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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Nathaniel Anderson, J. Greg Jones, Deborah Page-Dumroese, Daniel McCollum, Stephen Baker, Daniel Loeffler, Woodam Chung
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2013-01-01
Series:Energies
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/6/1/164
id doaj-7fdceee510ca4ce6ba4765798986b3a8
record_format Article
spelling doaj-7fdceee510ca4ce6ba4765798986b3a82020-11-25T00:49:10ZengMDPI 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
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Nathaniel Anderson
J. Greg Jones
Deborah Page-Dumroese
Daniel McCollum
Stephen Baker
Daniel Loeffler
Woodam Chung
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
author_facet Nathaniel Anderson
J. Greg Jones
Deborah Page-Dumroese
Daniel McCollum
Stephen Baker
Daniel Loeffler
Woodam Chung
author_sort Nathaniel Anderson
title 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_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_sort comparison of producer gas, biochar, and activated carbon from two distributed scale thermochemical conversion systems used to process forest biomass
publisher MDPI AG
series Energies
issn 1996-1073
publishDate 2013-01-01
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.
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
_version_ 1725252665575735296