Fuel Processing Technology 87 (2006) 841 846

www.elsevier.com/locate/fuproc

Calculation of the conditions to get less than 2 g tar/mn3

in a fluidized bed biomass gasifier
Jos Corella , Jos M. Toledo, Gregorio Molina
Department of Chemical Engineering (Faculty of Chemistry), University Complutense of Madrid (UCM), 28040 Madrid, Spain
Received 19 January 2006; received in revised form 9 May 2006; accepted 11 May 2006

Abstract
The experimental conditions under which a fluidized bed biomass gasifier can generate a gas with a tar content below 2 g/m3n are analyzed by using
and developing the model recently published for those gasifiers by Corella and Sanz [Fuel Process. Techn. 2005, 86, 10211053]. The analyzed
experimental conditions were: the equivalence ratio, the partitioning of the air, between the primary and secondary flows, the location (height) of the
inlet of the secondary air flow, the biomass moisture and the biomass flow rate. Results from the modelling work are presented for a given CFB
biomass gasifier of commercial size. Some of these results are also being checked in a CFB biomass gasifier at small pilot plant scale. To obtain a
gasification gas with a very low tar content the two most important experimental conditions are a high value for the equivalence ratio and a good ingasifier material which determines the values of the kinetic constants of the reactions involved in the network at the gasifier.
2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Gasification; Tar; Circulating fluidized bed (CFB); Biomass; Gas cleaning; Renewable energies

1. Introduction
It is well known how fluidized bed biomass gasifiers produce a
dirty gas which contains important amounts of tar, among other
impurities but not considered here, which should be eliminated for
advanced end uses of the gasification gas, such as gas engines and
gas turbines. Catalytic hot gasification gas cleaning is an interesting and promising method for tar elimination [1] but the catalysts
located downstream from the fluidized bed gasifier should have a
long life. Nevertheless, these catalysts may deactivate by different
and simultaneous causes and/or mechanisms. The most often
cited cause of deactivation of the catalysts in this process is by
formation of coke on the catalyst surface. This coke comes fundamentally from the tar, although other species such as CH4 and
CO present in the gasification gas may also generate coke by
several mechanisms. For relatively high tar contents in the gasification gas, the rate of coke formation on the catalyst surface is
higher than the rate of the simultaneous coke removal by steam,
CO2 and H2-gasification. Corella et al. [2] after years of analyzing
this phenomenon targeted 2 g tar/mn3 in the gasification gas as the
Corresponding author. Fax: +34 91 394 4164.
E-mail address: narvaez@quim.ucm.es (J. Corella).
0378-3820/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2006.05.002

limit for coke growing with time-on-stream on the catalyst

surface. Over approximately 2 g tar/ mn3, some coking appears on
the catalyst. Only for very low tar content, below 2 g tar/ mn3, the
rate of coke formation on the catalyst is small and that coke can be
simultaneously removed (by gasification with H2O and CO2)
from the catalyst, thus avoiding deactivation. Therefore, when
using catalysts for gasification hot gas cleaning, it is of paramount
importance that the upstream gasifier already generates a quite
clean (below 2 g tar/ mn3) gas. This paper will analyze the
conditions under which a fluidized bed biomass gasifier can
generate such a quite clean gas. Since there is no standardized
terminology for biomass gasification yet, some authors [3] call
these conditions primary conditions, in contrast to the secondary measures referred to the gas cleaning systems located
downstream from the gasifier. These secondary measures are out
of the scope of this paper.
Very few people worldwide, to date, have been able to generate
a gasification gas, from fluidized bed biomass gasifiers, with a tar
content below 2 g/mn3. The most often found values range between
8 and 15 g/mn3. Nevertheless, it is possible to generate a gas with
less than 2 g/mn3. The few people who, to the authors' knowledge,
have obtained gasification gas with tar content below 2 g/mn3 are
shown in Table 1.

842

J. Corella et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 87 (2006) 841846

This paper will identify the experimental conditions under

which such quite clean gasification gas can be obtained. This
identification will be based on an advanced and checked model
for fluidized bed biomass gasifiers.
2. Model used for this work

Table 1
Authors who, to date, have obtained a gasification gas, using fluidized bed
gasifiers, with a tar content below 2 g/m3n
In-gasifier material

Type of gasifier

Reference

Dolomite or limestone
Mineral A + mineral B
Silica sand + dolomite
Silica sand + olivine
Silica sand + Niolivine
Olivine + Niolivine
Silica sand + olivine

Small BFB
CFB
BFB

Kurkela et al. [4]

Ising [5]
Corella et al. [6]
Corella et al. [6]
Corella et al. [6]
Hofbauer et al. [7]
Aznar et al. [21]

Gasification agent: pure steam.

a
DFB = dual fluidized bed steam gasifier.

Reaction no. (in Ref. [8]) Actual/used

(4)

(5)

The core of the basic model used for this study was
published by Corella and Sanz [8]. This modelling work was
started in the late eighties [9]. The effects of the most important
operation variables on the axial profiles in a fluidized bed
gasifier and on the product distribution at the gasifier exit were
also published [10]. These results were obtained for very broad
intervals of the operation variables and were not focused on the
experimental conditions to obtain a quite clean gasification
gas. The modelling work was further continued and focused on
two concrete objectives: i) the tar content in the gasification
gas. Other properties of the gasification gas, such as its content
in particulates, are also of interest in the overall gasification
process but they are not studied in this paper. ii) The experimental conditions generating only tar content below 2 g/ mn3 .
Since the tar content is the only objective of this paper, some
work was devoted at knowing its generation and its evolution
in the gasifier. As explained in detail in a previous paper [8],
the tar composition changes in the gasifier from tar2 to
tar5. These tar2, tar3, are tar in different degrees of evolution and are lumps which contain a lot of species, as described in detail by Corella et al. [11,12]. The network of the
reactions in which these different types of tar appear was
already published [8]. The number of reactions in this network
[8] can be discussed and/or questioned and perhaps slightly
modified, but it already provides a good enough description of
the formation and evolution of the tar in the gasifier. A molecular description of tar2, tar3 was not considered here because
there were no sets of kinetic equations good enough yet to
describe the hundreds of reactions involved in a network at
molecular level. The reaction network used [8] may therefore
be considered only as a semi-rigorous description of the
evolution in the gasifier of the different tar species, but of
course, it can be improved in the future.
As already shown in Ref. [8], the formation and disappearance
in the gasifier of the different types of tar depend on the O2
and H2O content in the gas in the gasifier. The calculation of the
amount or content of the different types of tar in the flowing gas

DFB a
BFB

Table 2
Improved kinetic equations

(6)

Reference

1.5

r4 = k4 CH2 CO2
Jensen et al. [13]
k4 = 1.63 109 T 1.5
exp( 3400 / T )
r5 = k5 CCO CO0.25
CH0.5
Dryer and Glassman [14]
2
2O
k4 = 1.78 1010
exp( 21,600 / T )
0.7 0.8
r6 = k6 yCH
yO2
Jensen et al. [13]
4
k6 = 1.59 1010
exp( 24,200 / T )

can not, therefore, be made in an independent way: the O2-, H2O-,

content in the gas has to be known and handled simultaneously
with the highest accuracy possible. To calculate the O2-, H2O-,
content, the set of kinetic equations shown in Ref. [8] was used
but, since some of these kinetic equations were shown not to be
good enough, the kinetic equations for reactions no. 4, 5 and 6 in
Ref. [8] were replaced by others which provide results closer to
reality. The three new kinetic equations, which replace the
previous ones, are shown in Table 2.
The tar reported in the next paragraphs corresponds to the total
tar (all species heavier than benzene, according to the agreed tar
protocol [15]) at the gasifier exit, which is the addition of the tar2,
tar3, tar4 and tar5 that remain at the gasifier exit.
Due to the fact that all kinetic equations used had been obtained under conditions different from those existing in a biomass
gasifier, some corrective factors had to be used [8]. Different sets
of corrective factors were possible and were used in the calculations shown in this paper. Each set provided somewhat different
results with regard to the tar content. It has to be admitted, though,
that the values provided here are not accurate and that they have
some errors. From different calculations made for the same
experimental conditions, these authors evaluate an error of 20
50% in the values reported here. Although the values shown here
have to be considered as rough estimates, their order of magnitude is correct and it may be useful for people working with
biomass gasification in fluidized bed.
3. Constraints of the results presented here
Although the trends in the results presented here are general in
character and believed to be useful for most of the existing fluidized
bed biomass gasifiers, it has to be pointed out that the calculations
were made only for some specific circumstances which may be
somewhat different from one gasifier and feedstock to another. This
has to be taken into account when these results are applied in other
circumstances, or to other feedstocks or in-gasifier additives. The
results presented here were obtained for the following case:
i) Feedstock: The type of biomass used for all cases considered in this paper is pine wood chips of 1.04.0 mm. Its main
composition is:
C (wt.%, dry basis)
H (wt.%, dry basis)
O (wt.%, dry basis)
Ash content (wt.%, dry basis)

50.0
5.8
43.2
1.0

J. Corella et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 87 (2006) 841846

This biomass has very low nitrogen and alkali (K and Na)
species content. It does not generate neither high NH3 content in
the gasification gas nor agglomeration nor sintering problems in
the gasifier.
Other types of biomass may generate a different product distribution in the pyrolysis step and chars with different reactivities
and kinetic constants. The results presented here are for pine wood
chips of 1.04.0 mm so they only serve as rough estimates for
other types of biomass.
ii) In-gasifier material: The fluidizing material in the gasifier has some catalytic, besides thermal, activity [i.e. Refs. [3
7,16,17]]. The in-gasifier material may be a catalyst itself [i.e. Ni/
olivine] or may be a mixture of silica sand and an additive such as
calcined dolomite [CaOMgO). In all cases it has a clear effect on
the kinetic constants of many, if not all, reactions in the network.
Therefore, the type of in-gasifier material has a clear effect on the
product distribution at the gasifier exit. Results presented here
correspond to an in-gasifier material consisting of a mixture of 70
80 wt % of silica sand and 2030 wt % of a calcined dolomite [16].
iii) Gasifier topology and location of the feeding point: The
total height of the gasifier considered in this paper is 14.8 m,
except for the last section of this paper (effect of the WHSV) in
which this height is a variable.
The feeding point is located in the high density zone at the
gasifier bottom, as shown in Ref. [8]. When the feeding is above
this high density zone or when it is made from the gasifier top the
model will have to be adapted to that situation because the rate of
the pyrolysis step is different in that case [18].
iv) Gasification agent: air with some H2O; specifically the H2O
coming from the air and biomass moistures which are independent
operation variables of the process.
v) Type of gas flow: piston flow is considered. This means a nearto-perfect contact between the tar in the gas and the in-gasifier
catalytic material. Fluidized bed biomass gasifiers operating with
much bubbling and/or channelling with a solidgas contact far away
from piston flow would yield higher tar contents in the produced
gas. The reason is that tar is an intermediate product in the overall
gasification reaction network [8] and it is well known from the
Chemical Reaction Engineering principles how the yields to these
products depend on the type of flow (in the gasifier in this case).
vi) Heat losses: In this paper only an autothermal gasifier is
considered, without external heating. The gasifier in this case
operates close to adiabatic conditions, without external ovens.
Heat losses to the surroundings are of only 1 to 3% of the total heat
released in the gasifier. It has to be noticed that fluidized bed
biomass gasifiers at small (lab or small pilot) scales usually
have heat losses higher than these ones [19]. They generate lower
temperatures in the gasifier and therefore tar content higher than
those presented in this paper.
4. Experimental conditions to get a gasification gas with
less than 2 g tar/mn3
4.1. Regarding the equivalence ratio (ER)
It has to be remembered that a main and true independent
operation variable in a biomass gasifier is the total air flow fed to it

843

or, which is the same, the equivalence ratio (ER). The ER value
determines the temperature in the gasifier [i.e. Refs. [8,10]]. The
temperature in the gasifier (or the profile of temperatures in it) is
therefore a dependent variable. This is not the case of working at lab
and small pilot plant scales. In that case external ovens are usually
used to reach the desired level of temperature in the gasifier [20,21].
In the lab case the temperature in the gasifier can be made
independent of ER, as in the case reported by van Paasen and Kiel
[20] and by Aznar et al. [21].
Under the following experimental conditions:
uinlet (m/s)
uoutlet (m/s)
Biomass flow rate (kg a.r.*/h)
Throughput (kg a.r.*/h m2)
WHSV (h 1)
Moisture of the biomass (wt.%)
%2nd air (% of total air)
Inlet 2nd air (m)
Pre-heated air temperature (C)
Tbottom zone (C)
Tdilute zone (C)

2.22.9
4.04.8
1000
1760
1.6
15
15
6
250
860890
930960

*a.r. = as received.

the tar content varies with ER as shown in Fig. 1. Tar content

less than 2 g/ mn3 can be achieved, under the above experimental
conditions, only with ER values higher than 0.36.
4.2. Partitioning of the air, between the primary and secondary
flows
For secondary air flows between 10% and 30% of the total
air flow, for ER values between 0.35 and 0.45, and under the
following experimental conditions:
uinlet (m/s)
uoutlet (m/s)
Biomass flow rate (kg a.r./h)
Throughput (kg a.r./h m2)
WHSV (h 1)
Moisture of the biomass (wt.%)
Inlet 2nd air (m)
Tbottom zone (C)
Tdilute zone (C)

1.93.0
3.95.0
1000
1760
1.6
15
6
860905
9251030

the tar content in the gasification/produced gas varies with the

percentage of the 2nd air flow as shown in Fig. 2.
For ER = 0.35, only secondary air flows below the 12% of the
total air flow provide tar content below 2 g/mn3. Percentages of
the secondary air flow as high as 30% can generate tar content
below the targeted limit of 2 g/mn3 only for high (0.40, 0.45)
values of ER. Nevertheless, it has to be remembered that for high
(0.40, 0.45) ER values the heating value of the produced gas is
very low (i.e. Ref. [10]) and in this case the gasification gas
would not have many further possible applications.
The effect of the percentage of the 2nd air flow for a given ER
value is due to the different temperature reached at the bottom of
the gasifier. As the percentage of the 2nd air increases, the flow

844

J. Corella et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 87 (2006) 841846

When H2nd is increased, the tar content increases because the

residence time of the secondary air decreases, since it does not
have time to react with the tar in the upper part of the gasifier.
4.4. Regarding the biomass moisture
Biomass moisture is often another main and important independent variable of operation in a biomass gasifier. Of course,
biomass moisture at the gasifier inlet depends on the type of
biomass and/or scenario. Biomass moisture at the gasifier inlet
also depends on the detailed design of the whole gasification plant
because some drying is often found with the off, chimney, or flue
exit gas.
For the following experimental conditions:
Fig. 1. Effect of ER on the tar at the gasifier exit (riser + 1st cyclone).

rate of the primary air decreases, and consequently the temperature

at the bottom of the gasifier decreases as well, thus generating
more tar in the gasifier.
4.3. Effect of the location (height) of the inlet of the secondary
air flow (H2nd )
Under the following experimental conditions:
ER
uinlet (m/s)
uoutlet (m/s)
Biomass flow rate (kg a.r./h)
Throughput (kg a.r./h m2)
WHSV (h 1)
Moisture of the biomass (wt.%)
%2nd air (% of total air)
Inlet 2nd air (m)
Tbottom bed (C)
Tdilute zone (C)

0.35
2.3
4.0
1000
1760
1.6
15
15
Variable
860
930

ER
uinlet (m/s)
uoutlet (m/s)
Biomass flow rate (kg a.r./h)
Throughput (kg a.r./h m2)
WHSV (h 1)
%2nd air (% of total air)
Inlet 2nd air (m)
Tbottom bed (C)
Tdilute zone (C)

0.350.45
2.03.0
3.55.2
1000
1760
1.6
15
6
740930
8151005

the tar content in the gasification gas increases with the biomass moisture as shown in Fig. 4.

and for a percentage of the 2nd air of 15% of the total air flow, the
location (H2nd) of the inlet of the 2nd air flow has some effect on
the total tar content in the gasification gas, as shown in Fig. 3.

Tar content increases with biomass moisture because this

variable affects very much the temperature at the bottom zone of
the gasifier. In fact, this temperature is one of the main, if not the
most important, parameters determining the tar content. van
Paasen and Kiel [20] reported a different effect of the biomass
moisture on the tar content because they used an external
electrically heated gasifier, making the temperature in their
gasifier not dependent on the biomass moisture.
As shown in Fig. 4, for ER = 0.35 (and for the type of biomass considered here), only a biomass moisture below 12 wt.%
produces a gasification gas with less than 2 g tar/mn3. At ER =

Fig. 2. Effect of total ER on the tar content at the gasifier exit, for different values
of percentage (defined as % of total ER) of 2nd air flow.

Fig. 3. Effect of 2nd air inlet height on the tar content at the gasifier exit (riser +
1st cyclone), for ER = 0.35.

J. Corella et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 87 (2006) 841846

Fig. 4. Effect of biomass moisture on the tar content at the gasifier exit (riser + 1st
cyclone).

0.40 that limit can be achieved with biomass moistures of up to

16 wt.%, but then the heating value, and by implication its
usefulness, of the gasification gas is quite low (9).
4.5. Regarding the weight hourly space velocity for the
1
biomass, WHSV [= mB / W, h ]
This variable, WHSV, depends on a) the biomass flow rate
(mB) to the gasifier and b) the inventory or total amount
(weight) of the solids in the gasifier (W). W includes the silica
sand, the additives (calcined dolomite in this case) and the char
and ash from the biomass. Both parameters, mB and W, define the
so-called weight hourly space velocity for the biomass, WHSV
[=mB / W, h 1]. For a given value of W, on increasing mB, WHSV
increases, and, for a given value of ER, the total air flow rate also
increases. If the cross sectional area of the gasifier is constant with
the gasifier height, the superficial gas velocity also increases. It, in
turn, and to keep a given (i.e. 4 s) mean residence time of the gas in
the gasifier, implies to increase the total height of the gasifier.
High values of WHSV usually imply very high gasifiers.
With the above ideas in mind, the results of applying the model
indicate that the tar content in the gasification gas decreases upon
increasing WHSV for all the values considered of ER. This result
is due to the fact that when mB, or WHSV, is increased, for given
values of ER and W, the temperature at the bottom of the gasifier
increases, thus decreasing the tar content at the gasifier exit.
Values below 2 g tar/mn3 can be achieved, for ER = 0.35,
when WHSV N 1.62.0 h 1. This implies very high gasifiers.

845

throughputs and cost of the CFB gasifiers with respect to the BFB
gasifiers.
Regarding the tar content in the BFB gasifiers, the authors believe
that both the trends and orders of magnitude shown here for CFB
could be applied to BFB biomass gasifiers if the solidgas contact is
good in both gasifiers. Nevertheless, good solidgas contact in small
(lab or small pilot scales) bubbling fluidized bed gasifiers is usually
easier to achieve than in big CFB gasifiers. So, it would be easier to
obtain low tar content in good and small BFB gasifiers than in good
big CFB gasifiers, in agreement with Kurkela [22]. This could be the
reason why Corella et al. [6] when comparing the tar content from
BFB and CFB biomass gasifiers, operated under similar conditions
and with the same feedstock and bed material, obtained tar content in
a (good) BFB biomass gasifier of only a 60% of the tar content
obtained in a (not very good) CFB biomass gasifier. Small and
good BFB biomass gasifiers would therefore generate less tar
content than CFB gasifiers.
5. Experimental checking of the results
Although the authors do not have a commercial gasifier of the
said dimensions to validate the results presented here, the few data
published from commercial gasifiers and the results from a
confidential survey carried out worldwide by the authors agree
with the results presented in this paper. All the existing big pilots
and commercial units generate a gasification gas with a tar content
higher than 2 g/mn3. This would indicate that the topology of these
gasifiers is not optimal or that their operation conditions are not
the adequate enough to obtain such low tar content.
Together with the analysis of the existing big fluidized bed
gasifiers, the authors are checking the results shown here with
the CFB of small pilot plant scale existing at UCM and described
in Ref. [6]. The experimental results obtained in this CFB
biomass gasifier, some of which appear in Ref. [6], agree with
the results shown in this paper. A detailed comparison between
the predicted and experimental results is not presented here
because from our recently gained experience, as well as from the
model by Corella and Sanz [8] applied to this CFB, it was
deduced that the existing CFB at UCM does not have an optimal
topology and can hardly generate a gasification gas with less
than 2 g tar/mn3. Results regarding tar content in the UCM's CFB
biomass gasifier could be better if the gasifier had another design
and operation. This gasifier will therefore be redesigned or
revamped and lower tar content will hopefully be obtained. This
will be the time to compare the predictions shown in this paper.

4.6. CFB vs. BFB gasifiers

6. Summary
It is not easy to compare CFB and BFB biomass gasifiers,
especially the tar content in their respectively produced gas, because both types of gasifiers can have very different designs and
operations. A bad design (topology) of a given type of gasifier
can generate a higher tar content than a good design of another
type of gasifier. Comparisons between CFB and BFB have to be
made with extreme care and extensive knowledge of the fluidization and gasification phenomena. It has also to be remembered
that besides the tar content there are several other factors which
determine the choice of a CFB or a BFB, such as the higher

A gasification gas with a tar content below the targeted limit

of 2 g/mn3 can be achieved only under very special conditions.
These conditions refer both to the gasifier design and operation
as well as to the characteristics of the feedstock. Regarding the
design of the gasifier itself, these conditions are:
1st) Near-to-perfect feedings and distributions across the
diameter of the gasifier of the feedstock as well as of the
1st and 2nd air flows. This is required in order to get an

846

J. Corella et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 87 (2006) 841846

optimal tar-bed material and gasification gasair contacts

in the gasifier.
2nd) Very high gasifiers, which imply high WHSV values.
3rd) Location of the 2nd air flow as low as possible; just
above the high density zone at the bottom bed of the
gasifier.
Regarding the operation of the gasifier:
4th) Relatively high ER values, usually 0.35.
5th) Secondary air flows relatively low (compared to the primary
air flow).
6th) A good in-gasifier material or additive in the gasifier.
Regarding the feedstock:
7th) Biomass moistures as low as possible.
7. Final comment
From the results shown in this paper, it may be concluded
that to get a low tar content is not easy at all but it is possible.
Apart from the seven point measures given above, there is a
final comment that needs to be made about in-gasifier
materials: this material may and, in fact it does, act as a
catalyst of the in-bed tar-elimination reactions. This material
modifies the kinetic constants of most of the reactions involved
in the gasification network described in Ref. [8]. At the time of
writing the in-bed additives might be classified into two broad
types: i) some very active but expensive catalysts which have
been obtained to date only at laboratory scale. These catalysts
may deactivate by coking when used at high (above 1000 kg/
h m2 cross sectional area) biomass throughputs, which are the
only realistic ones for commercial application. ii) Natural
occurring solids such as dolomites, limestones, olivines, high
iron-content solids, etc.... They have been proved to have only a
relatively small tar-elimination activity. Therefore they are not
yet the optimal and definitive in-gasifier materials. So, we
finally conclude that to obtain a tar content below 2 g/mn3 easily,
some better and cheap in-bed materials have still to be found
and used in the future.
Acknowledgement
Part of this work was done under the EC-funded project no.
ASI/B7-301/2598/07- 2003/62706 with University of Tianjin
(P. R. China) who appointed Mr. Li Gang to use this modelling
work to be applied to some forthcoming gasifiers in P. R.
China.
References
[1] J.M. Toledo, J. Corella, G. Molina, Catalytic hot gas cleaning with
monoliths in biomass gasification in fluidized beds. 4. Performance of an
advanced, second generation, two-layers-based monolithic reactor, Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res. 45 (4) (2006) 13891396.

[2] M.P. Aznar, M.A. Caballero, J. Gil, J.A. Martn, J. Corella, Commercial
steam reforming catalysts to improve biomass gasification with steam
oxygen mixtures. 2. Catalytic tar removal, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 37 (7) (1998)
26682680.
[3] L. Devi, K.J. Ptasinski, F.J.J.G. Janssen, A review of the primary measures
for tar elimination in biomass gasification processes, Biomass Bioenergy
24 (2003) 125140.
[4] E. Kurkela, J. Laatikainen, P. Sthlberg, Cogasification of biomass and coal,
Final Report EC-APAS-COAL-CT92-001, vol. 3, ISBN:3-928123-15-7, 1995.
[5] Ising, M. Zur katalytischen spaltung teerartiger kolhenwasserstoffe bei der
wirbelschichtvergasung von biomasse. Ph. D. Thesis. Ed. by Fraunhofer
Institute IRB Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany, 2002. ISBN: 3-8167-6092-9.
[6] J. Corella, J.M. Toledo, R. Padilla, Olivine or dolomite as in-bed additive
in biomass gasification with air in a fluidized bed: which is better? Energy
Fuels 18 (3) (2004) 713720.
[7] C. Pfeifer, R. Rauch, H. Hofbauer, In-bed. Catalytic tar reduction in a dual
fluidized bed biomass steam gasifier, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 43 (7) (2004)
16341640.
[8] J. Corella, A. Sanz, Modeling circulating fluidized bed biomass gasifiers.
A pseudo-rigorous model for stationary state, Fuel Process. Technol. 86 (9)
(2005) 10211053.
[9] J. Corella, F.J. Alday, J. Herguido, A model for the non-stationary states of
a commercial fluidized bed air gasifier of biomass, in: G. Grassi, G. Gosse,
G. do Santos (Eds.), Biomass for Energy and Industry, Elsevier Applied
Science, London UK, 1990, pp. 28042809.
[10] A. Sanz, J. Corella, Modeling circulating fluidized bed biomass gasifiers.
Results from a pseudo-rigorous 1-dimensional model for stationary state,
Fuel Process. Technol. 87 (2006) 247258.
[11] J. Corella, M.A. Caballero, M.P. Aznar, J. Gil, C. Brage, A 6-lump model for
the kinetics of the catalytic tar removal in biomass gasification, in: S. Kyritsis,
A.A.C.M. Beenackers (Eds.), 1st World Conference on Biomass for Energy
and Industry, James and James (Science Publishers) Ltd., London UK, 2001,
pp. 14721475.
[12] J. Corella, M.A. Caballero, M.P. Aznar, C. Brage, Two advanced models for
the kinetics of the variation of the tar composition in its catalytic elimination
in biomass gasification, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 42 (13) (2003) 30013011.
[13] A. Jensen, J.E. Johnsson, J. Andries, K. Laughli, G. Read, M. Mayer, H.
Baumann, B. Bonn, Formation and reduction of NOx in pressurized
fluidized bed combustion of coal, Fuel 74 (11) (1995) 15551569.
[14] F.L. Dryer, I. Glassman, Fourteenth Symposium (Intl.) on Combustion,
Pittsburgh, PA, The Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, 1973, pp. 9871003.
[15] S.V.B. van Passen, J.H.A. Kiel, J.P.A. Neeft, H.A.M. Knoef, G.J. Buffinga,
U. Zielke, K. Sjstrm, Guideline for sampling and analysis of tar and
particles in biomass producer gases. Final report to EC from the project
number ERK6-CT1999-2000, November 2002. Report from ECN (Petten,
The Netherlands) no. ECN-C-02-090.
[16] J. Gil, M.A. Caballero, J.A. Martn, M.P. Aznar, J. Corella, Biomass
gasification with air in a fluidized bed: effect of the in-bed use of dolomite
under different operation conditions, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 38 (11) (1999)
42264235.
[17] M. Asadullah, T. Miyazawa, S.-I. Ito, K. Kunimori, S. Koyama, K.
Tomishige, A comparison of Rh/CeO2/SiO2 catalysts with steam reforming
catalysts, dolomite and inert materials as bed materials in low throughput
fluidized bed gasification systems, Biomass Bioenergy 26 (2004) 269279.
[18] R. Chirone, F. Miccio, F. Scala, On the relevance of axial and transversal
fuel segregation during the FB combustion of a biomass, Energy Fuels 18
(2004) 11081117.
[19] J. Corella, Personal communication, 2003.
[20] S.V.B. van Paasen, J.H.A. Kiel, Tar formation in a fluidized-bed gasifier.
ECN (Petten, The Netherlands) Report no. ECN-C-04-013, 2004.
[21] M.P. Aznar, M.A. Caballero, J.A. Sancho, E. Francs, Plastic waste
elimination by co-gasification with coal and biomass in fluidized bed with
air in pilot plant, Fuel Process. Technol. 87 (2006) 409420.
[22] E. Kurkela, Personal communication, 2005.