CDRB PRESENTATION

DESIGN AND FABRICATION OF DOWNDRAFT

BIOMASS GASIFIER FOR PRODUCTION OF SYNGAS
The Group
Ibad Imran

Adil Iqbal

Farrukh Ahmed Khan

Scheme of Presentation
Project Selection
Project Aim
Pakistans Energy Problem
Biomass Gasification Answer to local energy needs
History of Gasification

Concept Description
Gasification Principles and Process
Gasifier Designs
Weighted Rating Matrices
Oxidant Analysis

Project Applications and Risk

Applications of Syngas
Health Safety and Environment
Design Risk and Cost Analysis
 Design and Fabricate Downdraft Gasifier
Aim Proximate and ultimate analysis of the gas produced
Limit tar content of syngas to 10 gm/m3 with high calorific value

Present Production
Pakistans Energy Problem
Pakistans Energy mix
Fossil fuel resources and its availability

Pakistans biomass potential

Biomass Gasification Answer Current utilization
to Local Energy Needs Usability of the producer gas

Pre WWI scenario

Discovery of Natural Gas and diminishing gasification requirements
History of Gasification Oil Embargo and boom of gasification
Post 2000
Project Aim
Design and Fabricate Downdraft Gasifier
Fuel Selection based on Proximate and ultimate
analysis
Limit tar content of syngas to 10 gm/m3 with high
calorific value
FUEL Corn Cobs
Fuel Barley Straw Walnut Barley
Corn Cobs Shells Straw Sugarcane
Walnut Shells Sugarcane Bagasse
Compositional analysis of syngas Bagasse
A.C 1.36 10.30 0.56 2.44
Carbon 46.58 39.92 49.98 44.80
C 18.54 20.90 21.16 11.95
Hydrogen 5.87 5.27 5.71 5.35
V.M 80.10 68.80 78.28 85.61
Oxygen 45.46 43.81 43.35 39.55
LHV (MJ/kg) 17.58 16.24 19.02 16.24
Nitrogen 0.47 1.25 0.21 0.38
HHV (MJ/kg) 18.77
Sulphur 17.31
0.01 20.18
--- 17.33
0.01 0.01
Residues 1.40 9.75 0.71 9.79
Pakistans Energy Problem
Present Production
Pakistans Energy mix
Fossil fuel resources and its availability

Type of fuel Capacity

Oil 58 billion barrels
Natural Gas 200 trillion cubic feet
Coal 185 billion tonnes
Nuclear 1159 tonnes (2008)
Biomass Gasification Answer to local energy needs
Pakistans biomass potential
Current utilization
Usability of the producer gas

Fuel Production Power Potential

(tonnes) (GWh)
Sugarcane waste 4,977,765 9,475
Cotton waste 1,966,257 3,071
Animal manure 368,434,650 23,654
MSW 7,121,626 24,088
Total 50,993
Gasification History
Pre WWI scenario
Discovery of Natural Gas and diminishing gasification
requirements
Oil Embargo and boom of gasification
Post - 2000
 Gasification Gasification concept
Principles and Process stages
Process Process Chemistry

Fixed, Fluidized and Entrained flow gasifier

Downdraft, Updraft and Cross draft gasifier
Gasifier Designs Imbert and Stratified gasifier
Advantages and Disadvantages

Factors affecting fixed, fluidized gasifiers

Weighted Rating Factors affecting downdraft, updraft and cross draft
Matrices Factors affecting Imbert and stratified gasifier
Final Selection of design

Types of Oxidant
Oxidant Analysis Parameter comparison
Final selection of oxidant
Gasification Principles and Process
Gasification concept Chemical Reaction Products Enthalpy
Process stages Oxidation Carbon dioxide and Steam -636 kJ/kmol

Process Chemistry Boudouard Carbon Monoxide +164.9 kJ/kmol

Water-gas Shift Carbon Monoxide and +118.4 kJ/kmol
Hydrogen
Methanation Methane -75 kJ/kmol
Water-gas Shift Carbon Monoxide and -42 kJ/kmol
Biomass Hydrogen
Gasification
Drying Pyrolysis Combustion Reduction Syngas
Gasifier Designs
Fixed Bed, Fluidized Bed and Entrained flow gasifier
Fixed Bed - Downdraft, Updraft and Cross draft gasifier
Downdraft - Imbert and Stratified gasifier
 Weighted Rating Matrices
Factors affecting fixed, fluidized, entrained flow gasifiers
Factors affecting downdraft, updraft and cross
Feat draft
A B C D E F G H Total WEIGH
ures T
Factors affecting Imbert and stratified Feature
gasifier A B C D E F G Total WEIGHT

S.No Factor A --- 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 0.2143

Features A B C D Total WEIGHT
A A Size Size A B --- 1 0 --- 1 1 11 1 11 1 0 1 4 7 0.2500
0.1905
A Quality of Gas
B B Fabrication
Fabrication Cost Cost B C 1 0 --- 0 1 --- 11 01 01 0 1 0 6 1 0.0357
0.2857
A --- 1 1 1 3 0.5
BC C Gasification
flexibilityAgent requirement C D 0 0 0 0 ---0 0--- 01 11 1 0 0 2 2 0.0714
0.0952
FuelFuel
flexibility B 0 --- 1 1 2 0.333
D Fuel flexibility D E 0 0 0 0 11 1
--- ---
1 11 1 1 1 4 5 0.1786
0.1905
CD E Sensitivity
Size
Slaggingto slag
flexibility formation
operation C 0 0 --- 0 0 0
E F 0 0 0 0 01 00 0--- ---0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0.0714
E F Fueltime
Start-up conversion efficiency D 0 0 1 --- 1 0.167
D Ease of feedstock F G 0 0 0 0 01 00 01 0 --- --- 0 0 1 1 0.0357
0.0476
G Residence time =6 =1.0
F Thermal Efficiency G H 1 0 0 0 11 01 01 11 1 --- --- 4 4 0.1428
0.1905
H Methane content
G Tar amount =21
=28=1.0
=1.0
 contd.
Final Selection based on Weighted Rating Matrices
I I-Downdraft
Fixed Bed Gasifier
gasifier
Final Design Selection isDesign
Fixed Bed Imbert Downdraft Gasifier II Fluidized Bed Gasifier
Features Features Weighting
Weighting
Weighting Design
Design Rating
Rating
Rating II-Updraft gasifier
IIII Imbert
Entrained Flow
gasifier
III-Cross
Gasifier draft gasifier
II Stratified gasifier
I I II II III I I I IIIIII III
I II III III S.No Factor
A A 0.2143 0.5 2 3 0 1 1 0.4286
1.50.1905 0.5 0 0.2143
A 0.1905 1 1 3 0.1905 0.5715 A
A Size
Size
B 0.2500 3 1 2 0.7500 0.2500 0.5000
B B 0.2857 0.333 33 2 22 3 2 0.666
0.8571 0.999
0.5714 0.5714 AB
B Fabrication
Quality of
Fabrication Cost
Gas
Cost
C 0.0357 1 0.1071 0.0714 0.0357
C 0 1 3 0.00.0952 0.0 C Gasification Agent
C
D 0.0952
0.0714 11 22 2 3 0.0714 0.1904
0.1428 0.1904
0.2142 C Fuel flexibility
B Fuel flexibility
requirement
D
E D 0.1905
0.1786 0.167 32 2 11 3 0 0 0.334
0.5715
0.3572 0.501
0.1905
0.1786 00 D Sensitivity
D Fuel flexibilityto slag
FE 00.0714 21 12 3 2 =2.50
0 0.0714 =2.00
00.1428 00.1428 CE formation
Size flexibility
Slagging operation
G 0.0357 EF Start-up time
F 0.0476 12 22 1 1 0.0714
0.0476 0.0714
0.0952 0.0357
0.0476 Fuel conversion
H 0.1428 2 1 1 0.2856 0.1428 0.1428 DF Ease ofEfficiency
efficiency
Thermal feedstock
G 0.1905 3 1 1 0.5715 0.1905 0.1905
=2.143 =0.999 =1.286 G Residence time
=2.334 =1.238 =1.571 G Tar amount
H Methane content
Oxidant Analysis
Parameter comparison Air 3
Heating
SafetyValue 4-7 MJ/m
Final selection of oxidant
Oxygen Heating Value 12-28 MJ/m3
Air
Steam
Ease of 10-18 MJ/m3
Heating Value Availability
Operation
Oxidant Oxygen

Steam
Cost
 Health, Safety and Design Risk and Cost
Applications of Syngas
Environment Analysis

Power generation Toxic Hazards Safety Risks

Biodiesel Environmental Hazards Material Quality Risk

Bio-alcohol Explosion Hazards Fuel Quality Risk

Ammonia production Fire Hazards Cost

Applications of Syngas
Power Generation
Bio-Diesel
Bio-alcohols
Ammonia Production
 Health Safety and Environment (HSE)
Toxic Hazards Percentage of CO ppm
AROMATIC in air EFFECT ON HUMANS EFFECT ON
Effects

HYDROCARBON ENVIRONMENT
Environmental Hazards 0.005
Naphthalene (Tertiary tar)
0.02
50 no significant effects
Haemolytic anaemia,
200 possibly headache,
depletion of pulmonary
mild frontal in 2 to 3 hours
Haemolysis glutathione and dose

Explosion Hazards 0.04 400 headache frontaldependent

and nausea
after 2.5 to 3.5 hours
after 1 to 2 hours, in the back of the head
bronchiolar
epithelial cell necrosis
Benzene 0.08 800 drowsiness,
Anaemia, headache, dizziness and
Benzene in nausea in 45 min. collapse and possibly
soil or water
Fire Hazards (Secondary/tertiary tar) unconsciousness
dizziness, headaches, in 2 hours
decomposes with the
0.16 1600confusion
tremors, headache, dizziness andofnausea
presence oxygen, in 20 minutes, collapse,
unconsciousness and possibly
contaminate death in 2 hours
groundwater
0.32
Toluene (Secondary tar) Airheadaches
ingress
3200 toheadache and dizziness
intoxication, in fish
toxic to both 5 toand
10other
minutes, unconsciousness and
convulsions, danger ofand
narcosis, death small
in 30organisms
minutes
0.64 6400 headache and dizziness in 1 to 2 minutes, unconsciousness and danger
death
Internal Explosion External Explosion
Xylene (Secondary tar) irritation ofof
thedeath in 10 tobio
skin, eyes, 15accumulate,
minutes in fish, high
1.28 Auto-ignition
nose, and throat,
12800 difficulty
immediate effect;acute toxicity to aquatic and
unconsciousness life danger of death in 1 to 3
in breathing,minutes
headache, lack
of muscle coordination,
Flammable
dizziness, confusion

Mixtures
Ethyl benzene paralysis, trouble breathing, high acute toxicity to
(Secondary/tertiary tar) liver damage and death, aquatic life causing death of
drinking water animals, birds, or fish
contaminated
Design Risk and Cost Analysis
Cost Analysis Item No. Material Quantity Price (PKR)
1 Fuel Hopper 01 4000
2 Constrictor Plate 01 1000
3 Nut and Bolts 16-20 1000
4 Reactor 01 6000
5 Top Cover 01 2000
6 Corn Cob (in kg) 20 kg 600
7 Air Blower 01 1500
8 Insulation Material 01 2000
9 Outer Chamber 01 6000
10 Manufacturing/Labour Cost --- 15000
11 Miscellaneous Cost --- 5000
12 Support Frame 01 6000
Total 50000
Design Risk
Risk Description Consequences Chance Effect Risk Rating Risk Management

Chances of carbon Operation in open air and

1. Safety Can be fatal. 2 3 6
monoxide poisoning use of gas safety masks

Dangers of high Using insulating gloves

Can cause burn lacerations 1 3 3
temperature burns and coveralls

Manufacturing cost may

Suitable substitutes will
2. Cost increase from SOR Financial loss 1 2 2
be arranged.
estimation

Materials will be properly

Quality of materials may Experimental results will checked before selection
3. Material Quality 1 3 3
not be up to the mark not be accurate. and supplier would be of
high standard

Laboratory testing of fuel

The quality of the fuel may would be carried out and
4. Fuel Quality Low quality output 2 2 4
vary in its properties single supplier of fuel is
chosen