock, Hitachi and Sumitomo coal mines car-
one for Ostrava in the Czech Republic and the other in ried out a test program on Sumitomo’s tailings.lo3
Zdzieszowice in Poland. It also has a current CFBC The coarse rejects could be burned without problems.
project in Spain, the 150 MWe Teruel project, which However, the sludge produced at the Sumitomo coal
2.56 E. J.
mine in Akabira, Hokkaido consisted of very fine
particles (70% c 5 pm) and had moisture contents of
25--30x, typical of that achieved by the filter presses.
The rheological properties of the sludge meant that
feeding was most easily achieved by extruding the
fuel into the top of the combustor in the form of 15
mm long segments. The test unit was a 2.8 x 3.3 m
BFBC combustor with freeboard height of 6 m and
the expanded bed depth employed was 1 m. The
boiler’s output was rated as 10 t/h of steam. No
problems were reported with bed agglomeration
using the extrusion technique.
Since the development of the Akibara unit, Bab-
cock Hitachi has continued its development of multi-
fuel boilers and in 1991 had six operating installa-
tions (including the Akabira unit) which could be
used to burn colliery washery waste as fuel. lo9 All of
these boilers were of bubbling bed design. Only three
(the Akibara boiler, a 11 t/h boiler at Kushiro, and a
50 t/h boiler at Ebetsu operated by the Oji Paper
Company) are normally employed to burn colliery
washery wastes. Specific details on the feed systems
for these units have not been reported. However, it
appears that the sludges have fairly low clay contents
and are handled as ‘effectively’ dry materials and,
provided they are crushed to below 10 mm, can be
fed using a conventional rotary feeder. Ebara Cor-
poration has also done limited work on coal rejects,
using its internally circulating fluidized bed technol-
ogy, and reports good results.“’
41.9. South Africa
South Africa derives 88% of its energy from coal
and produces approximately 45 Mt/a of coal rejects
(amounting to 20% of the mined coal). l1 ‘9’l2 These
rejects are divided into three major waste
products:’ l3
??Discard coal, of high ash content;
??Duff coal, of high fines content;
??Slurry (or slimes), ultra-fine, with high water
content.
South African R&D on FBC combustion of coal
rejects has been carried out under the auspices of the
ENERTEK division of the Council for Scientific and
Industrial Research (CSIR) which operates a 3 sq. m
BFBC boiler burning 10 t/h of fuel and producing
about 12 t/h of steam. The boiler is located in Pre-
toria West. The coarse rejects are crushed to a top
size of 6 mm and both coarse and fine rejects are
either screw-fed overbed or pneumatically injected in-
bed. In 1987, CSIR entered into an R&D program to
develop better methods for dealing with tailings fines.
The primary aims of this program are to determine:
??Minimum water content at which slurries can be
conveniently handled, conveyed and combusted;
??Importance of auxiliary fuels for such systems;
??Achievable thermal efficiency and how it is af-
fected by water content and coal particle size and
quality;
Anthony
??Required energy recovery to justify the capital
and operating costs necessary to operate with
these fuels.
As of 1993, this unit has accumulated 23,000 h of
continuous plant operation burning wastes and prob-
lem materials. ENERTEK has also licensed its tech-
nology to International Combustion Africa (ICAL),
which is now incorporated into John Thompson
Africa (JTA) and it is in the process of attempting to
license its FBC technology internationally.
The coal slimes or slurries burnt have a fairly high
sulphur level (1%) and an ash content of about 21%
(dry basis). The heating value is fairly high at 24.6
MJjkg (dry basis). The ‘as fired’ slurry contained
up to 63% solids. The maximum boiler efficiency
achieved when firing slurries was only 67% (com-
pared to 79% when firing duff coal).“’
The slurry used for the ENERTEK test work was
a discard product and was not beneficiated or milled.
It was pumped with a 38 mm dia. air driven double-
diaphragm pump through a flexible pipe to the injec-
tion nozzle. Successful overbed feed was demon-
strated with this fuel but the preferred method of
firing was inbed through nozzles. However, the slur-
ries were first passed through a 5 mm sieve to remove
any tramp material that had accidentally been in-
cluded. Particle size in the slurry was 5-600 pm with
a mean size around 200 pm. As has been seen with
many other coal/water fuels, ENERTEK discovered
that these slurries agglomerated to produce particles
significantly larger than the parent material. How-
ever, ENERTEK experienced no defluidization from
agglomeration in their test runs (typical test duration
ranged from 1 to 4 days), although they did speculate
that if the fuels were used continuously over long
periods there might be problems with defluidization
because of increasing size of the bed material due to
the presence of the agglomerates.
4.1.10. United Kingdom
Although there are no commercial FBC units
burning coal rejects currently operating in the UK,
much of the early development on the use of FBC
for these fuels was performed in the UK under the
auspices of British Coal from the early 1970s to
1985.114~1’8 Rogers and Cooke (1980) indicate that
approximately 56 Mt/a of washery rejects were
produced and disposed of in 1979-1980. However,
despite the relatively large quantity of such wastes
being produced, FBC technology has not proven
to be commercially attractive, mainly because few
local users for the steam produced can be
found.li4
Research was done on a series of BFBC combus-
tors having dimensions 0.3 m dia., 0.5 m dia., 1 x 0.5
m, a 1.5 m dia. unit and a 0.6 m dia. spouted
fluidized bed, all of which were operated by British
Coal at its laboratories in Stoke Orchard. The tests
were of short duration (typically 5-10 h) and in-
 Fluidized
volved tailings with heating values ranging from 5 to
15 MJ/kg (dry basis).
In the case of the 1.5 m dia. rig, tests were carried
out using rejects screened to a top size of 3 mm and
sprayed overbed in the form of a pumpable slurry
with a 45% moisture content (wet basis). Approxi-
mately 36% of the ash was retained in the bed and
some evidence of agglomeration was found.’ 16.1”
Based on this work, British Coal developed a prelim-
inary design for a unit to burn 30 t/h of thickened
tailings with a water content of 45% and a heating
value of about 8.5 MJ/kg.
4.1.11. United States
The U.S. market for FBC is currently the biggest
in the world and there are numerous projects involv-
ing washery rejects from a wide variety of fuels.
Thus for 1992, there were 29 FBC boilers worldwide
burning washery rejects or anthracite culm, of which
23 were in the U.S.i19 In particular, Pennsylvania
has currently about 13 operating FBC boilers and
two others under construction, burning waste
coal. There is a ‘users organization’, the Anthracite
Region Independent Power Producers Association
(ARIPPA) based in Pennsylvania, dedicated to assist
users of FBC technology burning coal wastes. In the
view of ARIPPA, CFBC technology is ideally suited
to burning waste coals and in addition, such projects
contribute substantial benefits in terms of clean-up
of acid generating coal wastes.i2’
In addition, companies like Air Products and
Chemicals Inc. and PG&E are pursuing the owner/op-
erator market where, in return for an appropriate
power contract, these companies will be responsible
for the development of a turnkey project using tech-
nologies such as a FBC unit to burn a washery reject
or an alternative fuel. There are also a number of
vendors such as B&W and Foster Wheeler that own
and operate their own FBC proejcts.121m126
4.2. General Conclusions on the Combustion of Coal
Rejects
It is clear that many countries have experimented
with the use of FBC technology to burn coal rejects
and that this technology is ideally suited to this class
of fuels. Unfortunately, the economics of waste coal
projects are very site-specific making it impossible to
draw general conclusions about economic feasibil-
ity.‘*’ There is, perhaps, one general caveat about
such projects, namely, that the cost advantage of
waste coal can be easily offset by the additional costs
associated with fuel extraction, preparation (e.g.
drying and crushing) and any ancillary costs associ-
ated with designing a suitable FBC boiler to deal
with the waste coal in question.
A key decision in burning these materials is
whether to handle them nominally dry or in dilute
bed combustion 257
( > 40% moisture) or dense slurries ( c 40% moisture).
Currently, most users of the technology attempt to
burn ‘nominally dry’. However, with the advent of
the Carling 125 MWe CFBC in France, it seems
likely that the approach of using dense slurries, par-
ticularly for tailing fines, will find increasing favour,
simplifying as it does the handling and feeding sys-
tems and removing the costly necessity of drying the
rejects. For slurry fuels, the most serious problem is
the potential for agglomeration. However, it seems
clear that a number of designs can successfully intro-
duce coal rejects into the FBC boiler while avoiding
this problem.
5. PEAT
Peat is an unconsolidated desposit of semi-carbon-
ized plant remains of a water saturated environment
such as a bog or fen and of persistently high moisture
content (75% minimum). It is considered an early
stage or rank of coal. Typically it has a carbon
content (dry) of up to 60% and oxygen contents of
about 30% and, when dry, burns readily.12a In order
to use peat, it is typically milled and then dried
to about 50% moisture. Dried peat is associated
with significant dust explosion hazard and must be
properly handled during drying and pneumatic
transport.‘29
Peat has been extensively utilized as a fuel in
Finland where, as of 1989, there were over 100 peat
fired energy stations. 12g It has also been extensively
burnt in CFBC plants in Finland and other Scandina-
vian countries. The first commercial Ahlstrom Pyro-
flow units built in 1979 employed this fuel and Pyro-
power lists some 16 CFBC boilers firing peat either
by itself or co-fired with other fuels.** Other manufac-
turers also offer bubbling bed designs to burn peat,
thus Outokumpu lists 18 BFBC boilers which are
fired or co-fired with peat including 3 units in Deb-
lois, Maine.13’
6. PULP AND PAPER WASTES
6.1. Introduction
The disposal of residual fibre and other mill wastes
generated by the pulp and paper industry is becoming
an increasingly serious concern, particularly with the
trend towards recycling paper products. Currently,
there is considerable interest in the application of
FBC technology for burning de-inking and other
wood/paper pulp-derived sludges, both in incinera-
tion and in energy-from-waste projects. This is dem-
onstrated, for example, by the fact that five of the
eight papers presented on sludge burning for the
recent 12th International Conference on FBC, held
in San Diego, California and sponsored by the
ASME, were devoted to the subject of paper derived
sludges.
258 E. J. Anthony
Current practices for disposal such as landspread-
ing (which accounts for about 8% of paper sludge
disposal in North America) may cost about $20/t
with annual application rates of about 185 t/hectare
requiring the availability of large areas of suitable
land. In addition, there are concerns that such a
practice adversely affects the drainage of land, may
introduce PCBs and heavy metals into the land and
causes odour problems. Similarly, landfill that cur-
rently accepts about 70% of this material in North
America is becoming increasingly expensive, with
disposal costs ranging from about $20 to $30 per wet
tonne and up to a $50 per wet tonne near major
urban areas.i3i
The key element in improving the economics of
burning these fuels and achieving autogenous com-
bustion is water content. Typically most dewatering
techniques deliver a product with 5060% moisture.
At the higher limit a supplementary fuel must be
used or alternatively heat exchangers are necessary
to preheat the combustion air. There can also be
feeding problems. However, there seem to be no
emission problems since the fuels are of inherently
low sulphur (0.05%) and low nitrogen (0.1%)
contents. In addition, emissions of organics such
as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and
polychlorodibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans
(PCDD/CDF) are also very low (much less than 0.1
ng/Nm3 expressed in terms of a tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin TCDD/Nm3 equivalent) and the ash pro-
duced from a 100% paper sludge firing is also non-
hazardous in terms of standard leachate tests such as
the Toxic Characteristic Leachate Procedure
(TCLP).131m134
6.2. Industrial FBC Boiler Experience on Paper
Sludges Firing
Tampella Power Corporation has extensive experi-
ence with sludge firing using BFBC technology in
the pulp and paper industry in Finland.135 Interest-
ingly, Tampella cites one of the advantages of BFBC
to be the possibility of retrofitting existing spreader-
stoker equipment. The only North American project
cited by them in a recent paper by J. Louhimo is a
retrofit of the Champion International Corporation
stoker in Sheldon, Texas.’ 35
In North America, JWP Energy Products of Idaho
(EPI) recently installed a BFBC unit to burn 70 wet
t/d of de-inking sludge in Spokane, Washington for
Inland Empire Paper CO.‘~~ and a 20 dry t/d of Bear
Island Paper Company in Richmond, Virginia. 13’
However, the current situation of EPI is uncertain as
JWP Ltd divested itself of EPI. It was announced
that an Alberta based company would purchase
EPI13* but this does not seem to have occurred.
Another company with success in marketing BFBC
technology for wood derived-residues is Outokumpu
EcoEnergy Inc. This Finnish company recently an-
nounced a 22.5 MWe cogeneration project in Brook-
lyn, Nova Scotia. The BFBC boiler will be owned
and operated by the Chicago based Polsky Energy
Corporation and run for Bowater Mersey Paper
Company Ltd, with the power sold to Nova Scotia
Power Inc.139 The company also has a 25 MWe
BFBC plant in Whitecourt, Alberta which is designed
to burn waste wood products. It also has extensive
experience with wood-derived sludges outside of
North America. 133 However, recently the Finnish
parent company, Outokumpu Oy, sold a number of
its constituent companies to Ahlstrom Pyropower
and its BFB North American based subsidiary to
Kvaerner EnviroPower AB.
As indicated above, most of the pulp sludge market
is dominated by companies using BFBC technology.
However, Ahlstrom Pyropower is also offering
CFBC technology. Its two North America projects
both appear to involve fairly large boilers co-fired
with coal (180 t/h). 14’ Here the primary fuel is coal
with the sludge being co-fired as a secondary fuel.
Riley-Stoker Corporation is also exploring this
market and has recently completed an extensive series
of pilot-scale CFBC trials co-firing pulp sludges and
coal under a contract to Morgantown Energy Tech-
nology Centre. ’32Babcock and Wilcox in Barberton,
Ohio are also looking at this fuel using their own
CFBC and BFBC pilot plants.i41 In addition, there
are other interested vendors who are actively pursu-
ing the North American market, e.g. the Ebara
Corporation.
Industrial vendors interest in burning pulp and
paper sludges in FBC systems appears to be intense.
Although many of the active companies in this field
are offering simple and low cost BFBC boilers, there
seems no doubt that CFBC is also capable of giving
good performance, especially when co-firing with
coal in larger projects.
7. MUNICIPAL SOLID AND INDUSTRIAL WASTES
7.1. Muncipal Solid Wastes
The combustion of municipal solid wastes (MSW)
or refuse derived fuel (RDF) in BFBC boilers is well
established, particularly in Japan where there are
currently over 100 operational BFBC units for MSW.
Current Japanese trends are to build larger BFBC
plants. 14* In 1989 the U.S. EPA commissioned a
study on the use of FBC to burn MSW.‘43 The
study was part of a larger program to provide emis-
sion standards and minimize emissions for new MSW
combustors and concentrated on the use of FBC
technology to burn RDF. A particularly important
conclusion was that the lower temperatures normally
employed by FBC systems, 8 15-87O’C (1500-l 600’F)
are adequate to ensure good combustion as com-
pared to the minimum 980°C (1800°F) necessary for
other MSW combustion technologies in order to
 Fluidized bed combustion 259

ensure the destruction of gas phase organics and to terns using limestone addition, HCl capture inbed
minimize the PCDDjCDF emissions. depends very strongly on bed temperature. It will be
More recently in Canada, CANMET commis- very limited at normal bed temperatures and thus
sioned a study on the use of FBC for the combustion may require some other form of control for HCl.
of MSW.‘44 One of the major conclusions was that The reaction
conventional BFBC systems operate best with treated
MSW, i.e. RDF which requires relatively costly sort- CaO + 2HCl = CaCl, + H,O (2)
ing and precrushing of the MSW. However, it ap-
pears that hybrid revolving and internally circulating is strongly reversible at typical FBC conditions and
FBC beds can effectively burn MSW with only mini- inbed HCl capture is negligible at bed temperatures
mal separation of oversized materials. much above 850°C.147,148
FBC offers the advantage of considerable fuel
flexibility, providing that the boiler is appropriately
designed and is suited to co-firing waste fuels such as 7.2. Industrial Waste Fuels
RDF along with a premium fuel like coal. A good
example of this practice is provided by the Tacoma There is a wide range of industrial waste fuels that
steam plant No. 2 which is operated by Tacoma City can be burned by FBC technology. A typical project
Light Corporation in Tacoma, Washington. In this of this type is a JWP Energy Products Inc. 32 t/h
facility, two BFBC boilers supplied by EPI, provide boiler burning X-ray film and plastics for E.I. Du
steam (2.76 MPa, 400°C) to a 50 MWe turbine. The Pont de Nemours and Company Inc. in Brevard.
design fuel is 50% coal (of less than 0.8% sulphur). North Carolina. This on-site boiler uses <: 76 mm
35% wood waste and 15% RDF, based on heat shredded plastic to supply 1.21 MPa saturated steam
input. Although the boilers can in principle feed any for Du Pont’s adjacent X-ray film manufacturing
combination of fuels, the following restrictions have plant which is the source of the waste plastic feeds.
been set on the fuel feed: max. 50% RDF and max. Here the BFBC boiler replaced an existing fossil fuel
50-80x wood (depending on moisture content), with fired stoker with the overall benefit of net reduction
the balance of the fuel being supplied by coal. By in NO, and SO, emissions.‘49
avoiding the necessity of having to burn a minimum Plastics have also been co-fired with coal in a 65
amount of garbage-based fuels (like mass burn MW Pyropower CFBC boiler as a mixture of waste
plants), no restriction need be placed on recycling in plastics and cardboard packaging (supplying IO-20%
the community. Thus. if 25% more of Tacoma’s of the overall energy).’ SoOverall, excellent combus-
garbage is recycled, the balance can be made up of tion performance was reported. Important conclu-
other fuels permitting the boilers to continue to sions were that there was no relationship between
operate at full load. 145 This flexibility of FBC boilers PCDDjCDF in the flue gas and the fly ash but that
may significantly assist in the permitting of such the emissions of these compounds on fly ash itself
MSW projects, although, since the tipping fee is in corresponded strongly to their chlorine and copper
many cases key to the success of such a project, the content. Limited experiments were also carried out
economics of such a plant will also strongly limit with the addition of sulphur, but this showed
options on fuel choices. only a minimal influence in reducing PCDDjCDF
Another project that will likely be important in concentrations. This conclusion is important because
the development of FBC for MSW combustion is it has been suggested that sulphur addition might
that of the Reading Energy Company in Robbins, be a mechanism to reduce PCDDCDF concentra-
tions,‘51.“2
Illinois.‘44.146 The two CFBC boilers are of a Foster
Wheeler design and will pose the first use of CFBC Another important class of waste fuels is autoshred-
in North America for the combustion of RDF. The der residue (ASR) or, as it is sometimes known, car
units will produce 55 MWe and are expected to use fluff. This fuel is derived from all of the non-recyc-
about 453,500 t/a of MSW. These boilers will use a lable portions of the automobile and contains signifi-
SNCR-system to keep NO, levels less than 130 cant plastic wastes, rubber, metallic components, and
ppmvd (7% 0,) and will use dry scrubber (using a glass, etc. Typically this material contains about 45-
lime slurry) to maintain HCl emissions below 25 55% organic and hence burnable material (which,
ppmvd (7% 0,). In addition, small quantities of however, represents about 80% of the volume). A
activated carbon will be mixed with the slurry and typical heating value for this material is 12.6 MJ/kg.
sprayed into the flue gases to help control certain In Quebec, Canada, this waste is considered hazard-
heavy metal emissions (e.g. Hg) and organic emis- ous although this is not the case in other parts of
sions (particularly PCDD/CDF). This type of emis- Canada, and so a major study was commissioned
sion control is in fact identical to that employed by from the Centre de Recherche Industrielle du Quebec
modern mass-burn systems, as these boilers will not (CRIC) by the Ministry of Environment of
use a limestone bed and bed inventory will be main- Quebec.ls3 Considerable quantities of this material
tained by a mixture of sand and sieved bed ash. are produced. For instance, in Quebec about
An important point to recognize is that for sys- 120,000-l 30,000 t/a of fluff are produced and a total
260 E. J. Anthony
of 430,000 tonnes of ASR is estimated to have
accumulated on the land where the automobile shred-
ders are located. The CRIC study considered only
conventional BFBC bed technology and erroneously
concluded that FBC technology normally demanded
a very uniform waste size distribution and fuel par-
ticle sizes of less than 13 mm (with the exception of a
technology developed but not demonstrated by Turn-
point Engineering Corporation which was designed
to deal with material up to 76 mm size.ls4 However,
given that Turnpoint Engineering Corporation did
not actually build any functioning full-scale FBCs
burning ASR,155 any conclusions based on their
work should be tempered with caution).‘55
The CRIC study did, however, correctly note that
there is considerable potentials for agglomeration
with this fuel, due to the high glass and metal con-
tent. An additional problem noted by McGowin and
Howe (1993)156 was the potential for superheater
corrosion, presumably because of the high chlorine
content of some of the plastics.
ASR of a size of up to 76 mm was successfully
burnt by EPI in a 0.84 sq. m pilot-scale BFBC
combustor.’ 57 They report that it was critical remove
oversized metal components magnetically to achieve
successful feeding. They also reported plugging of
the cyclone when temperatures were much above
815°C. ASR, along with a wide range of alternative
wastes, has also been successfully burnt more recently
in 86 t/h internally circulating fluidized bed combus-
tor built by Ebara in Japan.156 More recently, suc-
cessful combustion has been demonstrated on a 32
MW Ahlstrom Pyropower CFBC system operated at
Massy, France.158 In these trials car fluff was dried,
then crushed to a mean size of about 50-80 mm, and
ferrous metals were removed prior to feeding.
8. SEWAGE SLUDGE
FBC, and particularly BFBC, has been used exten-
sively to burn sewage sludge since at least the early
197os.159 Typically, this sludge can be burned with-
out auxiliary fuel, i.e. autogenously, if it is dewatered
to about 40% solids; otherwise it must be co-fired
with a supplementary fuel.16’ A typical example of
this type of FBC is found at Oneida, New York. This
unit disposes of about 20 t/d of dry solids. Solids are
dewatered to about 2@-27% moisture and fed by
means of processing cavity pumps; No. 2 fuel oil is
used as a supplementary fue1.15’ In order to reduce
the amount of supplementary fuel, the off-gases,
which are at 8 15-87O’C (1500-1600°F) are passed
through a heat exchanger and used to preheat the
combustion air to 54659O“C (1000-l 100°F).
The primary issue with sewage sludge from the
point of view of economics is the dewatering technol-
ogy; the lower the water content, the more likely it is
that the sludge can be burnt autogenously, thus
minimizing the use of supplementary fuel and improv-
ing the potential for energy recovery. There is, how-
ever, a potential problem which has not hitherto
been recognized, namely N,O emissions. Sewage
sludge has very high nitrogen content, typically from
5 to 8% dry basis,161~‘62 and hence there is a poten-
tial for elevated NO, and N,O emissions. Emission
levels of 45-600 ppm NO, (at 6.8-16.8x 0,) have
recently been reported. It is interesting to note that
emission levels of N,O were also high (51-106 ppm
for O2 levels from 14.2 to 15.8%) for stoker-fired
units burning this fuel. 16’ Although N,O is not
currently regulated, the potential of sewage sludges
to give high N,O emissions should be of concern.
A recent study in Korea gave results on the com-
bustion of sewage sludge using both a conventional
BFBC combustor and a two-stage swirl-flow fluid-
ized bed unit.‘63 However, this sludge had quite a
high sulphur content (about 1.4%) and a relatively
low nitrogen content (about 2.3%). The use of lime-
stone for sulphur capture with this material, which is
not a usual practice, was studied. Points of particular
interest include: (a) the demonstration of significant
overbed burning associated with fuel fines, indicating
that the feed method chosen for this type of fuel may
be particularly important for BFBC designs, and (b)
the finding that heavy metals associated with the fuel
were found quantitatively in the ash streams, i.e.
they were not mobilized.
9. WASTE TYRFX
Waste tyres are in many ways perfect fuel for the
FBC boilers, having as they do a very high heating
value ( - 27-39 MJ/kg), comparable to or better than
the best quality coals, and moderate sulphur contents
necessitating SO2 removal.‘64-‘66 In addition, tyres
pose a considerable health problem when disposed
of in conventional landfills, providing a breeding
ground for insects and rodents and a significant fire
hazard. A number of fires have recently occurred
in Canada, including a major one at Hagersville,
Ontario. In North America, the figure of one tyre a
year per person is often quoted as the typical genera-
tion rate of tyres, showing that tyre disposal is indeed
a major environmental problem.16’
However, scrap tyres contain wire which can form
‘bird-nest’ in the bed material. These must be re-
moved by properly designed extraction systems to
avoid plugging of the bed drains and subsequent
defluidization. Tyres can also contain fibreglass
which can form clinkers or lead to agglomeration.164
In addition, the ash can contain elevated zinc oxide
levels which make ash disposal more problematic. 156
A particularly important study of the use of FBC for
the combustion of waste tyres and other alternative
fuels was carried out in 1991 by the Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI), who looked at commer-
cial experience with tyres and tyre derived fuels
(TDF) both with EPI units in North America and an
 Fluidized
internally circulating FBC unit in Japan. The study
showed that properly designed fluid bed systems can
deal effectively with the ‘bird-nest’ wires and metal
plates in the bed material.16s However, a major
conclusion was that tyres or TDF cannot be burnt
indiscriminately in FBC boilers; the boiler has to be
properly designed to handle this type of fuel.
Currently, most of the experience in burning tyres
or TDF has been obtained with BFBC technology.
However, Foster Wheeler Corporation has also car-
ried out limited test work on a CFBC boiler being
operated by Manitowoc Utilities in Wisconsin.169s17o
The boiler was a 91 t,‘h CFBC system and limited
trials were carried out firing a mixture of petroleum
coke and TDF between 2 October to 15 December,
1991. In these trials, TDF up to 20% of the heat
input was used, with the TDF being supplied as
nominal 25 mm cubes (with oversized material up to
75 mm cubes). Foster Wheeler reported trouble free
operation in these trials and determined that the
Foster Wheeler directional nozzles which are de-
signed to direct oversized materials to the bed with-
drawal systems functioned well for this fuel. In addi-
tion, they reported no problems with segregation due
to the large size of the TDF fuel. Foster Wheeler
note in their paper that the demand for TDF is such
that it is likely to be unavailable for the Manitowoc
boiler in future. This comment underscores the fact
that TDFs superior combustion characteristics mean
that boilers dedicated to burning this material may
have problems in ensuring long term supplies of
tyres and in that case FBC fuel flexibility may offer
a significant advantage in allowing the boiler to be
operated with other fuels in the event that TDF
becomes unavailable.
10. AGRICULTURAL/FOOD PROCESSING WASTES
Agricultural wastes cover a wide gamut of possible
materials and include products ranging from biomass
such as waste wood to others like olive pits, coffee
grounds, etc. In order to simplify this section of the
report, agricultural waste will be regarded as any
product that is not produced in conjunction with a
product with nutritional value for humans or animals
(e.g. bark or wood products) while food processing
waste will be defined here as residues produced in
the direct processing of food materials (e.g. coffee
grounds or olive pits). Food processing wastes will
be regarded as distinct from waste foods, i.e. residues
which could in principle be used for animal
feedstocks.
10.1. Agricultural Wastes
For such wastes, the key problem is probably
ensuring reliable feeding of the waste, given that they
often show considerable variation in density and
bed combustion 261
moisture content. In addition, where large variations
of moisture content occur there are great benefits
from ensuring careful blending of fuels to reduce
effects of variations in fuel moisture and heat con-
tents. Other key issues include ensuring that adequate
bed withdrawal systems exist to deal with the large
amount of tramp materials (e.g. rock and dirt) that
are likely to accompany the agricultural waste feed,
otherwise the boiler may well become defluidized.
Another issue is that of fouling or agglomeration
resulting from the high alkali content that is often
associated with agricultural wastes, leading to the
production of an ash whose softening temperature
lies in the typical range at which such combustors are
operated. One method of dealing with this problem
is to use limestone as the bed material, thus helping
to raise the ash softening point to 850-950°C.i7’
It is difficult to determine the total number of
FBC units burning various wood wastes and biomass
either by themselves or co-fired with coal or some
other premium fuel. However, worldwide the number
is certainly in the hundreds. For example, Babcock
& Wilcox (B&W) have built 29 FBC units of which
about 50% burn or co-fire agricultural wastes.“’ In
the U.S., B&W has built three CFBC/Studsvik boil-
ers to burn wood and waste wood products.173 Simi-
larly, in 1991, Pyropower reported that it had built
over 90 CFBC systems worldwide. Of these, perhaps
20 or so have been used to burn wood or industrial
waste either as the sole fuel or co-fired with a pre-
mium fuel such as coa1.174~‘75 Other major compa-
nies such as Foster Wheeler, Deutsche Babcock.
Asea Brown Boveri-Combustion Engineering and
Lurgi, and Tampella Power Corporation also offer
proven CFBC designs in North America and world-
wide for a wide range of biomass and industrial
wastes at both the industrial and utility scale.
Smaller manufacturers are also offering FBC tech-
nology for a wide range of industrial wastes. For
example, EPI i’i have built five successfully operat-
ing BFBC boilers for the combustion of biomass in
California. The largest, a 27 MWe FBC boiler lo-
cated in Delano, California burns agricultural wastes
(orchard prunings, secondary wood, almond shells
and cotton stalks). It has successfully met Californian
emission guidelines for sulphur compounds, oxides
of nitrogen, hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide.
No significant problems have been reported with
these units, although limestone addition was neces-
sary for some fuels in order to increase the ash
softening point and reduce fouling on the heat trans-
fer surfaces. Ammonia injection was also necessary
to meet Californian emission guidelines for NO,.
Another company which has recently entered the
North American market and boasts over 30 BFBC
boilers worldwide burning a range of difficult fuels is
Outokumpu Technology. Fuels burnt in their boilers
include bark, wood chips, paper waste and waste
sludes, oil tank sludges, etc. Outokumpu’s North
American subsidiary, Outokumpu EcoEnergy Inc., is
262 E. J. Anthony
currently building a 25 MWe power plant to burn
sawdust and wood waste with a moisture content of
46x.“’ Although the above list of full-scale FBC
projects to burn wood and other agricultural wastes
is not exhaustive, it does demonstrate that FBC
technology can be regarded as a mature technology
for burning these classes of fuels.
10.2. Food Processing Wastes
Food processing can be classified into three classes due to its high water content. This project involved
of operations: ” ’
??Separation processes (e.g. rendering, skinning,
boning, coring, defeathering, husking, peeling,
shelling);
??Assembling processes (e.g. coating, enrobing,
baking, homogenization, roasting, pelleting, cause many food wastes contain high levels of water,
stuffing);
??Preservation, such as may occur at harvesting or
at a food processing plant, etc.
Of these operations, clearly the first is the most
likely to produce wastes which can be handled in a contain nitrogen levels from 8 up to 32%, products
FBC combustor. However, most of these are avail-
able only in small quantities which means that the
development of exclusive FBC equipment to burn
them is unlikely and the project is typically ‘one-of-
a-kind’ so that it may not be reported in the litera-
ture. For example, an examination of the boiler
installation lists from JWP Energy Products Inc.,
Ahlstrom Pyropower, Babcock Enterprise Groupe
and SFA Quaterly Report, June 199222~119~172~175CIEMAT using a BFBC pilot plant. The wastes
revealed no projects involving food wastes. However,
an example of a successful installation is provided by
a boiler built by FluiDyne Engineering Corporation
who constructed a BFBC unit (one of only two FBC
boilers built by that company) in Lindsay, California,
burning olive pits (Lindsay Olive Growers). The FBC
solution for disposal of these wastes was chosen only
after a wide range of alternative options was consid-
ered, including attempts to grind for cattle feed,
pressing into charcoal logs or for use as a road filler.
The unit’s primary purpose was disposal of olive
pits, with steam raising as a secondary feature.’ “J’~
The boiler was a single-piece shop-assembled fluid
bed boiler rated at about 9.1 t/h of steam.
Another example of this type of ‘one-of-a-kind’
project is provided by a BFBC boiler which produces
26 t/h of steam by burning coffee grounds sludge,
containing 85% water. This boiler was built by JTA
in Natal, South Africa. FBC technology was chosen
because of its fuel flexibility and ability to accept
wide variations in fuel composition, which was neces-
sary to ensure that the plant could achieve two
functions, namely to incinerate coffee ground sludges
produced at a varying rate, and to meet the plant
steam requirement, which are not necessarily linked.
No conventional combustion technology could burn
the coffee grounds in this form, and hence pre-dying
would be necessary, which would have entailed install-
ing additional plant.
The boiler was commissioned in January 1994,
and is co-fired with coal. The effective water content
of this composite fuel is about 73%. The fuel was
introduced into the boiler by means of wide-throat
auger-fed mono pumps, which are designed not only
to feed the sludge, but cope with the occasional
presence of large lumps (up to 15 mm) of chicory in
the sludge. The pumps are also designed to ‘throw’
the fuel across the bed and hence disperse it evenly
across the bed to avoid local quenching of the bed
many unique engineering challenges and won a South
African Institution of Chemical Engineering tri-
annual innovation award. 1*O
Food wastes per se do not appear to be utilized in
FBC systems. This is not altogether surprising be-
making them at best a questionable fuel. Also,
protein-rich fuels have high nitrogen contents which
could lead to elevated levels of NO, and N,O emis-
sions. For instance, the 20 common amino acids
like leather shoes contain up to 11.5%, ripe leaves
can contain up to 6%, while mixed food wastes may
contain 3%.‘*l In addition, waste foods lend them-
selves more naturally to operations like composting,
ethanol production or use in animal feedstocks.
One possibility that is being examined is the com-
bustion of waste leather. This waste is being tested
by the Spanish government R&D organization
examined are from the Spanish tannery and footwear
industry which produces about 40,000 and 10,000 t/a
respectively, with nitrogen contents ranging from
11.9 to 13%. The wastes are also heavily contami-
nated with chrome. Emission results fully exemplify
the NO, emission problem in that they ranged from
750 to 820 ppm (6% 02).‘*’
11. DISCUSSION
This survey demonstrates the versatility of FBC
for burning a very broad range of hydrocarbon based
fuels. In particular, two fuels, petroleum coke and
waste coal, are shown to be of special economic
importance, although at the moment most of the
developments on petroleum coke are restricted to
North America. While FBC can achieve effective
combustion of almost any waste in an environmen-
tally benign way (i.e. low NO,., SO? and unburnt
hydrocarbons), it is an expensive technology and
attempts to improve emissions performance always
come at added cost. However, as the price of landfill
increases and environmental standards become more
rigorous, FBC is one of the few technologies that are
likely to offer solutions for almost any combustible
wastes at both small industrial scale and utility scale.
 Fluidized bed combustion
In the latter category, at least three major 250 MWe
boilers and one 350 MWe boiler are underway in
order to burn coa1.iE3
For utility-scale applications of FBC, most of the
classical problems of slow startup have been resolved.
Cold-startup times have been reduced to 10-15 h,
comparable with those of conventional PC boil-
ers,lE3 and hot-startups to a few hours (e.g. one
CFBC boiler burning petroleum coke was operated
regularly only during the daytime, to take advantage
of cheap electricity that could be wheeled during
night time hours). 24 Availabilities of over 90% are
also commonplace.‘s3
An important consideration with respect to FBC
is its potential fuel flexibility. However, this must be
built into the technology. EPRI notes that its own
studies have suggested that for a nominal investment
of about $lOO/kW, variations in heating values of
about 18.1-31.9 MJjkg (7,800-13,700 Btu/lb) can be
accommodated and this would represent a capital
cost increase for a 150 MWe plant of only 7%.iE3
There are perhaps two important limitations of
FBC technology, namely sensitivity to agglomeration
and significant N,O emissions.
Agglomeration can arise in a number of ways:
From the use of slmried or wet fuels where the
water causes local wet quenchingiE4 and the for-
mation of agglomerates, as in the case of coal
rejects;
From the use of fuels with components
having a low ash softening point, e.g. as with
biomass, due to high alkali contents, ASR,
due to high glass contents; or pot liners and
spent electrodes from the aluminum industry,
due to the presence of cryolite;
From phenomena that promote agglomeration
and fouling through the limestone used for sulphur
capture, i.e. chemical reaction sintering, of which
petroleum coke firing appears to be an extreme
case.
N,O emission may become a major limitation
when using the technology for coal, petroleum coke
and a range of non-biomass fuels.41 Biomass fuels,
however, produce inherently low N,O emissions.is’
Although N,O is not currently regulated, its poten-
tial as both a greenhouse gas and its capacity to
destroy stratospheric ozone mean that it may become
an important consideration in the future, and in the
author’s view merits the considerable attention it is
receiving from the FBC R&D community as there is
currently no satisfactory way of reducing N,O
emissions.
Other problems with alternative fuels relating to
emissions can arise due to high nitrogen content
which leads to high NO,., or to the presence of
elements such as chlorine which must be captured
after the bed. There are also mechanical problems in
ensuring good feeding which can be particularly de-
manding for fibrous fuels or those with low bulk
densities like biomass or tyres. Also, fuels containing
263
considerable tramp material such as MSW, ASR or
agricultural wastes give problems both in feeding
and removal of the inert fractions following combus-
tion. However, some solutions exist such as Foster
Wheeler’s directional nozzles, Ebara internally circu-
lating bed, or revolving beds which attempt to set up
solid circulation patterns to promote mixing and
allow tramp material to be removed.‘*6~1*7 Neverthe-
less, these sorts of problems are often under-appreci-
ated by designers of FBC systems and have caused
the failure of more than one FBC project. An addi-
tional caveat for biomass fuels is that unless they are
co-fired with coal or petroleum coke, the size of an
FBC project will be restricted. This arises simply due
to the problems of collecting and transporting
enough of these high moisture, high volume and
hence low ‘energy density’ fuels to operate a large
unit.
12. CONCLUSION
Fluidized bed has been shown to be a versatile
technology capable of burning practically any waste
fuel combination with low emissions. There remain
some challenges to overcome, particularly in the
areas of N,O emissions and for certain fuels regard-
ing agglomeration and fouling problems. Secondary
issues involve the improvement of feeding and bed
withdrawal systems which can pose serious problems
with a few very difficult fuels such as ASR. In the
long term the issue of limestone use and the disposal
of bed ash will likely become problematic as well,
particularly if landfill prices continue on the slow
upward spiral being seen in North America. Cur-
rently, the disposal of spent ash can cost anywhere
between 2 or 3 $/t up to about 21 $/t.‘*s While these
problems have not been discussed in great detail in
this report, they are likely to become increasingly
important in the future.
Acknowledgements-I would like to thank Professor Henry
Becker and Mr Peter Gogolek for a number of useful
suggestions during the preparation of this article.
REFERENCES
1. Cuenca, M. A. and Anthony, E. J. (eds), Pressurized
Fluidized Bed Combustion, Blackie Academic & Profes-
sional (1995).
2. Howard, J. R. (ed.), Fluidized Beds: Combustion and
Applicutions, Applied Science Publishers (1983).
3. Yates, J. G., Fundamentals of Fluidized-Bed Chemical
Processes, Butterworth Monographs in Chemical Engi-
neering (1983).
4. Basu, P. and Fraser, S. A., Circulating Fluidized Bed
Boilers: Design and Operations, Butterworth-
Heinemann (1991).
5. Grace, J. R., Avidan, A. and Knowlton, T. (eds),
Circulating Fluidized Beds, Blackie Academic & Profes-
sional (1995).
6. Valk, M. (ed.), Atmospheric Fluidized Bed Coal Combus-
264 E. J. Anthony
tion: Research, Development and Application, Elsevier
(1995).
I. Davidson, J. F., Clift, R. and Harrison, D. (eds),
Fluidization, 2nd edn, Academic Press (1985).
8. Kunii, D. and Levenspiel, O., Fluidization Engineering,
2nd Edn, Butterworth-Heinemann (1991).
9. Kwauk, M. (ed.), Fast Fluidization, Academic Press
(1994).
10. Hobson, G. D. and Pohl, W., Modern Petroleum Tech-
nology, 4th Edn, Applied Science Publishers Ltd
(1973).
11. Skov, E. R., Goldbach, G. 0. and Sissener, M., Low
Emission 20 M W Circulating Fluidized Bed Power Plant
Design, Power-Gen 90 Conference, Orlando, FL,
December (1990).
12. Richardson, K. W. and Taibi, F. D., Louisiana Joint
Venture Starts Up Coke-Fuelled Cogen Plant, Oil and
Gas Journal, pp. 3842, 5 April (1993).
13. Carson, R., Private communication, TVA, March
(1994).
14. Foster Wheeler, pamphlet entitled Manitowoc Public
Utilities, taken from autumn issue of Heat Engineering,
1991.
15. Abdulally, 1. and Cox, J., Foster Wheeler’s Answer to
Meeting the Utility Challenge: Large Scale CFB Unit
Design for the Utility Market, Application of Fluidized-
Bed Combustion for Power Generation Utility Confer-
ence, sponsored by EPRI, Cambridge, MA, 23-25
September ( 1992).
16. Goidich, S. J., McGee, A. R. and Richardson, K., The
NISCO Cogeneration Projection 100-M We Circulating
Fluidized Bed Reheat Steam-Generator, Proceedings
1lth International Conference on Fluidized Bed Com-
bustion, Ed. E. J. Anthony, ASME, Montreal, Quebec,
21-24 April (1991).
17. Zierold, D., NISCO Cogeneration Facility, Application
of Fluid&d-Bed Combustion for Power Generation
Utility Conference, sponsored by EPRI, Cambridge,
MA, 23-25 September (1992).
18. O’Hagan, M. A., The California Applications of the
Circulating Fines Circulating Fluidized Bed Technology,
ASME Industrial Power Conference, Hartford, CT,
October (1989).
19. Burr, M. T., Fluidized Bed in the Bay Area, Independent
Energy, September (1990).
20. Makansi, J., FBC Poised to Vault Hurdles Facing Solid
Fuel Use, Power, March (1990).
21. Vander Molen. R. and Basinzer. G.. Start-uo and Initial
Operation of California S Cleanest Coal-Fired Fluidized
Bed Boiler, Power-Gen 91, Tampa, FL, December
(1991).
22. Ahlstrom Pyroflow Installation List, April (1993).
23. Horio, M., Private communication, Tokyo University
of Agriculture and Technology, October (1993).
24. Anthony, E. J., Petroleum Coke Burning in FBC Sys-
terns, Division Report ERL 92-36(CF), October
(1992).
25. Chiu, J., Private communication, ABB, March (1994).
26. Darling, S., Leinhard, H., Dougherty, J. M. and Liu,
E., Design of the Scott Paper CFB; Proceedings 9th
International Conference on Fluid&d Bed. Ed. J.
Mustonen, Boston, MA, 3-7 May (1987).
27. Riley, K., Cofiring Petroleum Coke and Lignite at TNPS
320 MW Plant, EPRI conference on Fluidized Bed
Combustion for Power Generation: Clean, Low Cost
Power Now! Atlanta, GA, 17-l 9 May (1994).
28. Park, D., Levenspiel, 0. and Fitzgerald, T. J., Plume
models for large particle fluidized bed combustors, Fuel
60,295-306 (1981).
29. Park, D. and Levenspiel, O., Plume model for sulphur
capture in large-scale, atmospheric fluidized bed com-
bustors, Fuel 61, 578-586 (1982).
30. Anthony, E. J., Couturier, M. F. and Briggs, D. W.,
Gas Sampling at the Point Tupper AFBC Facility, ERL
Division Renort 86-70. August (1986).
31. Zhang, J. QI, Anthony, E. j., Dksai, D. L. and Friedich,
F. D., Fluidized Bed Combustion of Heavy Liquid Fuels,
ERL Division Report, ERL 87-22(CF) (1988).
32 Polymath, Combustion, Sulphur Neutralization and
Vanadium Balance Tests with Syncrude and Fort Mc-
Murray Limestone in a Pilot-Scale Atmospheric Recircu-
lating Fluidized-Bed Reactor, report to CANMET,
by Polymath Energy Consultants, Ahlstrom Corpora-
tion, and Pyropower Corporation under contract
number 23SQ.23440-4-9239, July (1986).
33 Brereton, C., Grace, J. R., Lim, C. J., Zhu, J., Legros,
R., Muir, J. R., Zhao, J., Senior, R. C., Luckos, A.,
Inumura, N., Zhang, J. and Hwang, I., Environmental
Aspects, Control and Scale-up of Circulating Fluidized
Bed Combustion for Application in Western Canada,
final report prepared for Energy, Mines and Resources,
Canada under contract 55SS 23440-8-9243, December
(1991).
34. Brereton, C., Private communication, University of Brit-
ish Columbia, April (1993).
35. Anthony, E. J., Becker, H. A., Code, R. K., McCleave,
R. W. and Stephenson, J. R., Bubbling Fluidized Bed
Combustion of Syncrude Coke, Technical Report
QFBC.TR.85.2 to Energy, Mines and Resources
(1985).
36. Becker, H. A., Code, R. K. and Stephenson, J. R.,
Pilot Scale Trials on Atmospheric Fluidized Bed Combus-
tion of a Saskatchewan Petroleum Coke, Technical
Report QFBC.TR.87.5 to Energy, Mines and Re-
sources (1987).
37. Hansen, P. B. F., Sulphur capture in fluidized bed
combustors, Ph.D. Thesis, Technical University of
Denmark (1991).
38. Moritomi, H., Suzuki, Y., Kido, N. and Ogisu, Y., NO,
Formation Mechanisms of Circulating Fluidized Bed
Combustion, Proceedings 11th International Conference
on FBC, Ed. E. J. Anthony, ASME, pp. 1005-1011,
Montreal, Quebec, 21-24 April (1991).
39. Amand, L. E. and Leckner, B., Oxidation of volatile
nitrogen compounds during the combustion in circulat-
ing fluidized bed boilers, Energy and Fuels 5, 809-815
(1991).
40. Amand, L. E., Leckner, B. and Andersson, S., Forma-
tion of N,O in circulating fluidized bed boilers, Energy
and Fuel5,815-823 (1991).
41. Hulgaard, T., Nitrous oxide from combustion, Doc-
toral Thesis, Technical University of Denmark (1991).
42. Lyngfelt, A. and Leckner, B., The Effect of Reductive De-
composition of CaSO, on Sulphur Capture in Fluidized
Bed Boilers, Proceedings 10th International Conference
on Fluidized Bed Combustion, Ed. A. M. Manaker,
ASME, pp. 675684, San Francisco, CA (1989).
43. Johnsson, J. E., Nitrous Oxide Formation and Destruc-
tion in Fluidized Bed Combustion-A Literature Review
of Kinetics, Technical University of Denmark Report
No. 9103, presented at the 23rd IEA-AFBC Meeting in
Firenze, France, November (1991).
44. Smart, J. P., Roberts, P. A. and de Soete, G. G., The
formation of nitrous oxide in large-scale pulverized-coal
flames, J. Institute Energy, September, 131-135 (1990).
45. Becker, H. A., Code, R. K., Gogolek, P. E., Poirier, D.
J. and Anthony, E. J., Detailed Gas and Solids Measure-
ments in a Pilot-Scale AFBC with Results on Gas Mixing
and Nitrous Oxide Formation, Proceedings 11th Inter-
national Conference on FBC, Ed. E. J. Anthony,
ASME, pp. 91-98, Montreal, Quebec, 21-24 April
(1991).
46. Iisa, K., Salokokosi, P. and Hupa, M., Heterogeneous
Formation and Destruction of Nitrous Oxide under Fluid-
ized Bed Combustion Conditions, Proceedings 11th Inter-
national Conference on FBC, Ed. E. J. Anthony,
 Fluidized bed combustion 265

ASME, Montreal, Quebec, pp. 1027-1033, 21-24 April 62. Gilmore, J. B., Lui, A. W., Briggs, D. C., Knight, R. F.
(1991). and Hindam, H., The Canadian A FBC Materials Pro-
47. Shimizu, T., Tachiyama, Y., Souma, M. and Inagaki. gram: Part I -Performance of Alloys after 10,000 Hours
M., Emission Control of NO, and NzO of Bubbling of Exposure, Corroson 87, San Francisco, CA, 9-13
Fluidized Bed Combustor, Proceedings I I th Inter- March (1987).
national Conference on FBC, Ed. E. J. Anthony, 63. Hindam, H., Gilmore, J. B., Packwood, R. H., Briggs,
ASME, Montreal, Quebec, pp. 695-700, 21-24 April D. C. and Lui, A. W., The Canadian AFBC Materials
(1991). Program: Part II-Metallographic Observations, Corro-
48. Braun, A., Bu, C., Renz, U., Drischel, J. and Koser, H. sion 87, San Francisco, CA, 9913 March (1987).
J. K., Emissions of NO and NzO from a 4 M W Fluidized 64. Anthony, E. J., Iribarne, A. P. and Iribarne, J. V..
Bed Combustor with NO Reduction, Proceedings I I th Preliminary Report on Agglomeration and Fouling in
International Conference on FBC, Ed. E. J. Anthony, Petroleum Coke Fluidized Bed Combustion, Division
ASME, Montreal, Quebec, pp. 7099718, 21-24 April Report ERL 94-25(CF) (I 994).
(1991). 65. Skrifvars, B. J., Sintering Tendency of Different Fuel
49. Bramer, E. A. and Valk, M., Nitrous Oxide and Nitric Ashes in Combustion and Gastfication Conditions, Abe
Oxide Emissions by Fluidized Bed Combustion, Proceed- Akademi Academic Dissertation. Finland. Report 94-6
ings I1 th International Conference on FBC, Ed. E. J. (1994).
Anthony, ASME, Montreal, Quebec, pp. 701-707, 66. Anthony, E. J., Iribarne, A. P. and Iribarne, J. V..
21-24 April (1991). Agglomeration and Fouling with Petroleum Coke Firing,
50. Brown, R. A. and Muzio, L., N,O Emissions from 13th International Conference on FBC, ASME, Or-
Fluidized Bed Combustion, Proceedings I I th Inter- lando, FL, 7-10 May (1995).
national Conference on FBC, Ed. E. J. Anthony, 67. Zierold, D., Private communication, Gulf States Utili-
ASME, Montreal, Quebec, pp. 719-724, 21-24 April ties Company, March (1994).
(1991). 68. Berry, E. E., Anthony, E. J. and Kalmanovitch, D. P.,
51. Cabrita, I., Costa, M. R., Esparteiro, H. and Gulyurtlu, The uses and morphology of atmospheric fluidized bed
I., Determination of Overall Fuel N-Balance during Fluid- wastes from Canada’s first industrial AFBC boilers, J.
ized Bed Coal Combustion, Proceedings I1 th Inter- Energy Res. Technol. 109, 148-I 54 (1987).
national Conference on FBC, Ed. E. J. Anthony, 69. Anthonv. E. J.. Doiron. C. C.. Kissel. R. K. and Ross.
ASME, Montreal, Quebec, pp. 985-990, 21-24 April G. G., Solid Waste Properties and Disposal Characteris-
(1991). tics from Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustion Burning
52. Hiltunen, M., Kilpinen, P., Hupa, M. and Lee, Y. Y., High Sulphur Coke, Joint ASMEjIEEE Power Genera-
N,O Emissions from CFB Boilers: Experimental Results tion Conference, Philadelphia, PA, 25529 September
and Chemical Interpretation, Proceedings I I th Inter- (1988).
national Conference on FBC, Ed. E. J. Anthony, 70. Anthony, E. J., Ross, G. G., Berry, E. E., Hemings, R.
ASME, Montreal, Quebec, pp. 687-700, 21-24 April T., Kissel, R. K. and Doiron, C. C., Characterization of
(1991). Solid Wastes from Circulating Fluidized Bed Combus-
53. Miettinen, H., Stromberg, D. and Lindquist, O., The tion, Ed. A. M. Manaker, ASME, San Francisco, CA,
InpUence of Some Oxide and Sulphate Surfaces on NzO, pp. 13lll37,30 April-3 May (1989).
Proceedings I 1th International Conference on FBC, 71. Smith, 1. M., Management of AFBC Residues, IEA
Ed. E. J. Anthony, ASME, Montreal, Quebec, pp. Coal Research IEA CF/2 I, February (I 990).
999%1005,21-24 April (1991). 72. Anthony, E. J. and Preto, F. (eds), 1991 CANMET
54. Botting, A. J., Gavin, D. G. and Hughes, I. S. C., CFBC Ash Management Seminar, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Emissions of Nitrous Oxide from Coal-Fired Fluidized 2-3 July I99 I.
Bed Boilers, Proceedings Institute of Energy’s 5th Inter- 13. Bland, A., Private communication, Western Research
national Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion, Institute, March (I 994).
Adam Hilger, London, U.K., pp. 239-248, IO-11 14. Dearborn, Variability of Circulating Fluidized Bed Com-
December (1991). bustion Ash Characteristics for Disposal-Part 2, Petro-
55. Gourichon, L., Joly, A. and Queva, T., Infruence of leum Coke, draft report to Environment Canada
Limestone Injection on NzO Emissions in CFBC, Pro- (1991).
ceedings of the Institute of Energy’s 5th International 75. Kissel, R. K., Ross, G. G. and Anthony, E. J., Experi-
Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion Conference, ence with Manugement and Disposal of CFBC Residues,
Adam Hilger, London, U.K., pp. 231-237, 10-11 The 1989 Joint Power Generation Conference, Dallas,
December (1991). TX, 22-26 October (I 989).
56. Lawn, C. J., Principles of Combustion Engineering for 16. Zierold, D., Private communications, Gulf States Utili-
Boilers, Academic Press ( 1987). ties Company, March and May (1993).
51. Wright, I., Private communication, Battelle Columbus 11. Australian Coal Yearbook, 8th Edn (1993).
Laboratories, April (1993). 78. Duffy, G. J. and Kable, J. W., The comparative environ-
58. Gilmore, J. B., Examination of Corrosion Probes from a mental impact of methods for the disposal of coal
Laboratory-Scale Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustor, washery tailings with particular reference to fluidized
Physical Metallurgy Research Laboratories Report bed combustion, J. Inst. Energy, 3148 March (1985).
PMRL 87-S(TR). Februarv (1987). 79. LaNauze. R. D., Duffy, G. J., Potter, E. C. and Brad-
59. Hamer, C. A.., L&g, D. T:and Kkams, J. B., Corrosion shaw, A. V., Fluidized Combustion of Coal Washery
of Stainless Steel in a Circulating Fluidized Bed Com- Wastes, Proceedings 1980 Fluidization Conference,
bustor, Mineral Sciences Laboratories Report, MSL Eds. J. R. Grace and J. M. Matsen, Plenum, pp. 15l
87-92 (IR), July (1987). 158(1980).
60. Hamer, C. A., Corrosion of Stainless Steel in a Circulat- 80. LaNauze, R. D. and Duffy, G. J., Technical and Eco-
ing Fluidized Bed Combustor, Minerals Sciences Report nomic Appraisal of Fluidized-Bed Combustion for Coal
MSL 87-l 34 (J), November (I 987). Washery Tailings Disposal in Australia, Proceedings 7th
61. Liang, D. T., Hamer, C. A. and Keams, J. B., The International Conference on Fluidized Bed Com-
Design and Operation of a Small Scale Circulating Fluid- bustion. The U.S. Deuartment of Enerav. DOEi-
ized Bed Combustor, Proceedings 10th International METC/83-48, pp. 847-837 (1982). -.
Conference on FBC, Ed. J. P. Mustonen, Boston, MA, 81. Duffy, G. J. and LaNauze, R. D., Performance of an
pp. ll17-1122,3-7May(l987). FBC Boiler Burning Coal Rejects, Proceedings 8th Inter-
266 E. J. Anthony

national Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion, 100. Lucat, P., Hirschfelder, H. and Rollin, J. R., Utility-
The U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/METC/85-6201, Type Stein Industry CFB Boilers, Proceedings of the
pp. 981-990 (1985). Conference on Fluidized Bed, Adam Hilger, London,
82. LaNauze. R. D. ane Duffv. G. J.. Fluidized-bed com- U.K., pp. I-IO, IO-II December (1991).
bustion: the Australian experience and its application 101. Georges, D., Carboduc: Conditionnement, Transport
to Asian and Pacific Basin Countries, Energy II, Hydralique et Preparation des Schlamms. pour la Cen-
1201-1208 (1986). trale Thermique Emile Huchet, 10th International Coal
83. Peeler, P., Private communication, CSIRO, October Preparation Congress, Edmonton, Alberta, l-5
(1994). September (I 986).
84 Antopolski, M., Private communication, National 102. Gobillot, R. and Tessier, J. R., Centrale Emile Huchet,
Power Company, March (I 994). Group 4: Chaudiere a Lit Fluidise Alimentee par un
85. Peeler, P., Private communication, CSIRO, February Melanaae Charbon-Eau a 33”/, d’Eau. unoublished
(1995). report, CdF Ingenerie (1992). ” L
86. Hulsboch, J. E., Maufort, A. J. and Scailteur, A. F., 103. Poersch, W. and Zabeschek, G., Fluidized Bed Combus-
Belgian Industrial Experience in Power Generation tion of Flotation Tailings in Fluidization, Proceedings
from Coal Mine Waste, Proceedings 9th International Engineering Foundation Conference, Eds J. F. David-
Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion, Ed. J. P. son and D. L. Kearns, Cambridge University Press,
Mustonen. ASME. Boston. MA. DD. 360-367. 3-7 pp. 292-296 (I 987).
May(198i). AA 104. Lurgi Fluidized Bed Projects Installation List (1993).
81. Anthony E. J., Desai, D. L. and Friedrich, F. D., The 105. Thirunavukkarasu, R., Ganesh, A., Viswanathan, G.
Combustion of Hat Creek Coal Waste in an Atmospheric and Malarkkan, K. M. V., Test Results of Fluidized
Fluidized Bed Combustor, Energy Research Laborat- Bed Combustion of Coal Washerv Reiects in Bharat
ories Report ERP/ERL 82-54(TR), CANMET (1983). Heavy Electricals- Limited’s Prototype Boiler, Pro-
88. Lurgi Canada, Utilization of Coal Washery Tailings: ceedings 7th International Conference on Fluidized
FBC Technology Applies to the Co-Generation of Coal Bed Combustion, U.S. Department of Energy,
Drying and Electrical Power: Final Report, CANMET DOE/METC/83-48, pp. 614-624 (1982).
Project Number UP-L-250 (1984). 106. Sukumar, R., Viswanathan, G., Rajaram, S. and Mal-
89. Rowley, D. R., Lau, I. T. and Friedrich, F. D., Combus- liah, K. T. U., Design Features and Operational Experi-
tion of Coal- Water Slurries and Coal Tailings in a ence with a Coal Washery Rejects Fired FBC Boiler in
Fluidized Bed, Proceedings 8th International Confer- u Captive Power Plant, Proceedings 1 lth International
ence on Fluidized Bed Combustion, The U.S. Depart- Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion, Ed. E. J.
ment of Energy, DOE/METC/85-6021, pp. 962-980 Anthony, ASME, Montreal, Quebec, pp. 529-535,
(1985). 21-24 April (1991).
90. Hamer, C. A., Private communication, CANMET, 107. Malliah; K. T. U., Private communication, Bharat
March (1994). Heavy Electricals Ltd. Februarv (1993).
91. Adamson, D., Private communication, Luscar Ltd, 108 Terada, H. and Kawashima, I.: Utilization of Sedi-
March (1994). mented Coal Sludge in Fluidized Bed Boiler, Proceed-
92. Lau, I., Private communication, CANMET, February ings 7th International Conference on Fluidized Bed
(1993). Combustion, The U.S. Department of Energy,
93. Cen, K., Cao, X., Yuan, Z., Kong, S., Hong, J., Xie, DOE/METC/83-48, pp. 84&846 (1982).
M., Lu, D., Ni, M. and Chen, Y., Combustion and 109 Kawada, S., Shikata, T., Oki, K., Takamoto, N.,
Gasification of Coal-Water Slurry in Fluidized Beds, Fujiwara, K., Takada, S., Takahashi, Y. and Fuji-
Proceedings 7th International Conference on Fluidized wara, N., Fuel Evaluation and Operating Experiences
Bed Combustion, The U.S. Department of Energy, of Babcock Hitachi Multiple Fuel Fluidized Bed Boiler
DOE/METC/83-48, pp. 253-263 (1982). in Japan, Proceedings 9th International Conference on
94. Cen, K., Ni, M. and Huang, G., A New Technology for Fluidized Bed Combustion, Ed. J. P. Mustonen,
Fluidized-bed Combustion of Coal- Water Mixture and ASME, Boston, MA, pp. 405414,3-7 May (1987).
Low-Grade Washing Sludge, Proceedings 8th Inter- 110. Inumaru, N., Private communication, Ebara Corpora-
national Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion, tion, February (1993).
The U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/METC/85-6021, III. Eleftheriades, C. M. and North, B., Special Plant
pp. 991-1002 (1985). Features and Their Effect on Combustion of Waste
95. Cen, K., Huang, G., Ni, N., Xiang, Q., Yang, J., Luo, Coals in a Fluidized Bed Combustor, Proceedings 10th
Z., Tao, T. and Yao, D., Study on Fluidized Bed Combus- international Conference on Fluidized Bed Combus-
tion of Washery Tailings in an Industrial-Scale Boiler, tion, Ed. A. M. Manaker, ASME, Boston, MA, pp.
Proceedings 9th International Conference on Fluidized 353-359,337 May (1987).
Bed Combustion, Ed. J. P. Mustonen, ASME, Boston, 112. ENERTEK, CSIR. The National Fluidized Bed Com-
MA. ,..DD. 398404.3-7 Mav__ (1987).
I
bustion (NFBC) Boiler: Proven Technologyfrom Practi-
96. Liu, X., The application of and prospects for fluidized- cal Experience, unpublished report (1993).
bed combustion technology in coal-mining areas in 113. North, B. C., Total Coal Utilization in a Fluidized Bed
China, Energy 11, 120991214 (1986). Boiler, unpublished ENERTEK report (1993).
97. Girard, R., Bessouat, R. and Knoche, R., The 125 114. Dawes, S. G.. Private communication. British Coal.
MWe Emile Huchet circulating fluidized bed boiler, February (1993).
studies for coal/water mixture utilization, Circulating 115. Cooke, M. J. and Hodgkinson, N., The fluidized
Fluidized Bed Technology II, Eds P. Basu and J. F. combustion of low grade materials, Fluidized
Large, Pergamon, pp. 389-397 (1988). Combustion-Symposium Series No. I, Institute of Fuel,
98. Semedard, J. C.. Lucat, P.. Rolling. J. P. and pp. C2-I-C2-9, September (1975).
Beisswnger, H., Status of the Stein Indu&y I25 MWe 116. Hodgkinson, N. and Thurlow, G. G., Combustion of
Emile Huchet CFBC Boiler, Proceedings I I th Inter- Low Grade Materials in Fluidized Beds, AIChE 68
national Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion, Annual Meeting, pp. 108-I 14, 1975.
Ed. E. J. Anthony, ASME, Montreal, Quebec, pp. 117. Randall, A. A., Gauld, D. W., Dando, R. L. and
l47-l50,21-24 April (1991). LaNauze, R. D., Disposal of Colliery Tailings by Fluid-
99. Slurry-fired CFB advanced plant’s comprehensive use ized Bed Combustion, Fluidization: Proceedings Engin-
of coal-mining wastes, Power International (1992). eering Foundation Conference, Eds J. F. Davidson
 Fluidized bed combustion 267

and D. L. Keaims. Cambridge University Press, pp. Conference on FBC, Ed. L. Rubow, AMSE, San
286-29 1 ( 1978). Diego, CA, pp. 249-264,9-13 May (1993).
118. Rogers, A. E. and Cooke, M. J., Treatment of Colliery 136. Meckel, B. D., Solids Converted to Energy at Paper
Tailings by Fluidized Bed Combustion, Conference on Mill, Water Environment & Technology, May (1993).
Fluidized Combustion: Systems and Applications, In- 137. Meckel, B. D., Private communication, Energy Pro-
stitute of Energy, pp. IIB-I-I-IIB-I-7 (1980). ducts of Idaho, September (1993).
119. SFA, The SFA Quarterly Report: SFA S Quarterly 138. Jaremko, G., Takeover gives DRW global marketing
Fuels and Power Program, June (1992). clout, Calgary Herald, 3 July (1993).
120. Martin, D. F., Private communication, ARIPPA, 139. Mason, L., Bowater signs deal for thermal energy,
March (I 994). The Chronicle-Herald, 26 May (1993).
121. Belin, F., Price, C. E. and Warrick, R. J., Coal-Fired 140. Elanchezhian, C. and Antonio, F., Success&l Firing of
CFB Boilers: Babcock & Wilcox Experience, Inter- Paper Mill Sludges in Ahlstrom Pyrojlow CFB Boilers.
national Joint Power Generation Conference, BR- Proceedings of 12th International Conference on FBC,
1456(199la). Ed. L. Rubow. ASME, San Diego, CA, pp. 231-237
122. Belin, F., Warrick, R. J. and Eckstein, T. G., Ebens- (1993).
burg Power: Refuse Coal-Fired CFB Boiler, Power-Gen 141. Belin, F. W., Private communication. Babcock and
‘91, BR-1467(199lb). Wilcox, September (I 993).
123. CFB boilers burn waste coal, minimize emissions, 142. Houghton, J. Royal Commission on Environmental
Power, pp. 62-65, 1992. Pollution--17th Report Incineration of Waste, May
124 Harrington, A. V. and Brown, J. A., Design Considera- (1993).
tion for a 40 M W Cogeneration Anthracite Culm Fired 143. Nelson, L. P., Municipal Waste Combustion Assess-
CFB, Proceedings 10th International Conference on ment: Fluidized Bed Combustion, U.S. EPA contract
Fluidized Bed Combustion, Ed. A. M. Manaker, No. 68-03-3365, EPA-600/8-89-061, July (1989).
ASME. San Francisco. CA. DD. 1089-1094. 30 Amil-
Ls s
144. Legros, R., Energy from Waste-Review in the Field of
3 May (1989). Fluidized Bed Combustion of Municipal Solid Wastes,
125 Gdgliardi, C. R., Sommerhalter, K. L. and Welliver, Report to CANMET under DSS contract
W. R., Coal Refuse Testing Program for the Design 48SS.23440-I-9070, September (1993).
and Development of an Atmospheric Circulating Flu- 145. Gamble, M. B. and Simpson, L. L., Start-Up E.uperi-
idizing Bed Combustor and Materials Handling Equip- ence with Repowering Tacoma’s Steam Plant No. 2
ment, Pittsburgh Coal Conference, pp. 1-23 (1991). Utilizing Fluidized Bed Combustors, Proceedings EPRI
126. Sommerhalter, K., Gagliardi, C. and Fleishman, C., Conference: Application of Fluidized-Bed Combus-
Fuel Handling at the Cambria Cogen Facility, Power- tion for Power Generation, EPRI-TI- I01 8 15. April
Gen 91, pp. 1707-1721 (1991). (1993).
127. Northfleet, R. R. and Presley, J. V., Economics of 146. Campbell. W., Matuny. M., Phalen, J.. Strickler, C.
Burning Different Grades of Coal in a Circulating Fluid- and Tang, J., Design Consideration for Firing Refuse
ized Bed, Proceedings 10th International Conference Derived Fuel in a Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustor,
on Fluidized Bed Combustion, Ed. A. M. Manaker, Proceedings of 12th International Conference on FBC.
ASME, San Francisco, CA, pp. 519-527, 30 April-3 pp. 1163.-1170, Ed. L. Rubow, ASME, San Diego.
May (1989). CA, 9-13 May (1993).
128. Considine, D. M. (ed.), Van Nostrand’s Scienrific Ency- 147 Liang, D. T., Anthony, E. J., Loewen. B. K. and
clopedia, 5th Edn, Van Nostrand Reinhold (1976). Yates, D. J., Halogen Capture by Limestone during
129 Rautalin, A. and Wilin, C., Peat and Safety at Combus- Fluidized Bed Combustion, Proceedings I 1th Inter-
tion and Gasification Plants, Proceedings 10th Inter- national Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion.
national Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion, Ed. E. J. Anthony, Montreal, Quebec, Vol. 2. pp.
Ed. A. M. Manaker, ASME, San Francisco, CA, pp. 917-922,21-24 April (1991).
I 7-22, 30 April-3 May (I 989). 148 Becker, H. A., Code, R. K., Gogolek, P. E. and
130 Outokumpu Econenergy Inc. Reference List, July Poirier, D. J., A Study of Fluidized Dynamics in Bub-
(1992). bling Fluidized Bed Combustion, part of the Federal
131 Lewnard, J. J., Herbe, B. E., Sibert, K. J., Wolfson, Panel on Energy R&D (PERD) Technical Report
C. C.. Anthonv. E. J. and Preto. F.. Fluidized bed QFBC.TR91.2, to CANMET (1991).
combustion offers a solution of paper mill residual 149. Murphy, M. L., Project Schematic-Alternative Furl
fibre disposal, Prog. in Paper Recycling, November, l- Boilers, Eighth Annual Fluidized Bed Conference,
7 (1993). Pittsburgh, PA, pp. l-5,8-9 December (1992).
132 Dixit. V., Mongeon, R. K. and Reicker, E. L., Special 150. Frankenhaeuser, M., Hiltunen. M., Manninen, H. and
Emission Measurements on Riley-Stoker’s Advanced Palonen, J., Combustion of Shredded Used Packaging
CFBC Pilot Facility Co-Firing Non-Recyclable De- in a Multi-Fuel CFB Boiler, Davos, Recycle ‘93,
Inking Paper Fibre and High Sulphur Eastern Bitu- Davos, Switzerland, 22-26 March (1993).
minous Coal, Proceedings of the 12th International 151. Griffin, R. D., A New Theory of Dioxin Formation in
Conference on FBC, Ed. L. Rubow, ASME, San Muncipal Solid Waste Combustion, 78th Annual Meet-
Diego, CA, pp. 22l-229,9-13 May (1993). ing of the Air Pollution Control Association, Detroit,
133 Vayda, S. H., Jauhaiainen, E. 0. and Astrom, L., MI, I621 June (1985).
Operation Experience of an Ecoenergy Bubbling Fluid- 152. Griffin, R. D., A new theory of dixoin formation in
ized Bed Combustion Boiler Burning Paper Mill Sludge municipal solid waste combustion. Chemosphere 15,
in Combination with Woodwaste and other Fuels, Pro- 1987-1990 (1986).
ceedings of the 12th International Conference on FBC, 153. Voyer, R., Etude Technico-Liconomique et Environne-
Ed. L. Rubow, ASME, San Diego, CA, pp. 521-538, mentale des Procedes de Traitement de R&idues des
9---I3 May (1993). Carcasses d’Automobiles, CRIQ report to the Ministry
134. McCulloch, J. L. and Sweeney, E. J., Fluid Bed Com- of the Environment of Quebec, January (1992).
bustion of Deink and Mill Treatment Plant Sludge, 154. Tabery, R. S. and Dangtran, K., Fluidized Bed Incinera-
presented at Wastewater V, Chicago, IL, 27-30 March tion of Automobile Shredder Residue with Energy Recov-
(1994). ery, presented to The Super Heavy-Duty Shredder
135. Louhimo, J. Combustion of Pulp and Papermill Sludges Operator Conference, Brussels, Belgium, 5 December
and Biomass in BFB, Proceedings of 12th International (1989).
268 E. J. Anthony
155. Tabery, R., Private communication, March (1994).
156. McGowin, C. R. and Howe, W. C., A Growing Busi-
ness Opportunity: Alternate Fuel Cofiring in Fluidized
Bed Boilers, Proceedings EPRI Conference: Applica-
tion of Fluidized-Bed Combustion for Power Genera-
tion, EPRI TI-101815, April (1993).
157. Albertson, D. M., Woodruff, K. L. and Meckel, B.
D., Development of a Fluidized Bed Combustion System
.for Auto Shredder Residue, presented at the American
Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1989 Spring National
Meeting, Houston, TX, AuriI(l989).
158. Seguin,?‘., Combustion. de-Dechets Divers en Lit Fluid-
irp Circulant, La Technique Moderne, No. 5-6-7, pp.
63-68 (1993).
159. Greb, F. W., Fluid Bed Combustion at Oneida County,
New York, Proceedings National Conference on
Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Sludge Mainten-
ance, Boston, MA, pp. 140-143,27-28 May (1987).
160. Angevine, P. A., Fluid Bed Combustion of Sludge,
Tappi Proceedings 1982 Engineering Conference, pp.
506513 (1982).
161. Greb, F.’W. and Lewis, F. M., Thermodynamics of
Fluidized Bed Sludge Incineration, Proceedings Na-
tional Conference on Municipal Treatment Plant
Sludge Maintenance, Orlando, FL, pp. 157-167, 28-
30 May (1986).
162. Takeshita, M., Sloss, L. L. and Smith, I. M., N,O
Emissions from Coal Use, IEA Coal Research Report,
November (1993).
163. Lee, J. K. and Chun, H. S., Two-Stage Swirl-Flow
Fluidized Bed Incineration of Sewage Sludge, Proceed-
ings of the 12th International Conference on FBC,
Ed. L. Rubow. ASME. San Dieeo. CA. DD. 1181-
1188,9_13May(1993). - ’ ’ -A
164. Rasmussen, G. P., Fluidized Bed Systems for Steam
Generation from Scrap Tyres, Proceedings 7th Inter-
national Conference on Fluizied Bed Combustion,
Philadelphia, PA, pp. 87c874,25-27 October (1982).
165. Kiarboe, L., Fluidized Bed Combustion of Chopped
Spent Tyres, report presented to the IEA-AFBC Tech-
nical Meeting, Paris, France, May (1985).
166. Kim, J. R., -Lee, J.-S. and Kim, S. D., Combustion
Characteristics of Shredded Waste Tvres in a Fluidized
Bed Combustor, Energy 11,845854-(1994).
167. Pope, K. M., Tyres and Municipal Wastes to Energy in
a Fluidized Bed Combustion System, presented at Fluid-
bed Combustion Symposium, held at the Center for
Applied Energy Research, University of Kentucky,
Lexington, KY (1985).
168. Howe, W. C., Fluidized Bed Combustion Experience
with Waste Tyres and Other Alternate Fuels, presented
at EPRI Conference: Waste Tyres as a Utility Fuel,
San Jose. CA. 29 Januarv (1991).
169. Abdulahy, I.; Voyles, R. ‘W. and Libal, A., Multiple
Fuel Firing Experience in a Circulating Fluidized Bed
Boiler, presented to the Annual Meeting of the
American Power Conference, Chicago, IL, 13-15
April (1992).
170. Abdulally, I. F. and Sturzi, R. F., Firing Experience of
Alternate Fuels in a User-Friendly Circulating Fluldized
Bed Boiler, Proceedings 12th International Conference
on FBC, Ed. L. Rubow, ASME, San Diego, CA, pp.
1171-1180,9-13 May (1993).
171. Hansen, J. L., Agricultural Waste Fired Fluid Bed
Combustor, Delano, Caltfornia, Proceedings 1lth Inter-
national Conference on FBC, Ed. E. J. Anthony,
ASME, Montreal, Quebec, 21-24 April (1991).
172. Gibbs, D. R., Fluid Bed Boiler List, Babcock &
Wilcox, June (1992).
173. Behn, F., James, D. E., Walker, D. J. and Warrick, R.
J., Waste Wood Combustion in Circulating Fluidized
Bed Boilers, Second International Conference on Circu-
lating Fluidized Beds, Compeigne, France, 14-18
March (1988).
174. Dryden, R., Clean Coal Combustion in California,
Proceedings Institute of Energy’s 5th International
Fluidized Combustion Conference, Adam Hilger,
London, pp. 1I-18, IO-1 1 December (1991).
175. Brooks, M., Pyropower Pyroflow Reference List, Ahl-
Strom Pyropower, April (1993).
176. Astrom, L. and Vayda, S., The Combustion of Sludges
and Other Low Grade Waste Fuels, Proceedings Insti-
tute of Energy’s 5th International Fluidized Combus-
tion Conference, Adam Hilger, London, U.K., pp.
83-93, 10-I 1 December (1991).
177. Kirk-Othmer, Concise Encyclopedia of Chemical Tech-
nology, Ed. M. Grayson, John Wiley & Sons Ltd
(1985).
178. Heath, G. F. and Carroll, M. R., Design and Operation
of a Fluidized Bed Boiler Fired with Olive Pits, Proceed-
ings 9th International Conference on Fluidized Bed
Combustion, Ed. J. P. Mustonen, ASME, Boston,
MA, pp. 446448,3-7 May (1987).
179. Davini, R. J., Private communication, FluiDyne En-
gineering Corporation, March (1994).
180. North. B.. Private communication. ENERTEK
(1994)
181. Niessen, W., Combustion and Incineration Processes,
Marcel Dekker (1978).
182. Armesto, L., Cabinillas, A. and Otero, J., Incineration
in FluidizedBedof Leather Wastes, presented at the IEA
FBC Meeting, Madrid, Spain, 1619 November (1993).
183. Boyd, T. J., Atmospheric Fluidized Bed Combustion
Commercial Status, Proceedings of the EPRI Confer-
ence: Applications of Fluidized Bed Combustion for
Power Generation, pp. l-l-1-21, Cambridge, MA,
23-25 September (1992).
184. Nienow, A. W. and Rowe, P. N., Particle growth and
coating in gas-fluidized beds, in Fluidization, 2nd Edn,
Eds J. F. Davidson, R. Clift and D. Harrison, Aca-
demic Press (1985).
185. Leckner, B. and Karlsson, M., Gaseous emissions
from circulating fluidized bed combustion of wood,
Biomass Bioenergy, 4(5), 379-389 (1993).
186. Friedrich, F. D., Developments in Fluidized Bed Tech-
nology, Modern Power and Engineering, September
(1979).
187. Boraston, G. W., Revolving Fluidized Bed Technology
for the Treatment of Hazardous Waste Materials,
CANMET Conference on Energy and the Environ-
ment, Toronto, Ontario, 26-27 March (1991).
188. Bland, A. E., Overview of Management Options for
Residues from FBC Technologies, EPRI Conference
Fluidized Bed for Power Generation: Clean, Low Cost
Power Now!, Atlanta, GA, 17-19 May (1994).