1 / 18

Steve Peterson USDA – ARS – NCAUR

Comparison of gasification and pyrolysis methods for preparing biochar from corn stover and wheat straw. Steve Peterson USDA – ARS – NCAUR. Uses beyond carbon sequestration rubber composite filler – particle size a problem filtration media.

anne
Download Presentation

Steve Peterson USDA – ARS – NCAUR

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparison of gasification and pyrolysis methods for preparing biochar from corn stover and wheat straw Steve Peterson USDA – ARS – NCAUR

  2. Uses beyond carbon sequestration • rubber composite filler – particle size a problem • filtration media for filtration applications, particle size is not as important as surface area Applications of biochar

  3. Uses beyond carbon sequestration • rubber composite filler • filtration media for composite fillers, large particles = poor reinforcement as filtration media, large, porous particles OK as long as they’re permeable to the medium Applications of biochar

  4. Uses beyond carbon sequestration • rubber composite filler • filtration medium • peat moss substitute Later in the program… Applications of biochar

  5. feedstock pyrolysis gasification Pyrolysis vs. gasification

  6. + biomass (H2, CH4) O2 (gas) biochar (solid) bio-oil (liquid) heat • Pros: • oxygen is omitted, increasing the carbon yield • temperature control is accurate and variable • Cons: • batch method limits throughput • controlled environment = $$ • bio-oil can be problematic during processing Pyrolysis: pros and cons

  7. open air system is cheaper and easier to run • can facilitate higher thoughput • scale up is easier and more cost-effecttive • side products are burned off Pros: TLUD = Top Lit UpDraft Cons: • no temperature control, high temps are limited • biochar typically has higher ash content secondary air primary air “AVUD” design by Paul Anderson Gasification: pros and cons image courtesy of www.cleanstove.org

  8. wheat straw (WS) corn stover (CS) • both feedstocks are cheap and plentiful • our collaborator has provided us with both glycerin and glycerin-free pelletized forms of WS Feedstocks used

  9. corn stover (CS) wheat straw (WS) wheat straw + glycerin (WS+G) Feedstocks used

  10. Feedstocks: CS, WS, WS+G Biochar production method: Pyrolysis (retort oven) Gasification (TLUD) 400, 500, 600, and 700°C temperature is not controlled; subject to gasification process Temps: Experimental design

  11. T4 T (°C) T3 T2 T1 Monitoring TLUD temperature global time

  12. total surface area micropore surface area (micropore  pore with d < 2 nm) Surface area/porosity

  13. Observations • CS surface area  with T • WS samples peak below 700°C • micropore % roughly 55-70% • WS+G TLUD markedly higher surface area Surface area/porosity

  14. down up CS, 500°C Water sorption trends

  15. CS significantly more water-sorptive than WS and WS+G • For CS and WS, water-sorption peaks at 600°C • Water-holding capacity is highest at 400°C and decreases with increasing temperature (not shown) Water sorption trends

  16. Ash is an undesired component of biochar consisting of metal oxides; tends to dilute the effects of carbon • Assume limiting oxygen in the process will help reduce ash; retort > TLUD Ash content

  17. Higher surface area & micropore SA with retort methods vs. TLUD • Lower ash content with retort method (except for WS+G sample) • Appears that the addition of glycerin to WS increases the biochar ash content • CS much more water sorptive than WS and WS+G Bottom line: is the “lower quality” char from gasification a deal-breaker with the given applications? Conclusions/Summary

  18. Paul Wever, Chip Energy AJ Thomas & Ashley Maness Mike Jackson Steve Vaughn HydroStraw, LLC Jason Adkins Nancy Holm, IBG, and ISTC Acknowledgements

More Related