IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v94y2012icp89-97.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Atmospheric fluidized bed gasification of untreated and leached olive residue, and co-gasification of olive residue, reed, pine pellets and Douglas fir wood chips

Author

Listed:
  • Link, Siim
  • Arvelakis, Stelios
  • Paist, Aadu
  • Martin, Andrew
  • Liliedahl, Truls
  • Sjöström, Krister

Abstract

The fluidized bed gasification of untreated and pre-treated olive residue and pre-treated olive residue mixed with reed, pine pellets and Douglas fir wood chips is studied. Leaching is used as a pre-treatment process targeted on the elimination of alkali metals such as K and Na as well as chlorine to reduce/eliminate the ash-related problems during gasification. The leaching pre-treatment process could affect the producer gas composition toward the lower or higher yield of CO and H2 of the producer gas depending on the moisture content of parent fuels. The lower total tar yield of the producer gas in the case of leached olive residue was observed compared to untreated olive residue. At the same time, there are present wider varieties of different tar components in the producer gas of the leached olive residue compared to the untreated one. The distinctions in tar composition and content between the leached and untreated olive residue are attributed to the alkali and alkali earth metal and chorine chemistry affected by leaching pre-treatment. The addition of woody fuels and reed at elevated proportions resulted in the lower LHV value compared to the leached olive residue. The tar content of the producer gas is seen to increase adding reed and woody fuels to the leached olive residue, i.e. the producer gas contained additional variety of tar components whereas phenol becomes one of the key components determining the total tar content, apart from benzene, toluene and naphthalene. This is seen to be due to the higher cellulose, hemicelluloses, lignin as well as higher chlorine content of the reed and woody fuels compared to the leached olive residue. The olive residue is seen to be better fuel for gasification compared with woody fuels and reed. Even more, we believe that the leached olive residue is better compared to all other tested fuel/mixtures in this study. It is seen that the proportions of different fuels in the mixture play role in the composition of the producer gas.

Suggested Citation

  • Link, Siim & Arvelakis, Stelios & Paist, Aadu & Martin, Andrew & Liliedahl, Truls & Sjöström, Krister, 2012. "Atmospheric fluidized bed gasification of untreated and leached olive residue, and co-gasification of olive residue, reed, pine pellets and Douglas fir wood chips," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 89-97.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:94:y:2012:i:c:p:89-97
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.01.045
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261912000517
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.01.045?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Đurišić-Mladenović, Nataša & Škrbić, Biljana D. & Zabaniotou, Anastasia, 2016. "Chemometric interpretation of different biomass gasification processes based on the syngas quality: Assessment of crude glycerol co-gasification with lignocellulosic biomass," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 649-661.
    2. Bilgen, Selçuk & Keleş, Sedat & Sarıkaya, İkbal & Kaygusuz, Kamil, 2015. "A perspective for potential and technology of bioenergy in Turkey: Present case and future view," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 228-239.
    3. Nunes, L.J.R. & Matias, J.C.O. & Catalão, J.P.S., 2014. "A review on torrefied biomass pellets as a sustainable alternative to coal in power generation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 153-160.
    4. Link, Siim & Arvelakis, Stelios & Paist, Aadu & Liliedahl, Truls & Rosén, Christer, 2018. "Effect of leaching pretreatment on the gasification of wine and vine (residue) biomass," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 1-5.
    5. Guo, Zhihang & Wang, Qinhui & Fang, Mengxiang & Luo, Zhongyang & Cen, Kefa, 2014. "Thermodynamic and economic analysis of polygeneration system integrating atmospheric pressure coal pyrolysis technology with circulating fluidized bed power plant," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1301-1314.
    6. Yu, Junqin & Xia, Weidong & Areeprasert, Chinnathan & Ding, Lu & Umeki, Kentaro & Yu, Guangsuo, 2022. "Catalytic effects of inherent AAEM on char gasification: A mechanism study using in-situ Raman," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 238(PC).
    7. Knutsson, Pavleta & Maric, Jelena & Knutsson, Jesper & Larsson, Anton & Breitholtz, Claes & Seemann, Martin, 2019. "Potassium speciation and distribution for the K2CO3 additive-induced activation/deactivation of olivine during gasification of woody biomass," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 248(C), pages 538-544.
    8. Ruiz, J.A. & Juárez, M.C. & Morales, M.P. & Muñoz, P. & Mendívil, M.A., 2013. "Biomass gasification for electricity generation: Review of current technology barriers," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 174-183.
    9. Link, Siim & Yrjas, Patrik & Hupa, Leena, 2018. "Ash melting behaviour of wheat straw blends with wood and reed," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 11-20.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:94:y:2012:i:c:p:89-97. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405891/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.