b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 5 6 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 4 2 3 e4 3 1

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/biombioe

Influence of feeding ratio on steam gasification

of palm shells in a rotary kiln pilot plant.
Experimental and numerical investigations

P. Iovane*, A. Donatelli, A. Molino

ENEA, Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development,
SS 106 Jonica km 419.500, 75026 Rotondella (MT), Italy

article info abstract

Article history: This paper presents experimental and numerical results on steam gasification of palm
Received 29 October 2012 shells in a rotary kiln pilot plant. Both the process performance and gas features have been
Received in revised form evaluated varying the steam-biomass ratio (SBR), defined as the mass of steam divided by
22 May 2013 the mass of palm shells. First, some experimental tests have been performed. Then, the
Accepted 24 May 2013 obtained experimental results have been used to verify the consistency of a numerical
Available online 25 June 2013 model developed with the aid of the commercial code ChemCAD
.
Numerical results showed that the gas energy content decreases as the SBR increases as
Keywords: well, achieving a maximum value for SBR ¼ 0.6 that produced a gas which volumetric
Biomass composition N2 free is H2 ¼ 40.4%, CO ¼ 24.1%, CO2 ¼ 21.7%, CH4 ¼ 12.2%, C2H4 ¼ 1.7% and
Palm shells in correspondence of which the lower heating value (LHV) is equal to 12 MJ m3 in normal
Steam gasification conditions. SBR values higher than 0.6 do not produce a further increase of the gas yield,
Rotary kiln rather require a greater amount of input energy for heating the steam from the room
Syngas temperature to the process temperature.
Bioenergy ª 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction carried out since antiquity is biomass which can be converted

Many experts and decision markers agree that many envi-
ronmental problems will and has occurred because of climate
change. According to the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of
United Nation Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPPC), released on 17 December 2007, observed global warm-
ing over last 50 years is likely due to increase of greenhouse
gas emission such as CO2, coming from the use of fossil fuel
and identified as the primary cause of global increment in
temperature [1,2]. Thus, the substitution of fossil fuel by
renewable energy source appears to be the best and necessary
alternative to reduce emission of greenhouse gases and to
promote greater energy efficiency. A renewable energy source
through different physical processes (grinding and drying),
biochemical processes (as alcoholic fermentation and anaer-
obic digestion), and finally thermochemical processes carried
out at high temperatures [3e9].
Within the thermochemical procedures three processes
can be distinguished, namely combustion, pyrolysis and
gasification. Gasification, in particular, is a thermal process
that can convert carbonaceous materials, such as organic
waste or biomass, into CO and H2 with a controlled amount of
oxidizing agent as oxygen, steam, CO2 or mix. The resulting
gas mixture, also called synthesis gas or syngas, is a fuel able
to produce energy (bioenergy) in internal combustion engines,
turbines or fuel cells [10e12] or as starting point for the

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ39 0835974423; fax: þ39 0835974284.

E-mail address: pierpaolo.iovane@enea.it (P. Iovane).
0961-9534/$ e see front matter ª 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.05.025
424 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 5 6 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 4 2 3 e4 3 1
Nomenclature
SBR mass steam divided by mass of palm shells ratio
[kg kg1]
LHV lower heating value [MJ kg1]
HHV higher heating value [MJ kg1]
t solid residence time [min]
q response angle of matrix [ ]
L length of the kiln [m]
production of chemicals (biofuels) [13]. Steam gasification is
one of the promising processes among all biomass conversion
ones producing a gas with high H2 concentration and a ideal
[H2]/[CO] ratio for the synthesis of methanol and Fischer-
Tropsch synthesis oil (about 2) [13e18].
This process has several advantages over traditional
combustion: a limited formation of dioxins and of nitrous and
sulfur oxides; a strong reduction in the process gas volume;
production of an energy carrier that can be integrated with
combined cycle turbines or reciprocating engines; a reduced
amount of secondary wastes; and the possibility to apply the
process at a smaller scale [19,20]. On the other hand, during
gasification, tars, heavy metals, halogens and alkaline com-
pounds are released within the gas and can cause environ-
mental and operational problems so it is important an
improved syngas cleaning, able to meet defined specifications
[21e25].
The biomass gasification technology is still not commer-
cialized in full scale but several demonstration plants are
under way, and hence studies aimed at developing energy-
efficient, economically viable and resource-efficient systems
are necessary.
Typically, a gasification plant consists of a gasifier unit, a
gas cleaning system and an energy recovery system. Gasifi-
cation reactors can be basically classified as fixed beds, flu-
idized beds, rotary kilns or entrained beds.
Rotary kilns has some advantages as good mixing capa-
bility, ability to use different materials and efficient heat
transfer; the indirect heat rotary meets successfully a bundle
of standard gasifier specifications [26], especially for gasifying
moist materials [27].
However, the cases of experimental tests of steam gasifi-
cation of biomass in rotary kiln reactors are not abundant in
the literature. They refer basically to the case of steam gasi-
fication of lignite briquettes [28], waste wood [29] and poplar
[30].
Among all biomass, palm can be a very promising alter-
native source of renewable energy being the dominant agri-
cultural crop in Malaysia with more than 3.88 million hectares
of land under cultivation [31].
Every year, the oil palm industry produces more than one
hundred million tonnes of residues worldwide and 1 ha of oil
palm plantation can produce about 50e70 tonnes of biomass
residues [32,33]. A large quantity of this biomass are generally
dumped in open areas, left to rot, or disposed off in open
burning, generating pollutant gases [34]. Thus, Malaysia has
the potential to be one of the major contributors of renewable
energy in the world via palm biomass [35e37]. Some
B correction factor [a dimensional]
S slope of the kiln [ ]
D kiln diameter [m]
n angular velocity [min1]
DHr reaction enthalpy [kJ kg1]
T Temperature [ C]
G mass flow rate [kg h1]
P power from combustion of syngas [kW]
researchers have studied this potential and evaluated the
feasibility of biomass power plants in terms of technology
availability and economic feasibility [38e41]; the scenario of
installing of new Combined Heat and Power plants yielded a
number of benefits in terms of net energy savings, net avoided
CO2 emission, and profits [42].
In some cases, palm shells are used as the source of energy
for the processing mill itself which produce oil palm to
generate heat and electricity via combustion cofiring [43].
However, this is not always practical due to the high moisture
content biomass and the huge amount of energy required for
complete combustion, thus reducing the energy efficiency.
Substantial modification of the furnaces of the mills is needed
if the conventional fuel is to be replaced by palm shells.
There are currently no regulations for the management of
palm residues except for the general ban on open-air burning
as stipulated in 1998 amendments to the Environment Quality
Act of 1974. The development of such biomass plants can
present an opportunity to produce bioenergy and will have a
positive effect on the waste disposal problems faced by
various mills, diverting away from incineration and reducing
the amount of the residues used as mulch [44].
One advantage would be to enable discarded and/or excess
residues for stand-alone power generation via small-scale
gasification in the nearby located villages in Malaysia [45].
In spite of the high potential of palm biomass residues too
few researches have been published regarding gasification of
this material in particular on pilot scale. Within this frame-
work, the current research aims to investigate the gasification
of palm shells in a rotary kiln pilot plant. In particular, the
influence of the feeding ratio between the gasifying agent
(steam) and the material to be gasified on the performance of
the process, in terms of amount of gas produced and its
composition and content of energy, was examined. The
experimental results were compared to an equilibrium
simulation model.
2. Experimental work
2.1. Feedstock and characterization
The material chosen for experiments has been palm shells, a
biomass residue obtained from extraction of the oil palm
(Elaeis guineensis) from empty fruit bunch coming from the
crop of 2011executed in a mill factory in Kuala Langat located
in the state of Selangor in Peninsular Malaysia. This process
consists of four major steps: sterilization, stripping, screw
 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 5 6 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 4 2 3 e4 3 1
pressing and purification [46]. The sample, as received, is
about of 1e2 cm diameter particle size and, before feeding the
reactor via a screw feeder system for all experimental test, it
has been dried for 24 h at 105  C and stored under dry condi-
tions. To have a knowledge on the quantitative energy content
of the biomass fuel, ultimate and proximate analysis were
carried out on palm shell according to ASTM Standards (ASTM
D5373-08 for ultimate analysis, ASTM D3175-77 and ASTM
D2866-83 for proximate analysis) with an elementary analyzer
EA 1110 CHNS-O (ThermoQuest) and a thermo-balance 2950
(TA Instruments). The results are shown, with the corre-
sponding higher heating value (HHV) (ASTM D5865) obtained
with calorimetric bomb IKA C5000, in Table 1.
Between palm biomass and wood there is no significant
difference in elemental analysis except ash contents [30,47].
2.2. Pilot plant and gasification process
The experiments have been performed in a continuous pilot
plant, having a feeding capacity of 5 kg h1. The plant is a
rotary kiln gasifier with an indirect electric heating system
and its layout is sketched in Fig. 1 [48]; each component will be
described in detail in the following sections.
2.2.1. Fuel system
The feeding system consists of a closed tank for fuel storage
and a screw conveyor which transports it directly into the ro-
tary kiln reactor. The 50 dm3 storage tank has an appropriate
system to prevent the formation of obstructions that impede
the passage of the material. The reactor is fed by the top.
2.2.2. Rotary kiln reactor
The reactor is an indirectly heated rotary kiln with an internal
diameter of 400 mm and a length of 1000 mm and then has an
overall volume of about 126 dm3. The speed rotation can be
varied in the range of 0.5e3 min1 and the temperature in the
range 400e1100  C. The residence time of the solid matrix can
be varied changing appropriately the slope and the speed of
the kiln. It can be analytically computed by the Equation (1)
which reads [49]:
t ¼ ð1:77OqBLÞ=ðSnDÞ
The geometric features of the rotary kiln reactor are re-
ported in Table 2.
2.2.3. Gas treatment system
The produced gas treatment system consists of an outside
gravity settler to collect the large char particles eventually
present into syngas, a quencher with water to collect fine
particles, tars and cool down the gas and a scrubber with an
Table 1 e Analysis of palm shells.
Sample Proximate analysis [g g1] (dry basis)
Volatile matters Fixed carbon Ash
Palm shells 71 21.5 7.5
a The oxygen (O) content was determined by difference.
425
alkaline solution to remove acid gas. On both the quencher
and the scrubber there are two recirculation lines that pump
the water and alkaline solution, respectively.
2.2.4. Procedure
Palm shells were loaded into the feed hopper and a measured
quantity of water was introduced into the tank of the
quencher. The reactor was electrically heated to 850  C in N2
atmosphere, then the steam was fed into the reactor. The
steam was first produced into a heat exchanger by the com-
bustion of LPG and of syngas and then it was sent to the
reactor. The steam mass flow-rate (into the range
2e3.5 kg h1) has been controlled by a valve and a volumetric
counter, directly posed on the water adduction circuit, for
monitoring the set SBR value (about 0.6e1).
Palm shells passed from the hopper to the reactor by a
screw conveyor whose rotation was controlled by an inverter
in order to obtain the desired flow-rate (into the range
3e4 kg h1).
During the experiments, a nitrogen flow-rate (about
1 m3 h1 in normal conditions) has been introduced in the
plant in order to:
 create an inert atmosphere during the reactor heating
starting phase (washing);
 remove produced gases from the reactor (carrier).
Moreover, a secondary nitrogen flow-rate (about 0.5 m3 h1
in normal conditions) has been sent to the mechanical seals
for preventing gas leakage from the reactor to the external.
This mass has not been introduced into the reactor.
The char produced has been collected into a tank and then
unloaded after the test. The produced gas crossed the
quencher for cooling and condensing the excess steam, and
the washing section for removing acid components eventually
present in the gas. Then it crossed a hydraulic guard with
50 mm water column for assuring a small overpressure and
avoiding undesired air entrance. Finally, it has been analyzed
by using a microgas chromatograph Agilent A3000 and
quantified by using a volumetric counter. Once done, the gas
has been sent to a torch for realizing the complete oxidation. A
(1) hydraulic emergency guard, placed on the line between the
quencher and the reactor, assured the drainage of gas in the
torch in case of an undesired overpressure.
In order to analyze the product features, different tests
have been carried out at different SBR. The process parame-
ters used in the experiments are shown in Table 3.
For each test the solid and gas yields so defined as be
calculated:
solid yield ¼ char flow rate=palm shells flow rate (2)
Ultimate analysis [g g1] (dry basis) HHV [MJ kg1]
N C H S Oa
0.6 48.3 5.5 <0.01 38.1 17.4
426 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 5 6 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 4 2 3 e4 3 1

Fig. 1 e Schematic diagram of pilot plant.

species (C, H, and O) at equilibrium, considering the atomic

gas yield ¼ dry gas flow rate=palm shells flow rate (3)
species as invariant during the process. The remaining two
At the end of the experiments, a total mass balances have describe the reactions involving the species at equilibrium:
been done and the residual palm shells in the hopper were
unloaded and quantified. Ca Hb Oc )/ða  b=4  c=2ÞC þ b=4CH4 þ c=2CO2 DHr
1
(4)
¼ 218:9 kJ$mol

1
C þ CO2 )/2CO DHr ¼ 172:5 kJ$mol ðBoudouard reactionÞ
3. Numerical model
(5)
The influence of SBR on gasification process have been Regarding the steam gasification section, the components
numerically evaluated with the aid of a simulation tool considered at equilibrium have been six: H2, CH4, CO, CO2, C
created by ChemCAD. and H2O. Similarly, the linearly independent equations have
The numerical model is able to determine the gas compo- been the atomic balance of the species at equilibrium (C, H,
sition at equilibrium by following the two subsequent oper- and O) and three reactions of equilibrium as follows:
ating steps:
1
C þ H2 O)/CO þ H2 DHr ¼ 131:3 kJ$mol (6)
 palm shells pyrolysis at atmospheric pressure and 400  C,
under inert atmosphere conditions; 1
CH4 þ H2 O)/CO þ 3H2 DHr ¼ 205:8 kJ$mol
 pyrolysis gas steam gasification at atmospheric pressure

ðCH4 steam reforming (7)
and 850  C.
1
COþH2 O)/CO2 þH2 DHr ¼ 50:8 kJ$mol ðCO shift reactionÞ
Reactions have been evaluated in both reactors (i.e. pyrol-
(8)
ysis and steam gasification), according with the simplification
assumptions at equilibrium. Regarding the pyrolysis section, The experiments showed that the steam gasification of a
only five components have been considered: H2, CO, CO2, CH4 matrix with organic components produces a gas containing at
and C so that five linearly independent equations have been least two additional components: C2H6 and C2H4. Moreover,
introduced. Three of them describe the balance on the atomic their fractions are smaller than those of the other components.

Table 2 e Geometric characteristics of the

4. Results and discussion
rotary kiln.
L [m] 1
4.1. Thermogravimetric analysis
D [m] 0.4
n [min1] 0.7e0.5
S [ ] 3.75 The thermal stability of palm shell was determined using
thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) under nitrogen atmosphere
 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 5 6 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 4 2 3 e4 3 1
Table 3 e Process parameters for experimental tests.
No test T [ C] Gasifying GShells of palm nuts SBR [g g1]
agent [kg h1]
1 850 Steam 3.4 0.6
2 850 Steam 4.1 0.7
3 850 Steam 3.4 1.0
until 900  C with a constant heating rate of 20  C min1 fol-
lowed by air combustion. The result is shown in Fig. 2 which
presents the mass loss curve (TG) and derivative thermogra-
vimetric analysis (DTG).
The profile is a typical thermal degradation of lignocellu-
losic material divided into three regions. The initial mass loss
in the range of 50e100  C can be confidentially attributed to
the moisture drying (about 10% in mass); the other two pro-
nounced mass losses in the range of 240e380  C correspond to
the degradation of hemicelluloses and of the celluloses found
in the structure of lignocellulosic biomass as reported in Ref.
[50]. Thus, the main devolatilization of the lignocellulosic
samples takes place at the temperature range of 200e400  C,
but the process slightly continues to 430e460  C probably due
to the degradation of lignic residues that it starts at low
temperature of 160e170  C and it prolongs at a low rate to
900  C [51]. The DTG-curve corresponds to the region where
the slope of TG-curve is almost constant depicted three peaks:
the first is relative to the removal moisture, the other two
peaks in the range of 200e400  C the first, from the left, bottom
and enlarged, corresponds to degradation of hemicellulose,
while for the second peak, corresponding to the celluloses,
more narrow and high. At temperatures greater than 400  C,
occurs the thermal degradation of the lignin associated with a
very low peak and expanded, hardly distinguishable from the
base line [52].
4.2. Effect of SBR
To study the effect of SBR on gasification performance, this
parameter was varied in the range of 0.6e1 while the process
temperature was fixed at 850  C.
Tar was recovered from quencher and its yield was low
(<0.1%) under all three conditions as well as reported in Ref.
Fig. 2 e Thermogravimetric analysis of palm shells.
427
N2 flow-rate [m3 h1] Solid residence Gas residence
in normal conditions time [min] time [s]
0.9 6 37.4
0.9 6 33.9
0.9 6 40.7
[47]. Higher SBR does not influence appreciably the concen-
tration of tars probably due to the high gas residence time and
process temperature.
Syngas were composed mainly by CO, CH4, CO2 and H2 with
C2H4 gases accounted from 0.2 to 3% and C2H6 was <0.1% in
volume fraction. For each species, the trend is reported in
Fig. 3: H2 content increases from 40 to 52% as the SBR increases
as well and correspondingly, CH4 content decreases from 12 to
6%; this is basically due to the high steam quantity which
makes possible the steam reforming reaction of CH4 Eq. (7),
giving back H2. Comparable results have been obtained with
the catalytic steam gasification of oil palm wastes in a com-
bined fixed bed reactor with SBR ¼ 1.33 at 800  C [53].
The percentage of H2þCO in the total gas evolved was as
high as 64e74%. As SBR was increased, the amount of CO
decreased as the CO shift reaction proceeded Eq. (8): at SBR of
1.0, the [H2]/[CO] was about 2.4, which is comparable to that of
the cedar wood and sufficient to produce biofuel [13]. CO and
CO2 contents were influenced by steam reaction Eq. (8) and
Boudouard reaction Eq. (5).
The gas composition reported in graphs is nitrogen free, to
make able a direct comparison with the one obtained from
numerical simulation, when nitrogen is not present [54].
A direct comparison among the experimental results ob-
tained in the present work and those obtained by Galvagno
et al. on steam gasification of poplar in a rotary kiln reactor
[30] is shown in Table 4.
The main difference consists in the type of biomass used
(poplar) and in the SBR value, while the gasification temper-
ature used is the same. First of all in this work it noticed a
higher char yield and a lower gas yield with respect of those
obtained from Galvagno et al. (2009), and this is due to a lower
value of the residence time of biomass in the reactor and to a
Fig. 3 e Gas volume fraction vs SBR.
428 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 5 6 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 4 2 3 e4 3 1

Table 4 e Comparison with data from literature.

Galvagno This work
et al. (2009)

Proximate analysis [%]

Volatile matter 81 71
Fixed carbon 17.3 21.5
Ash 1.7 7.5
Ultimate analysis [%]
C 47.5 48.3
H 6.1 5.5
N 0.1 0.6
S 0.0 < 0.01
Oa 44.6 38.1
HHV [MJ kg1] 19 17.4
Gasification parameters
Fig. 4 e Solid and gas mass fractions vs SBR.
T [ C] 850 850 850 850
SBR 2.2 0.6 0.7 1.0
Solid residence 15 6 6 6
times [min]
Fractions yields [%] 4.3. Comparison between the experimental and
Char yield 14.4 21.9 21.7 21.2
numerical data
Gas yield 89.9 62.2 62.4 62.7
Volumetric gas composition [%]
H2 45.5 40.4 39.4 52.2 The numerical model is validated by performing simulations
CH4 8.6 12.2 11.3 6.0 able to reproduce experimental conditions. In particular the
CO 23.1 24.1 23.5 22.1 numerical model has been tested by varying the SBR from 0.4
CO2 20.8 21.7 23.1 19.5 to 1, then in a range largest then that used in experimental
C2H4 1.9 1.7 2.7 0.2 work. Looking at the comparison between the experimental
C2H6 0.1 <0.1% <0.1% <0.1%
and numerical results, in Fig. 5, it can be observed that the
H2/CO 2 1.7 1.7 2.4
trend in numerical simulation is a little different from the
experimental data.
In fact, for all the values of feeding ratios adopted the H2
higher value of the fixed carbon content in palm shells with and CH4 contents in the experimental case are lower and
respect to that one in the poplar. higher, respectively, of these obtained in the numerical
Furthermore, regarding the composition of the gas there is simulation: this result can be easily justified by considering
not significant difference in spite of higher solid residence that the numerical model permits to obtain the gas compo-
time and SBR. sition at the equilibrium at the process temperature
It is not possible a direct comparison with the work of Klose (T ¼ 850  C), while the residence times of palm shells and of
et al. on lignite, since in that case they performed a first step of gas produced during the gasification do not permit to reach
coking of lignin which was followed by a steam gasification of this equilibrium. In particular the steam reforming of CH4 (Eq.
the solid residue and was conducted in batch mode [28]. (7)), is incomplete and not all of the CH4 is converted to H2.
Moreover, it is not possible an immediate comparison with
the results obtained by Chidi et al. because they performed a
pyrolysis of biomass in the form of waste wood and subse-
quently a catalytic steam reforming of the pyrolysis oils and
gases [29].
Fig. 4 shows that the solid and gas yields have practically
reached their limit values already with the lowest feeding
ratio adopted (SBR ¼ 0.6), also if gas yield increases and solid
decreases slightly for the advance of the steam reactions.
Consequently, from that value of steam biomass ratio, the
addition of gasifying agent to the process does not involve any
change in the amount of char and gas obtained, but on the
other hand it involves a higher input of energy for super-
heating of water steam till to the process temperature
(T ¼ 850  C).
As SBR increased from 0.6 to 1.0, more steam was introduced
into reactor, the increased steam quantity enhanced the con-
centration of steam in reactor to facilitate all steam reforming
reactions (Eqs. (6), (7) and (8)) which resulted in a major increase
of H2 content in gas and a ideal [H2]/[CO] ratio for the synthesis Fig. 5 e Comparison between experimental and numerical
of methanol and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis oil. gas composition.
 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 5 6 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 4 2 3 e4 3 1
Fig. 6 e Comparison between experimental and numerical
char yield.
The non-completion of the steam reforming reaction im-
plies also an experimental CO content less than that provided
by the numerical simulation.
Moreover, at the process temperature the endothermic
formation of CO due to the Boudouard reaction (Eq. (5)) is
dominant: also in this case the residence time in experimental
work does not assure the complete conversion of CO2 in CO
and in such a way the experimental tests imply a higher value
of CO2 and a lower value of CO than those obtained in the
numerical simulation where the equilibrium is considered.
Devolatilization of biomass gives high contents in CH4 and
higher hydrocarbons (CxHy) which do not react completely to
equilibrium concentration of CO, CO2 and H2, according with
the literature data [55].
Regarding the solid yield, Fig. 6 shows a comparison be-
tween the experimental and numerical results when the
steam biomass ratio varies from 0.4 to 1: in numerical simu-
lation, it can be seen that when the SBR increases from 0.4 to 1
the solid yield decreases from 14% to 9%.
First of all, it can be noted that the values obtained in the
numerical simulation result are lower than those obtained in
the experimental work: this is due to the kinetics of the re-
action between solid and gas phases, which in experiments
slows down the removal of the volatile from palm shells. The
kinetics of reaction are also the cause of the constant value of
the char yield in experimental case, where, unlike what hap-
pens in the simulations, the residence time of the material in
the rotary kiln reactor does not allow the completion of sol-
idegas reactions in spite the SBR increases.
Obtained data give back information on the gas energy
content.
Table 5 shows the results about the LHV of gas obtained by
varying SBR in both the experimental and numerical works.
The first is calculated starting from HHV:
Table 5 e Gas energy content.
No SBR Experimental Numerical LHV
test LHV [MJ m3] in [MJ m3] in normal
normal conditions conditions
1 0.6 11.9 10.4
2 0.7 12.0 10.3
3 1 10.0 9.8
429
Table 6 e Power generated from combustion of syngas
produced from 1 kg hL1 of palm shells.
No test SBR P [kW]
1 0.6 2.6
2 0.7 2.5
3 1 2.5
X
n
HHVgas ¼ rgas HHVi %vol iri (9)
i¼1
where “i” represents the component present in the gas phase
and “n” the total number of components and subtracting the
heat of vaporization of the water vapor:

mH2 mCH4 9 mC2 H4 9 mC2 H6 9
LHVgas ¼ HHVgas  rgas 9þ þ þ
mgas mgas 4 mgas 7 mgas 5
 
mH2 O
þ DHvap
mgas
(10)
where DHvap is the heat of vaporization of the water (equal to
2.257 MJ kg1) and r is the density of the syngas.
Gas LHV ranged between 10 and 12 MJ m3 in normal
conditions comparable to data in literature about steam
gasification of palm oil wastes [53] and also other common
biomass [30]. These results are higher than those obtained
ones in palm biomass gasification with air [56], thus it dem-
onstrates the potential of this locally available biomass for
gasification purpose.
It is noticed that both the experimental and numerical LHV
decrease when SBR increases due to changing in gas compo-
sition. The higher values of CH4 and H2 in experimental work
are responsible of the higher value of LHV obtained in the
numerical simulation work. Thus, higher SBR favored H2
production and biofuel production but didn’t favor gas heating
value degrading product gas quality.
4.4. Energy efficiency
For different values of SBR, in Table 6 it is reported the power
that can be generated when the syngas produced starting
from 1 kg h1 of palm shells is combusted: it is noticed that the
power slowly decreases when the steam biomass ratio in-
creases as well and this because of variation in the gas
composition that decreases the LHV of gas.
In such a way it can tell that the gasification using an SBR of
0.6 represents the optimum condition in terms of resulting
energy, among those investigated, in virtue also of consider-
ation that when SBR increases it is necessary more demand of
energy in input to overheat the steam till to the process
temperature.
5. Conclusions
In this study, it has been analyzed the key aspects on steam
gasification of palm shells in a rotary kiln pilot plant. A series
of experiments have been performed to explore the effect of
SBR and both the process performance and the gas features
430 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 5 6 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 4 2 3 e4 3 1
have been experimentally and numerically evaluated by
varying SBR.
The experimental results show that:
B the H2 content in the syngas increases until 52% as the SBR
increases as well and correspondingly, CH4 content de-
creases until 6%;
B the solid and gas yields have practically reached their limit
values already with the lowest feeding ratio adopted
(SBR ¼ 0.6);
B at SBR ¼ 1.0, [H2]/[CO] ratio is equal to 2.4 which is ideal for
the synthesis of methanol and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis oil;
B gas LHV ranged between 10 and 12 MJ m3 in normal
conditions.
The experiments demonstrated that there are some dif-
ferences when comparing experimental and numerical gas
composition because the theoretical trend takes into account
the values at thermodynamic equilibrium, therefore in the
numerical simulation it is to be noticed:
B a higher content of H2 and a lower content of CH4 (almost zero)
with respect to those obtained in the experimental results;
B a lower value of CO2 and a higher value of CO than those
obtained in the experimental tests;
B a lower char yield than those obtained in the experiment
due to the kinetics of the reaction between solid phase and
gas phase, which in experiments slow down the removal of
the volatile from palm shells.
From the energy point of view, higher SBR does not favor
gas heating value and consequently the power generated from
combustion of syngas slowly decreases.
Finally, it can tell that there is a big potential of this locally
available biomass for gasification purpose using an SBR of 0.6
which represents the optimum condition in terms of resulting
energy, among those investigated, in virtue also of consider-
ation that when SBR increases it is necessary more demand of
energy in input to overheat the steam till to the process
temperature. On the other hand, a value SBR equal to 1.0 is
preferable if steam gasification is devoted in producing a gas
which has to be used for the synthesis of methanol or Fischer-
Tropsch synthesis oil.
references
[1] Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M,
Averyt KB, et al. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPPC). Climate change. The physical science basis, summary
for policymakers. Contribution of working group I to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press; 2007.
[2] Dentener F, Derwent R, Dlugokencky E, Holland E, Isaksen I,
Katima J, et al. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPPC). Climate change. The scientific basis. Contribution of
working group I to the Third Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001.
[3] Lora ES, Andrade RV. Biomass as energy source in Brazil.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13(4):777e88.
[4] National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Biomass cofiring: a
renewable alternative for utilities. U.S. Department of
Energy; June 2000. (DOE).DOE-102000e1055.
[5] Wisconsin Biorefining development initiative.
Thermochemical liquefaction. Available from: http://www.
wisbiorefine.org/proc/thermo.pdf; 2004.
[6] Zahari MAKM, Zakaria MR, Ariffin H, Mokhtar MN, Salihon J,
Shirai Y, et al. Renewable sugars from oil palm frond juice as
an alternative novel fermentation feedstock for value-added
products. Bioresour Technol 2012;110:566e71.
[7] Junker H. Cofiring of 500 MW coal-fired power plant with 10%
EFB bales or 5% shells and as a 2015 scenario 10% cofiring of
POFF. Available from: http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/
DNV-CUK1174646628.13/ReviewInitialComments/
L098VJ5PJ700XB67UXNM4BFJMQEG2W; 2005.
[8] Ringer M, Putdche V, Scahill J. Large-scale pyrolysis oil
production: a technology assessment and economic analysis.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available from:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/37779.pdf; 2006.
[9] Abnisa F, Wan Daud WMA, Husin WNW, Sahu JN. Utilization
possibilities of palm shell as a source of biomass energy in
Malaysia by producing bio-oil in pyrolysis process. Biomass
Bioenergy 2011;35(5):1863e72.
[10] Ganan J, Abdulla Al-Kassir, Miranda AB, Turegano J,
Correia S, Cuerda EM. Energy production by means of
gasification process of residuals sourced in Extremadura
(Spain). Renew Energy 2005;30(11):1759e69.
[11] Karamarkovic R, Karamarkovic V. Energy and exergy
analysis of biomass gasification at different temperatures.
Energy 2010;35(2):537e49.
[12] Higman C, Van Der Burgt M. Gasification 2003.
[13] Holmgren Kristina M, Berntsson T, Andersson E, Rydberg T.
System aspects of biomass gasification with methanol
synthesis e process concepts and energy analysis. Energy
2012;45(1):817e28.
[14] He M, Hu Z, Xiao B, Li J. Hydrogen-rich gas from catalytic
steam gasification of municipal solid waste (MSW): influence
of catalyst and temperature on yield and product
composition. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34(1):195e203.
[15] Mahishi MR, Goswami DY. An experimental study of
hydrogen production by gasification of biomass in the
presence of a carbon dioxide sorbent. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2007;32(14):2803e8.
[16] Turn S, Kinoshita C, Zhang Z, Ishimura D, Zhou J. An
experimental investigation of hydrogen production from
biomass gasification. Int J Hydrogen Energy 1998;23(8):641e8.
[17] Larocca V, Molino A, Petrone MT, Barisano D, Giordano G,
Braccio G. Synthesis of methanol from biomass-derived
syngas: modeling and sizing of bench-scale reactor. Int J
Energy Technol 2010;2(2):1e7.
[18] Rapagna S, Provendier H, Petit C, Kiennemann A, Foscolo PU.
Development of catalysts suitable for hydrogen or syn-gas
production from biomass gasification. Biomass Bioenergy
2002;22(5):377e88.
[19] Klein A, Whiting K, Archer E, Schwage R. Gasification and
pyrolysis: what is the current situation for waste
management? Waste Manag World 2004:71e5.
[20] Arena U, Mastellone ML. Fluidized pyrolysis and gasification
of solid wastes. In: Proceedings of industrial fluidization
South Africa 2005. The South African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy; 2005. p. 53e68. ISBN: 1-919782-83-0.
[21] Dayton DA. Review of the literature on catalytic biomass tar
destruction, milestone completion report. NREL/TP-
510e32815 (Project No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337). Golden.
Colorado USA: National Energy Laboratory; 2002.
[22] Prisciandaro M, Lancia A, Musmarra D. Calcium sulphate
dehydrate nucleation in the presence of calcium and sodium
chloride salts. Ind Eng Chem Res 2001;40:2335e9.
 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 5 6 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 4 2 3 e4 3 1
[23] Lancia A, Karatza D, Musmarra D, Pepe F. Adsorption of
mercuric chloride from simulated incinerator exhaust gas by
means of Sorbalit particles. J Chem Eng Jpn 1996;29:939e46.
[24] Di Natale F, Erto A, Lancia A, Musmarra D. Mercury
adsorption on granular activated carbon in aqueous
solutions containing nitrates and chlorides. J Hazard Mater
2011;192(3):1842e50.
[25] Lancia A, Musmarra D, Pepe F. Modeling of SO2 absorption
into limestone suspensions. Ind Eng Chem Res
1997;36:197e203.
[26] Hatzilyberis KS, Androutsopoulos GP. Lignite chemical
conversion in an indirect heat rotary kiln gasifier. Therm Sci
2006;10:181e97.
[27] Hatzilyberis KS. Design of an indirect heat rotary kiln
gasifier. Fuel Process Technol 2011;92(12):2429e54.
[28] Klose E, Born M. Partial gasification of lignite coke with
steam in a rotary kiln for activated carbon production. Fuel
1985;64(9):1313e6.
[29] Efika CE, Wu C, Williams PT. Syngas production from pyrolysis-
catalytic steam reforming of waste biomass in a continuous
screw kiln reactor. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 2012;95:87e94.
[30] Galvagno S, Casciaro G, Casu S, Martino M, Mingazzini C.
Steam gasification of tyre waste, poplar, and refuse-derived
fuel: a comparative analysis. Waste Manag 2009;29(2):678e89.
[31] Idris S, Rahman N, Ismail K, Alias A, Rashid Z, Aris M.
Investigation on thermochemical behaviour of low rank
Malaysian coal, oil palm biomass and their blends during
pyrolysis via thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). Bioresour
Technol 2010;101(12):4584e92.
[32] Saka S. Whole efficient utilization of oil palm to value-added
products. In: Proceedings of JSPS-VCC natural resources &
energy environment seminar, Kyoto, Japan 2005.
[33] Saxena RC, Seal D, Kumar S, Goyal HB. Thermo-chemical
routes for hydrogen rich gas from biomass: a review. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2008;12(7):1909e27.
[34] Yusoff S. Renewable energy from palm oil innovation on
effective utilization of waste. J Clean Prod 2006;14(1):87e93.
[35] Shuit SH, Tan KT, Lee KT, Kamaruddin AH. Oil palm biomass
as a sustainable energy source: a Malaysian case study.
Energy 2009;34(9):1225e35.
[36] Sumanthi S, Chai SP, Mohamed AR. Utilization of oil palm as
a source of renewable energy in Malaysia. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2008;12(9):2404e21.
[37] Sulaiman F, Abdullah N, Gerhauser H, Shariff A. An outlook
of Malaysian energy, oil palm industry and its utilization of
wastes as useful resources. Biomass Bioenergy
2011;35(9):3775e86.
[38] Chow MC. Assessment of potential and availability of palm
biomass for bioconversion to bioethanol. In A report
prepared under Malaysian-Danish Environment Cooperation
Programme. Renewable energy and energy efficiency
component. Malaysia Energy Centre (PTM); 2005.
[39] Dora RT. Biomass-fired CHP in palm oil mills. In A report
prepared under Malaysian-Danish Environment Cooperation
Programme. Renewable energy and energy efficiency
component. Malaysia Energy Centre (PTM); 2004 Dec.
[40] Nagatomi Y, Yamamoto H, Yamaji K, Iwasaki H, Yamada K.
A system analysis of energy utilization and competing
431
technology using oil palm residue in Malaysia. Jpn Soc
Energy Resour 2008;29(5):1e7.
[41] Corporation EX. Methane and EFB power generation project
in Terengganu states, Malaysia. Reports of CDM/JI Feasibility
Studies: FY 2005. Available from: http://gec.jp/main.nsf/en/
Activities-CDMJI_FS_Programme-FS200509; 2006 Mar.
[42] Chiew YL, Iawata T, Shimada S. System analysis for effective
use of palm oil waste as energy resources. Biomass
Bioenergy 2011;35(7):2925e35.
[43] Husain Z, Zainal ZA, Abdullah MZ. Analysis of biomass-
residue-based cogeneration system in palm oil mills.
Biomass Bioenergy 2003;24(2):117e24.
[44] Mahlia TMI, Abdulmin MZ, Alamsyah TMI, Mukhlishein D.
An alternative energy source from palm waste industry for
Malaysia and Indonesia. Energy Conv Manag
2001;42(18):2109e18.
[45] Erlich C. Comparative study of residue pellets from cane
sugar and palm-oil industries with commercial wood pellets,
applied in downdraft gasification [Doctoral thesis].
Stockholm, Sweden: Royal Institute of Technology, ISBN 978-
91-7415-455-9; 2009.
[46] Prasertsan S, Prasertsan P. Biomass residues from palm oil
millas in Thailand: an overview on quantity and potential
usage. Biomass Bioenergy 1996;11:387e95.
[47] Ogi T, Nakanishi M, Fukuda Y, Matsumoto K. Gasification of
oil palm residues (empty fruit bunch) in an entrained-flow
gasifier. Fuel 2013;104:28e35.
[48] Donatelli A, Iovane P, Molino A. High energy syngas
production by waste tyres steam gasification in a rotary kiln
pilot plant. Experimental and numerical investigations. Fuel
2010;89(10):2721e8.
[49] Xiao YL, Eckehard S. Mean residence time and hold-up of
solids in rotary kilns. Chem Eng Sci 2006;61(15):5176e81.
[50] Mohamed AR, Mohammaddi M, Darzi GN. Preparation of
carbon molecular sieve from lignocellulosic biomass: a
review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14(6):1591e9.
[51] Muradov N, Fidalgo B, Gujar AC, T-Raissi A. Pyrolysis of fast-
growing aquatic biomass-Lemns minor (duckweed):
characterization of pyrolysis products. Bioresour Technol
2010;101(21):8424e8.
[52] Hussain A, Ani FN, Darus AN, Ahmed Z. Thermogravimetric
and thermochemical studies of Malaysian oil palm shell
waste. J Tech 2006;45(A):43e53.
[53] Jianfen L, Yanfang Y, Xuanming Z, Jianjun L, Rong Y.
Hydrogen rich gas production. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2009;34(22):9108e15.
[54] Molino A, Braccio G, Fiorenza G, Marraffa FA, Lamonaca S,
Giordano G, et al. Classification procedure of the explosion risk
areas in presence of hydrogen-rich syngas: biomass gasifier and
molten carbonate fuel cell integrated plant. Fuel
2012;99:245e53.
[55] Molino A, Giordano G, Motola V, Fiorenza G, Nanna F,
Braccio G. Electricity production by biomass steam
gasification using a high efficiency technology and low
environmental impact. Fuel 2013;103:179e92.
[56] Lahijani P, Zainal ZA. Gasification of palm empty fruit bunch
in a bubbling fluidized bed: a performance and
agglomeration study. Bioresour Technol 2011;102(2):2068e76.