i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1 4 4 5 5 e1 4 4 6 3

Available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

Steam co-gasification of coal and biomass derived chars with

synergy effect as an innovative way of hydrogen-rich gas
production

ski a,*, Krzysztof Stan

Natalia Howaniec a, Adam Smolin
czyk a, Magdalena Pichlak b
a
Department of Energy Saving and Air Protection, Central Mining Institute, Pl. Gwarków 1, 40-166 Katowice, Poland
b
School of Management, University of Silesia, 75 Pułku Piechoty Str. 1, 41-500 Chorzów, Poland

article info abstract

Article history: The main results of the experimental work on steam co-gasification of Polish hard coal and
Received 29 April 2011 Salix Viminalis blends in a fixed bed reactor under atmospheric pressure and at the
Received in revised form temperature of 700, 800 and 900
C are presented in the paper. The effectiveness of co-
1 August 2011 gasification of coal/biomass blends of 20, 40, 60 and 80% w/w biomass content was
Accepted 5 August 2011 tested in terms of gas flows, composition, carbon conversion and chars reactivity. A
Available online 7 September 2011 synergy effect in the co-gasification tests, consisting in increase in the volume of hydrogen
produced, when compared to the tests of coal and biomass gasification, was observed at all
Keywords: tested temperatures. The observed synergy effect was attributed to the catalytic effect of
Coal K2O present in blend ash (6e10% wt). Moreover, in co-gasification of blends of 20 and 40%
Biomass w/w biomass content, increase in the total gas yield was observed, when compared to the
Co-gasification tests of coal and biomass gasification at all tested temperatures. In tests of co-gasification
Hydrogen of blends of higher biomass content (i.e. 60 and 80% w/w), a slight decrease in the total
volume of product gas was observed, when compared to the tests of coal and biomass
gasification. Nevertheless, higher ratio of biomass in co-gasification makes it still an
attractive option in terms of CO2 emission reduction and increase in hydrogen production.
Copyright ª 2011, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights
reserved.

1. Introduction and credits resulting from utilization of a renewable, zero-

Hydrogen production as a prospective, environment friendly
energy carrier, in the processes of steam gasification of coal
and biomass is widely discussed in the literature in terms of
system analysis e.g [1e4]., process modeling e.g [5,6]. and
process optimization including catalytic effects of selected
compounds e.g [7e11].
Co-gasification of coal and biomass is claimed to offer
several advantages over coal or biomass gasification. It gives
the benefits of reliable supplies of abundant solid fuel e coal
emission energy resource e biomass [12e15]. It makes
feasible biomass gasification in larger scale and thereby with
higher efficiency and with lower specific operating costs than
in conventional biomass gasification plants of usually
<50 MWe [16].
Industrial scale experience with coal and biomass or waste
co-gasification is reported for several plants, e.g. IGCC plant at
Buggenum, the Netherlands, where efforts of co-gasification
of up to 50% w/w of biomass were undertaken to generate
a high proportion of “green” energy [14]. This was in response

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ48 32 2592252; fax: þ48 32 2596533.

E-mail address: smolin@gig.katowice.pl (A. Smolin
ski).
0360-3199/$ e see front matter Copyright ª 2011, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.08.017
14456 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1 4 4 5 5 e1 4 4 6 3
to the plants obligations resulting from signing the Kyoto
protocol by the Netherlands to make a CO2 emission reduction
of 200,000 t/year, which is equivalent to 28e50 MWe derived
from biomass [17].
In most other cases; however, co-gasification is performed
by co-combustion of biomass-derived, untreated syngas with
coal. Numerous laboratory-scale studies are reported on co-
gasification of coal and biomass in fluidized and fixed-bed
reactors under various operating parameters. Various
synergy effects in co-pyrolysis and co-gasification are also
reported which may result in higher reactivity [18], higher fuel
conversion [19], lower tars production [20,21] and change in
H2/CO ratio in product gas [12,22].
In the study the results of hydrogen-rich gas production in
the process of steam co-gasification of blends of selected
Polish hard coal and Salix Viminalis in a fixed bed reactor
under atmospheric pressure and at the temperature of 700,
800 and 900
C, as well as their reactivity in the process of
steam gasification are presented.
2. Experimental
The experiments on hydrogen-rich gas production in the
process of coal and biomass (Salix Viminalis) co-gasification
were carried out under an atmospheric pressure in a labora-
tory scale installation with a fixed bed reactor (see Fig. 1). The
reactor was designed in a shape of a cylinder of the external
dimensions of 300  60 mm. The composition of dry and clean
gas produced in the biomass and hard coal co-gasification
tests was analyzed on-line every 3.2 min via two-channels
gas chromatograph (GC) Agilent 3000A. In the first channel
a column PLOT U (8 m  0.32 mm) with a TCD detector was
used (for separation of CO2 and C2eC5). In the second channel
a backflush injector module with a pre-column PLOT U
(3 m  0.32 mm) and an analytical column MS5A PLOT
(10 m  0.32 mm) with a TCD detector (for separation of H2, N2,
CO and CH4) were applied. Helium and argon were used as
carrier gasses in the PLOT U and MS5A PLOT columns,
respectively. Sample inlet and injector temperature was 60
C.
Injection time was 50 ms for both columns (PLOT U and MS5A
PLOT), and their temperature was 60
C. Run time and post run
time were 150 s and 10 s, and a backflush time was 12 s for
column PLOT U.
p, T
2
1 Fixed-Bed
p, T Reactor
H2O with
Steam
Generator Resistance
Furnace
N2
Fig. 1 e Schematic of the laboratory scale installation: (1) steam generator, (2) fixed bed reactor with resistance furnace,
(3) gas cooling and treatment system: gas dehumidifier, solid particles filter, (4) mass flow meter and gas chromatograph.
2.1. Experimental procedure and data analysis
A sample of 10 g of hard coal, Salix Viminalis or their blends of
a ratio of 20, 40, 60 and 80% w/w, respectively, prepared in
accordance with the PN-G-04506:1996 standard, was placed at
the bottom of the reactor on quartz wool, used for better
temperature distribution and for protection against entrain-
ment of fuel grains by the inert gas and gasification agents
passing through the reactor. The sample was then heated to
the temperature of 700, 800 and 900
C, respectively, in an
inert gas (nitrogen) atmosphere (flow rate 8.33 cm3/s). After
the temperature had stabilized, steam was injected upward to
the gasifier with a flow rate of 5.33  102 cm3/s. Steam ratio
was selected based on literature data and own results of
previous experiments and was kept constant in all tests e.g
[23e25]. The amount of cooled, dried and filtered product gas
was measured with a flow meter and its composition was
determined on-line with a gas chromatograph.
Reactivities of chars were determined based on the total
gas yield and its composition from the equation:
RX ¼ dm=ðm0 $dtX Þ ð1=sÞ (1)
where RX denotes reactivity for X% of fuel conversion, m0
denotes an initial carbon content in a sample, m denotes
a time dependent carbon content in product gas and tX
denotes time required to achieve carbon conversion of X%
[26]. The reactivity for 50% carbon conversion and maximum
reactivity were determined as well as the times needed to
reach the reactivities, t50, and, tmax, respectively.
2.2. Materials
The samples of Salix Viminalis were acquired from the
experimental crops in Swierczow, Poland, and the hard coal
samples were provided by Polish coal mine Piast. The reac-
tivity of fuel chars and its blends of various weight ratios were
preceded by analyses of selected physical and chemical fuel
parameters of fundamental importance in terms of the gasi-
fication process. These included ultimate analyses (content of
C, H, N, S), proximate analyses (content of total moisture, ash,
volatiles matte, fixed carbon) and a determination of
combustion heat and calorific value (see Table 1). The samples
were analyzed in the accredited Laboratory of Solid Fuels
3 4
Gas GasVolume
Cooling and vent
and Composition
Treatment Analysis
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1 4 4 5 5 e1 4 4 6 3 14457

5.63  104 1/s and 4.68  104 1/s at 800
C for biomass and
Table 1 e Basic physical and chemical parameters of Salix
Viminalis (SV) and hard coal (HC) sample from Piast coal hard coal samples, respectively.
mine (Poland). Values of R50 and Rmax varied significantly with changing
ratios of biomass in a fuel blend. R50 and Rmax increased with
Parametera Sample
increasing biomass content up to 40% w/w. Blends of 20 and
SV HC 40% w/w biomass content were characterized by higher
Total moisture W [%] 4.74 6.02 reactivities, and times needed to reach R50 and Rmax were
Ash A [%] 1.51 5.69 lower in the entire temperature range tested (see Fig. 3), when
Volatiles V [%] 73.16 31.12 compared to the remaining weight ratios and pure hard coal
Heat of combustion Qs[kJ/kg] 18171 28805 and biomass samples. In general, values of tmax were lower
Calorific value Qi [kJ/kg] 16697 27616
than t50 and did not exceed 576 s. The shortest times were
Total sulfur St [%] 0.05 0.5
reported for Salix Viminalis at all tested temperatures.
Carbon Ct [%] 52.19 70.64
Hydrogen Ht [%] 6.22 4.08 The synergy effect was observed at all tested temperatures
Nitrogen N [%] <0.01 0.98 in co-gasification of coal and biomass for all coal to biomass
Oxygen O [%] 35.29 18.11 ratios, consisting in increase in the volume of hydrogen
Fixed carbon [%] 20.59 57.17 produced, when compared to the tests of coal and biomass
a Analytical state.
gasification. Another synergy effect was observed in tests on
blends of 20 and 40% w/w biomass content at all tempera-
tures, which was reflected in higher amount of product gas,
Quality Assessment of the Central Mining Institute in accor- when compared to gasification of hard coal and biomass
dance with the relevant standards in force: PN-G-04511:1980 separately (see Fig. 4). In tests on co-gasification of blends of 60
(total moisture), PN-G-04560:1998 and PN-ISO 1171:2002 and 80% w/w biomass content, a slight decrease in the total
(ash), PN-G-04516:1998 and PN ISO-562:2000 (volatiles), PN-G- volume of product gas was observed, when compared to the
04513:1981 (heat of combustion, calorific value), PN-G- gasification tests.
04584:2001 and PN-ISO 334:1997 (total sulfur), PN-G- In the co-gasification tests on blends of 20 and 40% w/w
04571:1998 (carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen content), PN-G- biomass content, high reactivity of biomass strongly influ-
04516:1998 (fixed carbon calculated as 100 e total moisture e enced coal conversion, which led to increase in hydrogen
ash e volatiles). content in the total volume of gaseous product. However,
higher biomass content led to decrease in total amount of
gaseous product mainly due to higher tars production and
lower total carbon conversion. Nevertheless, the volume of
3. Results and discussion hydrogen produced was still higher in comparison with tests
of coal and biomass gasification.
Reactivity is one of the most important parameters deter- The role of biomass in the co-gasification process is not
mining fuel suitability for use in the gasification process at unequivocally determined in the literature [20,22,29e31]. Some
industrial scale [27,28]. A comparative study of reactivity of authors reported a positive effect of adding a small amount of
chars of hard coal, biomass and their blends in the process of biomass (up to 10% w/w) resulting in higher hydrogen and
steam gasification at 700, 800 and 900
C is presented bellow. carbon monoxide production in the co-gasification experi-
The results given in Fig. 2 reveal that the reactivity for 50% of ments [12]. Pan et al. [32], based on the results of co-gasification
carbon conversion, R50, increased with the temperature both tests of residual biomass/poor coal blends in a fluidized-bed
for biomass and hard coal samples. The reactivity of Salix reactor at atmospheric pressure, concluded that the ratios of
Viminalis chars varied between 2.42  104 1/s and no less than 20% w/w of residual biomass for the low-grade coal
2.98  104 1/s, whereas of hard coal between 1.98  104 1/s and 40% w/w of biomass for the refuse coal were the optimal in
and 2.56  104 1/s at the temperatures of 700 and 900
C, the co-gasification process in terms of improvement in thermal
respectively. The lowest values of Rmax of 4.47  104 1/s and efficiency of the co-gasification process as well as increase in
3.73  104 1/s were observed at 700
C and the highest of product gas heating value and carbon conversion. Lack of

a 5 b 8
4,5 7
4
Rma x*1 0^-4 [1/s]

6
R5 0*1 0^-4 [1/s]

3,5
3 700 C 5 700 C
2,5 800 C 4 800 C
2 900 C 3 900 C
1,5
2
1
0,5 1
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
biomass content [%w] biomass content [%w]

Fig. 2 e Reactivity at 50% of carbon conversion, R50, and the maximum reactivity, Rmax, in the process of steam
co-gasification of hard coal and Salix Viminalis at 700, 800 and 900
C.
14458 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1 4 4 5 5 e1 4 4 6 3

a 2500 b 700
600
2000
500
700 C 700 C

tmax [s]
1500
t5 0 [s ]

400
800 C 800 C
1000 300
900 C 900 C
200
500
100
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
biomass content [%w] biomass content [%w]

Fig. 3 e Time of reaching a) the reactivity for 50% of carbon conversion, t50, and b) maximum reactivity tmax in the process of
steam co-gasification of coal and Salix Viminalis at 700, 800 and 900
C.

synergy effects in coal and biomass co-gasification was also acknowledged the co-gasification as an alternative to coal
reported, e.g. by Kumabe et al. [30], who concluded that no gasification process [33] as one of the benefits related to the co-
apparent synergy in the co-gasification of coal and biomass gasification of coal with biomass is a contribution to the CO2
blends was observed. They noted, however, that the conver- emission reduction, due to the utilization of biomass, which is
sion to gas increased with the biomass ratio. Other authors considered to be neutral in terms of CO2 emission.

a - Salix Viminalis
- Hard coal
- Biomass/coal blend
9000C 8000C 7000C
25000
Product gas volume [cm3]

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
20/40

40/60

60/40

80/20

20/40

40/60

60/40

80/20

20/40

40/60

60/40

80/20

Biomass/coal mass ratio [% w /w ]

b - Salix Viminalis
- Hard coal
- Biomass/coal blend
9000C 8000C 7000C
16000
Hydrogen volume [cm3]

14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
20/40

40/60

60/40

80/20

20/40

40/60

60/40

80/20

20/40

40/60

60/40

80/20

Biomass/coal mass ratio [% w /w ]

Fig. 4 e Experimental results of gasification and co-gasification of hard coal and Salix Viminalis at 700, 800 and 900
C: a)
product gas volume and b) hydrogen volume.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1 4 4 5 5 e1 4 4 6 3 14459

The total amounts of hydrogen generated in the co-

[%wt of ash]
gasification tests on blends of 20 and 40% w/w biomass

Rest
content were respectively 4e6% and 10e11% higher than the

1.95
2.50
3.04
3.59
4.13
4.68
amount of hydrogen produced in the process of coal and
biomass gasification, which proves the interaction between
hard coal and Salix Viminalis in the temperature range of
700e900
C. It can be attributed to the increase in carbon

[%wt of ash]
conversion of coal in the presence of biomass. Higher biomass

0.36
2.92
5.48
8.05
10.61
13.17
P2O5
content led to decrease in energy efficiency; however it still
seems to be an attractive alternative to coal gasification in the
aspect of reduced CO2 emissions reached with a use of a zero-
emission, renewable energy resource.

[%wt of ash]
Based on the composition and the total amount of product

TiO2

1.08
0.89
0.71
0.52
0.34
0.15
gas generated in 1 h steam gasification tests, the calorific
value of the product gas was computed from the equation:
X  
Qg ¼ ci $Wi MJ=m3 (2)

[%wt of ash]
i

1.92
5.96
10.00
14.05
18.09
22.13
K2O
where ci denotes concentration of a particular component in
product gas [vol.%] and Wi denotes its heat of combustion
[MJ/m3].

Table 3 e The ash analyses of the studied Salix Viminalis (SV) and hard coal (HC) and biomass/coal samples.
The calorific values of product gas are presented in Table 2.

[%wt of ash]
Furthermore, the CGE index given in Table 2 denotes the ratio
of energy output in product gas to energy input in fuel:

Na2O

2.60
2.19
1.77
1.36
0.94
0.53
Qg $x
CGE ¼ (3)
Qw

where Qw denotes calorific value of fuel (coal, biomass, coal/

[%wt of ash]
biomass blend) and x denotes mass ratio of product gas to fuel MgO

3.82
3.75
3.68
3.60
3.53
3.46
input.
High calorific values, Qg, of gas produced in hard coal
gasification is not surprising as the highest carbon content in
a fuel led to production of the highest amount of combustible
[%wt of ash]

components. However, the calorific values of product gas

7.34
13.29
19.24
25.20
31.15
37.10
generated at 800
C in co-gasification of blends of 20 and 40%
CaO
[%wt of ash]

Table 2 e Calorific value, Qg, of product gas generated in

Fe2O3

8.63
7.09
5.55
4.01
2.47
0.93

the process of steam co-gasification of hard coal and Salix

Viminalis at 700, 800 and 900
C.
Temperature SV content Qg CGE
[
C] in a sample [%] [kJ/m3] [-]
[%wt of ash]

700 0 11.39 0.72

Al2O3

25.65
21.16
16.66
12.17
7.67
3.18

20 9.98 0.67
40 8.38 0.62
60 9.65 0.51
80 9.64 0.42
100 9.94 0.34
[%wt of ash]

800 0 11.08 0.80

46.65
40.25
33.86
27.46
21.07
14.67
SiO2

20 11.16 0.75
40 11.06 0.72
60 8.26 0.55
80 8.52 0.47
100 8.69 0.38
in a sample [%]

900 0 11.14 0.96

20 8.41 0.81
SV content

40 10.23 0.83
60 10.25 0.66
80 9.18 0.53
100
20
40
60
80

100 9.30 0.43

0
14460 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1 4 4 5 5 e1 4 4 6 3

Table 4 e Percent concentrations of gas components in gasification and co-gasification product gas.
Temperature [
C] 700 800 900

Biomass/coal mass ratio [% w/w] Gas component concentration [vol.%]

CO2 CO CH4 H2 CO2 CO CH4 H2 CO2 CO CH4 H2

0 E 23 16 1 60 20 21 0 59 16 22 0 62
20/80 C 24 15 1 60 20 20 0 60 17 21 0 62
E 28 9 1 62 26 10 2 62 28 8 0 64
40/60 C 25 14 1 60 21 19 0 60 18 20 0 62
E 29 9 0 62 28 7 2 63 25 9 1 65
60/40 C 26 13 1 60 23 17 0 60 19 18 0 63
E 29 6 1 64 28 7 0 65 27 6 2 65
80/20 C 28 11 1 60 25 15 0 60 21 16 0 63
E 28 6 1 65 28 6 0 66 26 6 1 67
100 E 31 8 1 60 30 9 0 61 26 10 0 64

C/E  computational (based on gasification tests)/experimental.

w/w biomass content are comparable to the respective values
obtained in hard coal gasification, which is also confirmed by
CGE index, similar for coal gasification and co-gasification of
blends of 20 and 40% w/w biomass content.
The synergy effects observed in the co-gasification tests
could be attributed to high reactivity of SV as well as the
catalytic effects of alkali metals present in the mineral matter
of biomass. In Table 3 the main ash-forming elements are
presented. Hard coal is characterized by higher ash content
than biomass, while biomass ash is more prone to slugging
the installation due to higher content of relatively reactive,
salt components such as e.g. K2O. It is the main problem in
commercial application of biomass in the gasification process.
Hard coal ash differs significantly from biomass ash, mainly in
terms of SiO2, Fe2O3, CaO and K2O contents. The presence of
K2O in the fuel mineral matter may explain the synergy effects
observed in co-gasification, consisting in an increase in
volume and concentration of hydrogen and in total gas yield
for selected blends, when compared to the gasification tests
(Fig. 4, Table 4). The results suggest that there exists the
optimal ratio of K2O (5e10% w/w), favoring effective catalysis
of the co-gasification process. Some authors previously
reported a catalytic effect of the K2O content in biomass ash
on the production of hydrogen rich gas [19]. Carbon conver-
sion values reported in tests of fuel blends co-gasification
were higher than those reported in coal gasification tests.
The maximum carbon conversion was observed in tests of co-
gasification of blends of 20 and 40% w/w biomass content.
The statistical methods may be useful in investigation of
potential synergy effects in co-gasification of fuel blends at
various temperatures and of various weight ratios. The studied
experimental data are complex with multiway (N-way) struc-
ture. Depending on the organization of the data-sets, various
methods of exploratory analysis can be used. Exploration of
data with N-way structure can be performed with N-way
methods, of which the most common is the Tucker3 model
[34e39]. To apply the Tucker3 model the experimental data are
organized into a three-way array, X(I  J  K), in which samples,
measured parameters and process temperatures are regarded
to be the objects studied, and the relationships between them
can be investigated simultaneously. When dealing with the N-
way data the terms ‘rows’ and ‘columns’ from classical matrices
are replaced by ‘modes’. Indices I, J, and K represent the first,
second, and third modes, respectively. In the study I, J and K
describe the measured parameters (see Table 5), tested samples
of various biomass content (0, 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100% w/w) and
process temperatures (700, 800 and 900
C), respectively.
In the Tucker3 approach the three-way array X(I  J  K) is
decomposed into three loading matrices A(ID), B(JE), and
C(KF), and the core array G(DEF), where D, E, and F denote the
number of factors in each individual mode (see Fig. 5) [36,38,39].
Square elements of the core array explain the importance
of combinations of the corresponding factors in variance
description. Their sum gives variance of the data described by
the Tucker3 model. The number of factors in each mode is not

Table 5 e Parameters measured in co-gasification tests.

F
No. Measured parameters Unit
C
1 H2 content in synthesis gas [%vol.]
K
2 CO content in synthesis gas [%vol.] K K
F J
3 CH4 content in synthesis gas [%vol.] E J
J
4 CO2 content in synthesis gas [%vol.] G B +
X = E E
5 Calorific values of synthesis gas [kJ/kg] D
6 Reactivity for 50% of carbon conversion R50 [1/s] D I
I
7 Maximum reactivity Rmax [1/s]
8 Time to reach R50 (t50) [s] A
9 Time to reach Rmax (tmax) [s] I
10 Carbon conversion (X) [%]
Fig. 5 e Graphical representation of the Tucker3 model.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1 4 4 5 5 e1 4 4 6 3 14461

necessarily the same. Loading vectors, i.e. columns of elements are (1 1 1) and (2 2 1), i.e. the first factors of param-
matrices A, B, and C are used to visualize relationships eters, samples and the temperatures modes; and the second
between parameters in individual modes. factors of the parameters and the samples modes and the first
The Tucker3 approach requires organization of the exper- factor of the temperature mode, respectively.
imental data into a three-way array, X (10  6  3). The Taking into account the sign of the core elements and the
Tucker3 model with complexity [2 2 2] for the data standard- signs of all loading of the factors associated with this core
ized in the first mode was constructed. The model describes element, for the experimental data X, a conclusion may be
98.05% of the total variance. The loading plots, obtained as drawn that within the tested temperature range the sample of
a result of the Tucker3 analysis, are presented in Fig. 6. To hard coal (sample no.1) and blends of 20 and 40% w/w
interpret the relationships between the elements in different biomass content (nos. 2 and 3) are characterized by higher
modes the core matrix G is needed: values of measured parameters than the remaining samples,
   and the highest calorific values of product gas (parameter no.
98:4856 0:0150  0:0418 0:1538
G¼  5) and smaller CO2 content in produced synthesis gas
0:0030 16:0225 6:3710 0:5865
(parameter no 4). It means that the interaction between the
In the unfolded core matrix G, the left and the right parts of first factors of all modes reveals the differences between fuel
the matrix are related to the first and the second components blends for which the synergy effect, resulting in increase in
of the temperature mode, respectively, whereas columns in the total amount of product gas in co-gasification was
each part represent the first and the second components of observed. Additionally the synergy effect is clearly seen when
the samples mode. The rows of unfolded matrix G represent the interaction between factors (2 2 1) is investigated. At all
the first and the second component of parameters mode, tested temperatures the samples of 20 and 40% w/w Salix
respectively. The sum of the squared elements of matrix G Viminalis content (samples nos 2 and 3) were characterized
gives the total variance of the model. Based on the squared by the highest values of R50 and Rmax (parameters nos 6 and 7),
elements of G it may be observed that the most important when compared to the blends of higher biomass content.

a 0.6 b 0.8

36 5
0.4 1 0.6

7 10
0.2 4 0.4
2
6

0 0.2
9
4
B2
A2

1
-0.2 5 0

-0.4 -0.2

8
-0.6 -0.4
3
2
-0.8 -0.6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.385 0.39 0.395 0.4 0.405 0.41 0.415 0.42 0.425 0.43
A1 B1

c 0.8

0.6 3

0.4

0.2 2
C2

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

1
-0.8
0.565 0.57 0.575 0.58 0.585 0.59

C1

Fig. 6 e Loading plots of the Tucker3 model of X (10 3 6 3 3) three-way data array standardized in the first mode: (a)
parameters, (b) hard coal/biomass blends of various biomass content, and (c) process temperature.
14462 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1 4 4 5 5 e1 4 4 6 3
Moreover for samples nos 2 and 3 the R50 was reached in the
shortest time, t50 (parameter no 8).
4. Conclusions
Based on the experimental results of hard coal and biomass
blends co-gasification a conclusion was drawn that the
process might be considered as a promising, innovative way of
hydrogen-rich gas production, contributing to CO2 emission
reduction, when compared to fossil fuel gasification, since
biomass is claimed to be carbon neutral. A synergy effect in
the co-gasification tests consisting in increase in the volume
of the hydrogen produced, when compared to the tests of coal
and biomass gasification was observed at all tested tempera-
tures. Additionally in co-gasification of blends of 20 and 40%
w/w content of biomass, increase in the total volume of
product gas was observed, when compared to the tests of coal
and biomass gasification. Increasing the biomass content to 60
and 80% w/w resulted in a slight decrease in the volume of
product gas, when compared to the tests of coal and biomass
gasification. However, it still offers an advantage of CO2
emission reduction when compared to fossil fuel based energy
production processes.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Polish Ministry of Science and
Higher Education under the project no. 0384/T02/2010/70.
references
[1] Cormos CC. Assessment of hydrogen and electricity co-
production schemes based on gasification process with
carbon capture and storage. Int J Hydrogen Energ 2009;34:
6065e77.
[2] Cormos CC. Evaluation of energy integration aspects for
IGCC-based hydrogen and electricity co-production with
carbon capture and storage. Int J Hydrogen Energ 2010;35:
7485e97.
[3] Cormos CC. Evaluation of power generation schemes based
on hydrogenfuelled combined cycle with carbon capture and
storage (CCS). Int J Hydrogen Energ 2011;36:3726e38.
[4] Cormos CC, Starr F, Tzimas E, Peteves S. Innovative concepts
for hydrogen production processes based on coal gasification
with CO2 capture. Int J Hydrogen Energ 2008;33:1286e94.
[5] Gordillo ED, Belghit A. A two phase model of high
temperature steam-only gasification of biomass char in
bubbling fluidized bed reactors using nuclear heat. Int J
Hydrogen Energ 2011;66:374e81.
[6] Gungor A. Modeling the effects of the operational parameters
on H2 composition in a biomass fluidized bed gasifier. Int J
Hydrogen Energ 2011;36:6592e600.
[7] Cormos CC. Hydrogen production from fossil fuels with
carbon capture and storage based on chemical looping
systems. Int J Hydrogen Energ 2009;34:6065e77.
[8] Fermoso J, Gil MV, Arias B, Plaza MG, Pevida C, Pis JJ, et al.
Application of response surface methodology to assess the
combined effect of operating variables on high-pressure coal
gasification for H2-rich gas production. Int J Hydrogen Energ
2008;33:1286e94.
[9] Zhao M, Yang X, Church TL, Harris AT. Interaction between
a bimetallic NieCo catalyst and micrometer-sized CaO for
enhanced H2 production during cellulose decomposition. Int
J Hydrogen Energ 2011;36:421e31.
[10] Su S, Li W, Bai Z, Xiang H, Bai J. Effects of ionic catalysis on
hydrogen production by the steam gasification of cellulose.
Int J Hydrogen Energ 2010;35:4459e65.
[11] Skoulou V, Zabaniotou A, Stavropoulos G, Sakelaropoulos G.
Syngas production from olive tree cuttings and olive kernels
in a downdraft fixed-bed gasifier. Int J Hydrogen Energ 2008;
33:1185e94.
[12] Fermoso J, Arias B, Gil MV, Plaza MG, Pevida C, Pis JJ, et al. Co-
gasification of different rank coals with biomass and
petroleum coke in a high-pressure reactor for H2-rich gas
production. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:3230e5.
[13] Valero A, Uson S. Oxy co-gasification of coal and biomass in
an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power
plant. Energy 2006;31:1643e55.
[14] Prins MJ, Ptasinski KJ, Janssen FJJG. From coal to biomass
gasification: comparison of thermodynamic efficiency.
Energy 2007;32:1248e59.
[15]
˛ zko
Chmielniak T, Scia _ M. Co-gasification of biomass and coal
for methanol synthesis. Appl Energy 2003;74:393e403.
[16] Department of Trade Industry. Waste/Biomass Co-
Gasification with coal. Technology Status Report. London:
DTI; 2002.
[17] van Dongen A, Kanaar M. Co-gasification at the Buggenum
IGCC power plant. DGMK-Fachbereichstagung Energetische
Nutzung von Biomassen vom 24. bis 26. April 2006. http://
www.dgmk.de/kohle/abstracts_velen7/Dongen_Kanaar.pdf.
[18] Collot AG, Zhuo Y, Dugwell DR, Kandiyoti R. Co-pyrolysis and
co-gasification of coal and biomass in bench-scale fixed-bed
and fluidized bed reactors. Fuel 1999;78:667e79.
[19] Lapuerta M, Hernandez JJ, Pazo A, Lopez J. Gasification and
co-gasification of biomass wastes: effect of the biomass
origin and the gasifier operating conditions. Fuel Process
Technol 2008;89:828e37.
[20] Sjostrom K, Chen G, Yu Q, Brage C, Rosen C. Promoted
reactivity of char in co-gasification of biomass and coal:
synergies in the thermochemical process. Fuel 1999;78:
1189e94.
[21] Brage C, Yu Q, Chen G, Sjostrom K. Tar evolution profiles
obtained from gasification of biomass and coal. Biomass
Bioenerg 2000;18:87e91.
[22] Li K, Zhang R, Bi J. Experimental study on syngas production
by co-gasification of coal and biomass in a fluidized bed. Int J
Hydrogen Energ 2010;35:2722e6.
[23] Gao N, Li A, Quan C, Gao F. Hydrogen-rich gas production
from biomass steam gasification in an updraft fixed-bed
gasifier combined with a porous ceramic reformer. Int J
Hydrogen Energ 2008;33:5430e8.
[24] Mahishi M, Goswami DY. Thermodynamic optimization of
biomass gasifier for hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen
Energ 2007;32:3831e40.
[25] Karmakar MK, Datta AB. Generation of hydrogen rich gas
through fluidized bed gasification of biomass. Bioresour
Technol 2011;102:1907e13.
[26] Alonso MJG, Borrego AG, Alvarez D, Parra JB, Menendez R.
Influence of pyrolysis temperature on char optical texture
and reactivity. J Anal Apll Pyrol 2001;58:887e909.
[27] Smolin
ski A. Coal char reactivity as a fuel selection criterion
for coal-based hydrogen-rich gas production in the process
of steam gasification. Energ Convers Manage 2011;52:37e45.
[28] Howaniec N, Smolin
ski A. Steam gasification of energy crops
of high cultivation potential in Poland to hydrogen-rich gas.
Int J Hydrogen Energ 2011;36:2038e43.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1 4 4 5 5 e1 4 4 6 3
[29] de Jong W, Andries J, Hein KRG. Coal/biomass co-gasification in
a pressurised fluidized bed reactor. Renew Energ 1999;16:1110e1.
[30] Kumabe K, Hanaoka T, Fujimoto S, Minowa T, Sakanishi K.
Co-gasification of woody biomass and coal with air and
steam. Fuel 2007;86:684e9.
[31] Velez JF, Chejne F, Valdes CF, Emery EJ, Londono CA. Co-
gasification of Colombian coal and biomass in fluidized bed:
an experimental study. Fuel 2009;88:424e30.
[32] Pan YG, Velo E, Roca X, Manya JJ, Puigjaner L. Fluidized-bed
co-gasification of residual biomass/poor coal blends for fuel
gas production. Fuel 2000;79:1317e26.
[33] Mc Lendon TR, Lui AP, Pineault RL, Beer SK, Richardson SW.
High-pressure co-gasification of coal and biomass in
a fluidized bed. Biomass Bioenerg 2004;26:377e88.
[34] de Ligny CL, Spanjer M, Van Houwelingen JC, Weesie HM.
Three-mode factor analysis of data on retention in normal-
14463
phase high-performance liquid chromatography. J
Chromatogr 1984;301:311e23.
[35] Van Der Kloot WA, Kroonenberg PM. External analysis with
three-mode principal component models. Psychometrika
1985;50:479e94.
[36] Kroonenberg PM, de Leuw J. Principal components analysis
of three-mode data by means of alternating least squares
algorithms. Psychometrika 1980;45:69e97.
[37] Geladi P. Analysis of multi-way (Multi-mode) data.
Chemomet Intell Lab 1989;7:11e30.
[38] Tucker LR. Implications of factor analysis of three-way
matrices for measurement of change. In: Harris CW, editor.
Problems in measuring change. Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press; 1963. p. 122e37.
[39] Tucker LR. Some mathematical notes on three-mode factor
analysis. Psychometrika 1966;31:279e311.