A Comparison of Producer Gas, Biochar, and Activated Carbon from Two Distributed Scale Thermochemical Conversion Systems Used to Process Forest Biomass
Thermochemical biomass conversion systems have the potential to produce heat, power, fuels and other products from forest biomass at distributed scales that meet the needs of some forest industry facilities. However, many of these systems have not been deployed in this sector and the products they p...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2013-01-01
|
| Series: | Energies |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/6/1/164 |
| _version_ | 1811278183018790912 |
|---|---|
| author | Nathaniel Anderson J. Greg Jones Deborah Page-Dumroese Daniel McCollum Stephen Baker Daniel Loeffler Woodam Chung |
| author_facet | Nathaniel Anderson J. Greg Jones Deborah Page-Dumroese Daniel McCollum Stephen Baker Daniel Loeffler Woodam Chung |
| author_sort | Nathaniel Anderson |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Thermochemical biomass conversion systems have the potential to produce heat, power, fuels and other products from forest biomass at distributed scales that meet the needs of some forest industry facilities. However, many of these systems have not been deployed in this sector and the products they produce from forest biomass have not been adequately described or characterized with regards to chemical properties, possible uses, and markets. This paper characterizes the producer gas, biochar, and activated carbon of a 700 kg h−1 prototype gasification system and a 225 kg h−1 pyrolysis system used to process coniferous sawmill and forest residues. Producer gas from sawmill residues processed with the gasifier had higher energy content than gas from forest residues, with averages of 12.4 MJ m−3 and 9.8 MJ m−3, respectively. Gases from the pyrolysis system averaged 1.3 MJ m−3 for mill residues and 2.5 MJ m−3 for forest residues. Biochars produced have similar particle size distributions and bulk density, but vary in pH and carbon content. Biochars from both systems were successfully activated using steam activation, with resulting BET surface area in the range of commercial activated carbon. Results are discussed in the context of co-locating these systems with forest industry operations. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T00:30:04Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-7fdceee510ca4ce6ba4765798986b3a8 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1996-1073 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T00:30:04Z |
| publishDate | 2013-01-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Energies |
| spelling | doaj.art-7fdceee510ca4ce6ba4765798986b3a82022-12-22T03:10:29ZengMDPI AGEnergies1996-10732013-01-016116418310.3390/en6010164A Comparison of Producer Gas, Biochar, and Activated Carbon from Two Distributed Scale Thermochemical Conversion Systems Used to Process Forest BiomassNathaniel AndersonJ. Greg JonesDeborah Page-DumroeseDaniel McCollumStephen BakerDaniel LoefflerWoodam ChungThermochemical biomass conversion systems have the potential to produce heat, power, fuels and other products from forest biomass at distributed scales that meet the needs of some forest industry facilities. However, many of these systems have not been deployed in this sector and the products they produce from forest biomass have not been adequately described or characterized with regards to chemical properties, possible uses, and markets. This paper characterizes the producer gas, biochar, and activated carbon of a 700 kg h−1 prototype gasification system and a 225 kg h−1 pyrolysis system used to process coniferous sawmill and forest residues. Producer gas from sawmill residues processed with the gasifier had higher energy content than gas from forest residues, with averages of 12.4 MJ m−3 and 9.8 MJ m−3, respectively. Gases from the pyrolysis system averaged 1.3 MJ m−3 for mill residues and 2.5 MJ m−3 for forest residues. Biochars produced have similar particle size distributions and bulk density, but vary in pH and carbon content. Biochars from both systems were successfully activated using steam activation, with resulting BET surface area in the range of commercial activated carbon. Results are discussed in the context of co-locating these systems with forest industry operations.http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/6/1/164pyrolysisgasificationbiomassbiocharactivated carbonsynthesis gas |
| spellingShingle | Nathaniel Anderson J. Greg Jones Deborah Page-Dumroese Daniel McCollum Stephen Baker Daniel Loeffler Woodam Chung A Comparison of Producer Gas, Biochar, and Activated Carbon from Two Distributed Scale Thermochemical Conversion Systems Used to Process Forest Biomass Energies pyrolysis gasification biomass biochar activated carbon synthesis gas |
| title | A Comparison of Producer Gas, Biochar, and Activated Carbon from Two Distributed Scale Thermochemical Conversion Systems Used to Process Forest Biomass |
| title_full | A Comparison of Producer Gas, Biochar, and Activated Carbon from Two Distributed Scale Thermochemical Conversion Systems Used to Process Forest Biomass |
| title_fullStr | A Comparison of Producer Gas, Biochar, and Activated Carbon from Two Distributed Scale Thermochemical Conversion Systems Used to Process Forest Biomass |
| title_full_unstemmed | A Comparison of Producer Gas, Biochar, and Activated Carbon from Two Distributed Scale Thermochemical Conversion Systems Used to Process Forest Biomass |
| title_short | A Comparison of Producer Gas, Biochar, and Activated Carbon from Two Distributed Scale Thermochemical Conversion Systems Used to Process Forest Biomass |
| title_sort | comparison of producer gas biochar and activated carbon from two distributed scale thermochemical conversion systems used to process forest biomass |
| topic | pyrolysis gasification biomass biochar activated carbon synthesis gas |
| url | http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/6/1/164 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT nathanielanderson acomparisonofproducergasbiocharandactivatedcarbonfromtwodistributedscalethermochemicalconversionsystemsusedtoprocessforestbiomass AT jgregjones acomparisonofproducergasbiocharandactivatedcarbonfromtwodistributedscalethermochemicalconversionsystemsusedtoprocessforestbiomass AT deborahpagedumroese acomparisonofproducergasbiocharandactivatedcarbonfromtwodistributedscalethermochemicalconversionsystemsusedtoprocessforestbiomass AT danielmccollum acomparisonofproducergasbiocharandactivatedcarbonfromtwodistributedscalethermochemicalconversionsystemsusedtoprocessforestbiomass AT stephenbaker acomparisonofproducergasbiocharandactivatedcarbonfromtwodistributedscalethermochemicalconversionsystemsusedtoprocessforestbiomass AT danielloeffler acomparisonofproducergasbiocharandactivatedcarbonfromtwodistributedscalethermochemicalconversionsystemsusedtoprocessforestbiomass AT woodamchung acomparisonofproducergasbiocharandactivatedcarbonfromtwodistributedscalethermochemicalconversionsystemsusedtoprocessforestbiomass AT nathanielanderson comparisonofproducergasbiocharandactivatedcarbonfromtwodistributedscalethermochemicalconversionsystemsusedtoprocessforestbiomass AT jgregjones comparisonofproducergasbiocharandactivatedcarbonfromtwodistributedscalethermochemicalconversionsystemsusedtoprocessforestbiomass AT deborahpagedumroese comparisonofproducergasbiocharandactivatedcarbonfromtwodistributedscalethermochemicalconversionsystemsusedtoprocessforestbiomass AT danielmccollum comparisonofproducergasbiocharandactivatedcarbonfromtwodistributedscalethermochemicalconversionsystemsusedtoprocessforestbiomass AT stephenbaker comparisonofproducergasbiocharandactivatedcarbonfromtwodistributedscalethermochemicalconversionsystemsusedtoprocessforestbiomass AT danielloeffler comparisonofproducergasbiocharandactivatedcarbonfromtwodistributedscalethermochemicalconversionsystemsusedtoprocessforestbiomass AT woodamchung comparisonofproducergasbiocharandactivatedcarbonfromtwodistributedscalethermochemicalconversionsystemsusedtoprocessforestbiomass |