Biomass and Bioenergy 18 (2000) 489±497

www.elsevier.com/locate/biombioe

Gasi®cation of biomass: comparison of ®xed bed and

¯uidized bed gasi®er
Ragnar Warnecke
Noell-KRC Energie- und Umwelttechnik, Department of Process Development, Alfred-Nobel-Straûe 20, 97 080, WuÈrzburg, Germany
Received 10 March 1998; received in revised form 5 January 2000; accepted 20 January 2000

Abstract

Gasi®cation as a thermochemical process is de®ned and limited to combustion and pyrolysis. A systematic
overview of reactor designs categorizes ®xed bed and ¯uidized bed reactors. Criteria for a comparison of these
reactors are worked out, i.e. technology, use of material, use of energy, environment and economy. A utility analysis
for thermochemical processes is suggested. It shows that the advantages of one of the reactor types are marginal.
An advantage mainly depends on the physical consistency of the input. As a result there is no signi®cant advantage
for the ®xed bed or the ¯uidized bed reactor. 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Biomass; Combustion; Fixed bed; Fluidized bed; Noell; Pyrolysis; Reactolysis; Reactors; Thermolysis

1. Introduction Reactolysis: chemical reactions and physical

The thermochemical processes are combustion,
reactolysis and thermolysis (=pyrolysis)
(Table 1). They are de®ned as [1]:
Combustion: chemical reactions and physical
processes run by addition of external molecular
oxygen (O2) for at least a stoichiometric oxi-
dation of the feedstock. These processes are sub-
stantially triggered by addition of oxygen.
Process temperatures are greater than 400 K.
Molecular oxygen crossing the system boundaries
gets directly in contact with the educt.
E-mail address: warnecke.wu@noell.de (R. Warnecke).
processes run by addition of external reactive
materials, except for (over-)stoichiometric oxy-
gen. These processes are substantially triggered
by addition of these reactive materials. Process
temperatures are greater than 400 K. Reactive
materials crossing the system boundaries get
directly in contact with the educt.
Thermolysis: Chemical reactions and physical
processes run without addition of external reac-
tive materials. These processes are substantially
triggered by transfer of thermal energy. Process
temperatures are greater than 400 K. Reactive
materials crossing the system boundaries do not
get in contact with the educt directly.
Reactolysis means the solvation (gr.: lysein

0961-9534/00/$ - see front matter 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 6 1 - 9 5 3 4 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0 9 - X
490 R. Warnecke / Biomass and Bioenergy 18 (2000) 489±497
Table 1
Thermochemical processes
Thermochemical Processes
Combustion
Partial Oxidation Solvolysis
Gasi®cation
Mixed-Processes
= solving) by reactive materials. For partial
oxidation the reactive material is in general
pure oxygen or air. Hydrogenation runs with
hydrogen. Solvolysis uses steam (hydrolysis),
alcohol (alcoholysis) or others. `Special pro-
cesses' are, for example, molten salt beds.
Considering the fact that oxygen is added at
less than stoichiometric amounts and/or as water
vapour in a reactor, gasi®cation is a reactolysis
process. For thermochemical processes, di€erent
reactor designs are needed. One possibility is to
characterize reactor types is based on the type of
transport of ¯uids or solids through the reactor.
There are four main types found:
. quasi-non-moving or self-moving feedstock
. mechanical-moved feedstock
Fig. 1. Fixed bed reactors.
Reactolysis Thermolysis (=Pyrolysis)
Hydrogenation Special-Processes
Combined-Processes
. ¯uidically-moved feedstock
. special reactors
Examples for di€erent reactors for each type are
given in Table 2.
Two of the mainly used reactor types for
gasi®cation of biomass are ®xed bed and ¯ui-
dized bed. Fixed bed reactors (Fig. 1) can
have countercurrent, cocurrent or Ð very sel-
dom Ð crosscurrent mass ¯ow. Countercurrent
mass ¯ow means that the feedstock and the
reactive material (e.g. air or steam) ¯ow in
opposite directions; the opposite applies with
regard to cocurrent. It can be up- or down-
stream named by the direction of the reactive
material.
The systems of choice for ¯uidized bed gasi®-
cation of biomass gasi®cation are bubbling and
circulating beds (Fig. 2). They di€er in respect of
¯uidizing velocity and gas path. Bubbling beds
have relatively low gas velocities, in circulating
beds velocities are close to pneumatic ¯ow. Very
little solids are transported out from bubbling
beds, with circulating beds entrained solids are
recycled after passing a cyclone.
2. Criteria for the comparison of gasi®ers
One method to compare complex systems is to
use utility analysis. Each component of a system
has to be assessed by numbers normally from 0
to 10 for every chosen criterion. The sum of
these numbers for each component are weighted
by a factor, the addition of the weighted sums
 R. Warnecke / Biomass and Bioenergy 18 (2000) 489±497 491

Table 2
Reactors

Reactors

Quasi-non- or self-moving feedstock Mechanical-moved feedstock Fluidically-moved feedstock Special reactors

Fixed bed/shaft furnace Internal Burner Molten bath

Ð cocurrent (up-/downstreram) Ð stirred tank
Ð powder bed Tubular reactor
Ð contercurrent (up-/downstream) Ð mixing head Ð falling ®lm Plasma torch
Ð moving grate Ð loop (e.g. Sulzer, Buss)
Ð crosscurrent: Ð multi-stage grate Ð reformer
Ð extruder Ð tower Arc furnace
Ð kneader Ð liquid ring pump
Cupola furnace Ð screw conveyor Ð trickle ¯ow
Ð ring and disk reactor Ð multiple-hearth Resistance furnace
Ð moved regener. furn. Ð jet reactor
Autoclave Ð spinning jet
Ð steeping press Electric induction
External
Switch regen. furnace Ð rotary drum Column
Ð rotary kiln Ð bubble column Electrolysis
Ð shaft kiln Ð reaction column
Ð Sulzer mixer reactor
Ð sieve tray tower Membrane
Fluidized bed
Ð shallow bed
Ð bubbling bed
Ð slugging bed
Ð turbulent bed
Ð circulating bed
Pneumatic ¯ow
Ð dust roaster
Ð spray reactor
Ð entrained ¯ow reactor
Ð cyclone reactor

leads to a value to compare with other systems. 3. Comparison of ®xed bed and ¯uidized bed
Many criteria for such a classi®cation can be gasi®ers
imagined but the analysis led to ®ve main cri-
teria: A comparison of ®xed bed and ¯uidized bed
reactors is shown in Table 4. The main criteria
. technology
are listed in Table 5. In the case of reactor tech-
. use of material
nology, ®xed beds have a wide temperature dis-
. use of energy
tribution. This includes possibilities for hot spots
. environment
with ash fusion, low speci®c capacity, long
. economy.
periods for heat-up and a limited scale-up poten-
Every main criterion is divided by subcriteria. tial. For plants with high power requirement the
To be objective, the numerical evaluation should limited scale-up includes higher investment costs
be independent of relative relations. A des- for a cascade of single ®xed beds. To avoid chan-
cription of the evaluation can be found in nelling the feedstock has to be as uniform as
Table 3. possible.
492 R. Warnecke / Biomass and Bioenergy 18 (2000) 489±497
Fig. 2. Fluidized bed reactors.
The main advantages are the high carbon con-
version eciency, the wide range of ash content
in the feedstock and the possibility to melt the
ash. Furthermore, cocurrent ®xed beds produce a
clean gas with a very low tar content.
Fluidized beds have good heat and material
transfer between the gas and solid phases with
the best temperature distribution, high speci®c
capacity and fast heat-up. They tolerate wide
variations in fuel quality and a broad particle-
size distribution. Disadvantages of ¯uidized beds
are high dust content in the gas phase and the
con¯ict between high reaction temperatures with
good conversion eciency and low melting
points of ash components, e.g. alkali.
4. Comparison of two processes
For thermochemical processes the company
Noell (Germany) provides di€erent reactor sys-
tems: grate, moving grate, rotary kiln, ®xed bed,
¯uidized bed and entrained ¯ow reactors. The
most inquires for the feedstock biomass concen-
trate on moving grate, ®xed bed and ¯uidized
bed. In this context a special ®xed bed with gas
recycling is compared with an atmospheric bub-
bling ¯uidized bed. Some parameters for a bio-
mass gasi®cation plant are given in Table 6.
Signi®cant di€erences between ®xed bed and
¯uidized bed gasi®ers are listed in Table 7. The
result is that each type of reactor has its advan-
tages and limitations. For plants with low ca-
pacity ®xed beds (or grates) have no investment
disadvantage. For a plant with a capacity of 15
MWth two ®xed beds were chosen, so that the
investment is 10% higher than with a single ¯ui-
dized bed. The additional costs for preparing
feedstock to a uniform particle size can be 10%
of the plant costs. On the other hand, the ad-
Table 3
Utility analyses for thermochemical processes

No. components=4
Technology Use of material Use of energy Environment Economy

Component:/ Designed Tech- Exper- Scale Start-up/ Load Load Space Degree Require- Quality Quality Require- Eciency Internal Losses Gas Waste Remain- Total Total (Develop- Weighing Weighted
Criteria:a hours of nical ience up or shut range change required of ment of of ment or load emissions water ing invest- operat- ment) factor: sum:
operation avail- through- down auto- to educts main co-products for conver- unusable ment ing Potential
ability put behaviour mation products subsequent sion waste cost
treatment rate

Name Pretreatment 9 9 8 10 10 10 10 5 6 5 8 9 5 5 6 5 8 10 10 3 3 3 10 1.570

of
reactor
Reactor 5 4 7 8 8 8 10 9 9 5 8 8 5 8 8 8 9 10 10 9 7 4 25 4.175
Gas treatment 7 7 7 10 9 9 10 8 9 5 8 7 5 9 8 8 9 0 10 8 7 4 10 1.640
Gas usage 4 3 7 5 8 8 10 7 9 5 8 3 5 5 8 5 ÿ2 10 10 6 6 3 10 1.330
Weighing factor: 10 10 10 5 3 5 5 1 3 5 20 10 5 25 10 10 10 10 10 20 20 15 8.715
Weighted total: 250 230 290 165 105 175 200 29 99 100 640 270 100 675 300 260 240 300 400 520 460 210 6.018

a
Explanation of criteria: (Maximum possible points = 10; negative data allowed. Linear interpolation between lowest and highest values). Designed hours of operation: Working
period without planned working stops by inspections, maintenance etc. (not by breakdown or contracted limitations) of 1.500 h/a =0; working period >8.000 h/a =10. Technical
availability: (VDI 3649: (scheduled working time ÿ unscheduled outage time)/scheduled working time). By unscheduled breakdown caused outage time of 500 h/a = 0; no breakdowns
= 10. Experience: No plant = 0; Min. one commercial plant with seven points at ``Working period'' and ``Availability'' or two demonstration plants with eight points each = 10.
Scale up or throughput: Capability for scale-up, especially by laboratory plants: laboratory plant with throughput <1 kg/h =0; commercial plant =10. Start-up/shutdown behaviour:
Long start-up or shutdown time >0.12 h = 0; short start-up or shutdown time < = 1 h with low need of auxiliary energy = 10. Load range: Part load range in percentage of nom-
inal load E20% = 0; part load range e60% without additional action = 10. Load change: Need for load change of E50% referring to load range in more than 1 h = 0; load change
of e100% in E1 min = 10. Space required: Space required = 2 ha/(t/h) = 0; space required E0.2 ha/t(t/h) = 10; (i.e. 1 ha = 10,000 m2 referring to throughput of input per hour).
Degree of automation: Personal costs e2% of investment = 0; no personal costs = 10. Requirement to educts: Energy and investment for educt pretreatment e25% of total costs =
0; no pretreatment necessary = 10. Quality of main products: Depositing, waste water discharge, gas burn o€ = 0; 100% recoverable products = 10 (rating of toxicity, explosion pro-
tection etc. can be disregarded at handling by technical rule, no rating of risk potential). Quality of co-products: Depositing, waste water discharge, gas burn o€ = 0; 100% recover-
able products = 10 (rating of toxicity, explosion protection etc. can be disregarded at handling by technical rule, no rating of risk potential). Requirement for subsequent treatment:
Energy and investment for product pretreatment e25% of total costs = 0; no subsequent treatment necessary = 10. Eciency or conversion rate: Total thermal eciency <10% or
total conversion rate <75% = 0; total thermal eciency = >75% or conversion rate 100% = 10. Internal load: 25% internal load = 0; no internal load = 10. Losses: Losses =
50% referring to enthalpy of educts = 0; no losses referring to enthalpie of educts = 10. Gas emissions: Ful®lling TA Luft = 0; gas emissions free = 10. Waste water: Keeping stan-
dards for puri®ed e‚uent = 0; waste water free = 10. Remaining unusable waste: Keeping of TA Siedlungsabfall fuÈr Deponieklasse 1= 0; total recycling of solids or no remaining of
unusable waste = 10. Total investment: Investment of 2500 DM/kW end-use energy = 0; investment of 100 DM/kW end-use energy = 10. Total operating cost: Operating costs of
1000 DM/kW end-use energy = 0; operating costs of 10 DM/kW end-use energy = 10. (Development)/potential: No ®nancial gain, no patents, have to buy the components, no order
expected = 0; ®nancial gain <10%, patents, own components, new orders expected = 10.
 494

Table 4
Comparison of ®xed-bed and ¯uidized bed gasi®ersa

Reactor type 4 Fixed bed Fluidized bed

Criteriaq Updraft Downdraft Bubbling bed Circulating bed

Technology
Designed hours of (ÿ) There is no plant working continuously at design parameters for (ÿ) There is no plant working continuously at design parameters for
operation more than 5000 h/a more than 5000 h/a
Technical (+) Simple and robust construction (+) Less complex technology. No moving parts
availability/technical
features
(ÿ) Internal moving parts with some mechanical complications
(ÿ) Bad temperature distribution (+) Good temperature (+) Good temperature distribution
distribution
(ÿ) Hot spots with exothermic reaction (+) No hot spots
(ÿ) Poor heat exchange (+) Very good heat exchange
(ÿ) Possible ash agglomeration and clinker formation on grate (ÿ) Con¯icting temperature requirement exists for low-reactivity
feedstock with low-softening ash melting-point
(ÿ) Operation can be more (ÿ) Operation can be more dicult
dicult then ®xed bed then ®xed bed
(ÿ) Channelling possible (+) Good gas solid contact and mixing
(ÿ) Residence time for solids: hours to days. For gas: seconds (+) Residence time for solids: seconds to minutes. For gas: seconds
(+) Pressure drop is low (ÿ) Pressure drop is higher (ÿ) Pressure drop is higher than
than bubbling bed bubbling bed
Experience (+) Lots of processes for di€erent applications in operation (+) Commercial designs are available
(+) Simple, reliable and proven for certain fuels (+) Large fuel inventory provides safety, reliability and stability
Scale up/throughput (ÿ) Low speci®c capacity (+) High speci®c capacity
(ÿ) High residence time of solids (+) High reaction rates, low residence time of solids
(+) Gasi®er may be banked for long periods (+) Gasi®er may be banked for long periods
(ÿ) Very limited scale-up potential caused by low maximum size (+) Very good scale-up (+) Very good scale-up potential
R. Warnecke / Biomass and Bioenergy 18 (2000) 489±497

potential
(ÿ) Gasi®er capacity is limited by gas ¯ow rates (ÿ) Capacity is limited by entrainment at high gas velocities
(ÿ) Heat transport limits scale-up
Start-up/shutdown (ÿ) Long period to heat-up (+) Easily started and
behaviour stopped
Load range (+) Good turndown (ÿ) Limited turndown (ÿ) Turndown range is limited by the gas velocity required to
maintain ¯uidization
(+) Can operate at partial load (20±110%) (+) Can operate at partial (+) Can operate at partial load (50±
load (50±120%) 120%)
Load change (ÿ) Limitation of fast change of fuels with di€erent caloric values, (+) Fast change of di€erent fuels, low fuel content in the bed.
high fuel content in bed Inventory of solid carbon is lowered by the high content of inert
material in the bed
Table 4 (continued )

Reactor type 4 Fixed bed Fluidized bed

Criteriaq Updraft Downdraft Bubbling bed Circulating bed

Space required (ÿ) More space required for high throughput because of modular (+) Less space requirement because of great scale-up
combination of single low power reactors
Degree of (ÿ) Bad temperature pro®le in bed (ÿ) Control possibilities by immersed heat exchangers in bed
automation
Use of material
Requirement of (+) High ash content feedstock possible (+) Tolerates wide variations in fuel quality
educts
(ÿ) Only for catalysts that are deactivated very slowly (ÿ) In-bed catalytic (ÿ) In-bed catalytic processing hardly
processing hardly possible possible
(+) Catalyst
attrition negligible
(ÿ) Close size speci®cation required on feedstock (+) Variety of particle (+) Variety of particle sizes can be
sizes can be handled handled
(ÿ) Large pellets (8±50 mm) as uniform as possible needed (+) Broad particle-size distribution (ca. 0.02±50 mm)
(ÿ) Feedstock ®nes must be handled separately (agglomeration) (+) High ®nes content acceptable

(ÿ) Excess steam for temperature control leads to thermal losses and
requires special condensate treatment
Quality of main (ÿ) Product gas contains (+) Amount of tar and phenols in (+) Amount of tar and phenols in product gas is low
products tar, oil, phenols and product gas is low
ammonia (require
separation and cleanup
steams)
(+) Gas composition is steady due to uniform conditions in the bed
(+) Product gas suitable
for direct ®ring
R. Warnecke / Biomass and Bioenergy 18 (2000) 489±497

(0) Low exit gas (0) High exit gas temperature (0) Gas exit temperature similar to bed temperature
temperature
(+) Low ash carry over (ÿ) Higher particulates in the product gas than at ®xed bed
Quality of co- (+) Low dust content in (ÿ) High dust content in product gas (ÿ) Inevitable loss of carbon in ash due to the non uniform solids
products product gas composition of the bed
Requirement for (ÿ) Extensive gas cleanup (+) Relatively clean gas is produced (ÿ) High dust content in gas phase
subsequent needed for engines
treatment
Use of energy
Eciency of (+) High carbon conversion eciency (+) High carbon conversion eciency
conversion rate
(+) High thermal eciency
(+) Speci®c oxygen
495

consumption is low
(continued on next page)
Table 5 (continued )
496

Reactor type 4 Fixed bed Fluidized bed

Criteriaq Updraft Downdraft Bubbling bed Circulating bed

Internal load (ÿ) High energy (ÿ) High energy requirement for fans
requirement for fans (for (for ¯uidizing air)
¯uidizing air)
Losses (+) Moderate gasi®cation temperature can be used
Environmental
Gas emissions (ÿ) No primary gas cleaning possible (+) Primary gas cleaning possible
Waste water (0) Depends on pre-treatment (0) Depends on pre-treatment
Remaining unusable (+) Molten slag possible (ÿ) Ash not molten
waste
Economic
Total investment (ÿ) High investment for big plants
Total operating cost
(Development-)
Potential

a
(+), Advantage; (0), neutral; (ÿ), limitation.

Table 5
Comparison of ®xed bed and ¯uidized bed reactors (``+'', an advantage of reactor type, ``ÿ'', a disadvantage of reactor type)

Reactor type Fixed bed Fluidized bed

Criteria Countercurrent Cocurrent Bubbling bed Circulating bed

R. Warnecke / Biomass and Bioenergy 18 (2000) 489±497

Technology (ÿ) Hot spots with exothermic reaction (+) Best temperature distribution
(ÿ) Possible ash fusion on grate (ÿ) Con¯icting temperature requirement
(ÿ) Channelling possible (+) Good gas solid contact and mixing
(ÿ) Low speci®c capacity (+) High speci®c capacity
(ÿ) Long periods for heat-up (+) Easily started and shut down, fast heat-up (+) Very fast heat-up
Use of material (+) High ash content feedstock possible (+) Tolerates wide variations in fuel quality
(ÿ) Large pellets as uniform as possible needed (+) Broad particle-size distribution
(ÿ) Extensive gas cleanup needed (+) Relatively clean gas is produced (-) High dust content in gas phase
Use of energy (+) High carbon conversion eciency (+) High carbon conversion eciency
Environmental (+) Molten slag possible (-) Ash not molten
Economy (ÿ) High investment for high loads (+) Low investment
 R. Warnecke / Biomass and Bioenergy 18 (2000) 489±497 497

Table 6
Parameters for a biomass plant

Feedstock: Granulated wood, ensilage residue

C 28.46 mass%
H 3.39 mass%
O 23.75 mass%
N 0.44 mass%
S 0.07 mass%
Cl 0.06 mass%
H2O 40.65 mass%
Ash 3.17 mass%
Calori®c value (wet) 9,700 kJ/kg
Products: 3.8 MWth (T > 3008C)
2.0 MWth (T 1 1508C)
1.3 MWel
Solids: usable residue
Liquids: water, neutralised
Emissions: according to German regulation ``TA Luft''

Table 7
Signi®cant di€erences between ®xed bed and ¯uidized bed

Countercurrent ®xed bed with gas recycle Atmospheric bubbling bed

(ÿ) Higher investment (about 10%), two lines (+) Lower investment
(ÿ) Feedstock ®nes must be agglomerated (+) No problems with feedstock ®nes
(ÿ) Particle size as uniform as possible (+) Broad particle size distribution
(+) Very great particle size possible (up to 100 mm) (ÿ) Limited particle size (up to 50 mm)
(+) Nearly tar free gas (ÿ) Tar (1 g/m3n); high tar content in the gas
(+) High carbon conversion rate (90±99%) (ÿ) Low carbon conversion rate (190%)
(+) Discharge of liquid slag (ÿ) Ash fusion by low-softening ash

ditional precipitator for tar at the ¯uidized bed the installation of less complex gas puri®cation
system is in the same cost range. The pre-treat- (e.g. for tar).
ment and storage of feedstock in general, without
agglomeration, requires approx. 25% of the
plant costs. The costs for the reactor, excluding
References
the boiler, are only about 10% of the total costs.
For the utilization of ash it is, in the present [1] Warnecke R. Thermo-chemische Verfahren zur
case, not so important if it is molten or not. The Behandlung von AbfaÈllen. Abfallwirtschaftsjournal
higher temperature in ®xed bed gasi®ers allows 1996;3:14±21.