Fluidized Bed

Refereed Proceedings
The 12th International Conference on

Fluidization - New Horizons in Fluidization
Engineering
Engineering Conferences International Year 2007
PRESENTATION SLIDES: Fluidized

Bed Combustion for Clean Energy
Filip Johnsson
Chalmers, Dept Energy Convers,, fijo@chalmers.se
This paper is posted at ECI Digital Archives.

http://dc.engconfintl.org/fluidization xii/131
Johnsson: Fluidized Bed Combustion for Clean Energy
Chalmers University of Technology
FLUIDIZED BED COMBUSTION

FOR CLEAN ENERGY
Filip Johnsson
Department of Energy and Environment, Energy
Technology
412 96, Göteborg
filip.johnsson@me.chalmers.se
Fluidization XII - New Horizons in

Fluidization Engineering – May 13-18, 2007
Published by ECI Digital Archives, 2007 1
The 12th International Conference on Fluidization - New Horizons in Fluidization Engineering, Art. 131 [2007]
Structure of presentation
• Introduction - energy market
– Climate change
– Boiler market
– Example of FB related bridging technologies
• The FBC market
• FBC and fluidization
– Flow characteristics
– R&D need
• New concepts
• Conclusions
http://dc.engconfintl.org/fluidization_xii/131 2
Large investments required in the

energy sector over the next
decades:
- battle climate change
- maintain security of supply
- maintain competitiveness

370 ppm
Atmospheric CO2
concentration
280 ppm
Summary for Policymakers, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III, (Draft May 5, 2007)
Per Capita CO2 Emissions
12
OECD
e a st
Middle
Tonne CO2/capita
8
Former USSR
Non-OECD Europe World average

4
China Latin America
Asia Africa
0 2000 4000 6000
Population [million]
Global Power Generation by Fuel

5,000
4,000 Renewables
Generation (BkWh)
Nuclear
3,000 Hydro
Thermal
2,000
1,000
st
ica
ia
e
a
ic
FS
op
Ea
an
ric
er
er
ur
ce
Af
Am
Am
&
e
.E
dl
O
pe
id
th
tin
&
ro
M
or
ia
La
Eu
N
As
E.

Alternatives towards Sustainable Energy Systems

- General
• To use less energy
– Population
– Technology
– affluence and life style
– efficiency measures
• To shift fuel
– Renewable energy
– Nuclear
– Coal to gas
• To Capture and Store CO2
– From large point sources (power plants, industry, hydrogen
from fossil fuels)
– Carbon sequestration (Land Use Change and Forestation-
LUCF)
Power generation
Large need for investments in boiler capacity

Age distribution of US coal fired power plants
FOSSIL FUEL POWER GENERATION - STATE-OF-THE-ART” PowerClean Thematic Network, 2005,

http://www.cleanpowernet.net/
Net capacity of operating and planned thermal power plants

in EU-25 distributed by fuel and age
180
160
9.1
140
76.4
29.1 1.6 (Nuclear)
120
0.1 (Oil)
2.4 (Lignite)
8.4
100 23.9
GWe
6.5
7.9 23.8
18.4 5.8
80
35.9
14.3
60 1.6 (Nuclear)
65.2 5.5 0.6 (Oil)
5.1 2.6 (Lignite)
40 37.3 79.2 2.5 (Coal) 74.8
20.6
20
20.7 21.0 22.8 22.0
0
> 30 years 21 - 30 years 11 - 20 years 0 - 10 years Construction Planned
Natural gas Coal incl peat Lignite Oil Nuclear
Kjärstad, J., Johnsson, F., “The European power plant infrastructure—Presentation of the Chalmers energy infrastructure
database with applications”, Energy Policy 35, 2007, pp3643-3664
Power generation capacity - Germany

60
0.2 (Hydro)
0.2 (Bio)
50
40
0.3 (Bio)
0.2 (Bio) 1.1 (Hydro) 28,4
5,6 2,2 0.8 (Bio)
GWe
30 1,2
3,1
13,8
0.2 (Hydro)
8,4 0.2 (Bio) 17,3
1,2
20 1.1 (Wind)
0,8
3,7
13,6
9,8 5,4 0,9
10 0.4 (Oil) 5,6

11,3 2,1
1,4 0.1 (Bio)
8,5 6,0
6,2 2,1 7,6
3,8 2,4
1,9
0
Natural gas Coal Lignite Oil Nuclear Wind Bio/Waste Hydro
The challenge – Example Germany

Phase out of fossil and nuclear generation in Germany together with estimated
“maximum realistic deployment” of renewables (RES) 2004-2050
1200
1000
800 HIGH
MED
?
TWh
600
LOW
400
Existing
200
system Max RES
0
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
2046
2048
2050
Hard Coal Lignite Oil Gas Nuclear Wind Hydro Biomass Other RES Others MOD MED BAU
RES and Energy efficiency not likely to be

sufficient
We need bridging technologies:
1. Nuclear (life time extensions + new installations)
2. Fossil with CO2 capture
3. Co-firing biomass with coal
4. Coal to gas (but feasible?)
5. CHP with waste as fuel (increased use of DH)
• 2, 3 and 5 are possible markets for FBC together with
biomass and waste in CHP with FBC technology
• CO2 Capture and Storage as a bridging

technology

CO2 Capture, Transport & Storage (CCS)
Storage
1 Mt/year – pilot project in
the North See since 1996

CO2 Capture – main technologies
Example UK
60% CO2 reduction by 2050, Fuel costs and demand from
EU Energy & Transport Trends 2030 (2005 edition), extrapolated to 2050
700
600
500
CCS (coal)
Electricity generation [TWh]
400
300
200
100
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 2041 2043 2045 2047 2049
Hydro W ind Biomass & waste others Hard coal Nuclear Oil Gas CCS

Storage sites by reservoir type and coal and

lignite fuelled power plants within EU-25
plus Norway
Blue = oil fields

Red = gas fields
Crossed grey = aquifers
Black = coal plants

Brown = lignite plants
• Co-firing as a bridging technology

Power generation capacity - Poland

16
0,7
14
0.3
12
3,7 0.1 (Oil)
1,2
10
2,4
GWe
9,8
0.1 (Hydro)
4 0.1 (Wind)
7,2
0,7
1,7
2 0,8
1,8
0,8
0,5
1,5
0,7 0,8
0
Natural gas Coal Lignite Oil Wind Bio/Waste Hydro
Kjärstad, J., Johnsson, F., Chalmers power plant database

Example of repowered power plant

- FB boilers in Turow (Bogatynia)

Co-firing opportunities in 2010 and 2020

750
5820 1820
1600 4800
1900 6300 400

760
2100 6600
1400 4300 9130
20180
1100 3500
1250 490
1700 4800 1900 6000 2000 7100
1000 3700 3050

810
6310 6500
2100 5300 1400 5100 14200
600 2000 800 2700

1400 3600 3430
1990
1200 3400 2000 5200
Low wood supply estimate (TJ/year) Boiler capacity surplus
High wood supply estimate (TJ/year)
Woody biomass supply surplus
Poland Low-cost CO2

Fuel Supply Conversion
Type Boiler-
Electricity production
from biomass in
avoidance
co-firing
Cost
Heat value
-Type
-Cost
option
Availibility -Size Emissions
-Age
-Main fuel Cost for implementing
-Location co-firing
Cost optimisation
Johnsson, F., Berndes, G., Berggren, M., World Bioenergy Conference & Exhibition, 30 May-1 June 2006, Jönköping
• The FBC market

Fluidized Bed Combustion

• Originates from the need to burn difficult low grade fuels of
varying quality
• Ability to burn various fuels in the same unit
• Good load following characteristics
• Possibility for in-bed sulphur removal and low NOx
emissions (low combustion temperature) and that without
any need for special DeSOx or DeNOx equipment
For reviews on history of the FBC development see Banales and Norberg-Bohm
(Energy Policy 30, 2002, p 1173) and Koornneef et al. (Prog. Energy and
Combustion Science 33, 2007, p 19)
For FBC reviews see e.g. Leckner (Prog. Energy and Combustion Sci. 24, 1998, p 31)
and previous Proc of Fluidization conf, FBC conf and CFB conf.
FBC installations (year of commissioning and fuel)

FBC reference lists from Alstom, Foster Wheeler and Metso Power
50
45
40
35
30
GWth
25
20
15
10
5
0
-1984 1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-
Coal Bark Wood Sludge Peat Oil Gas MSW

FBC installations (thermal rating and fuel)

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-99 100-299 300-499 500-699 700-
MWth
Coal Bark Wood Sludge Peat Oil Gas MSW
FBC installations (thermal rating, year and fuel)

1000
900
800 Coal
Other
700
600
MWth
500
400
300
200
100
0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year
FBC market
• Boilers of a capacity of less than ~ 100 MWth
burning waste derived fuels, including biomass,
typically operating in CHP schemes (or as heat
only boilers, mainly in Sweden)
– Competing technology – grate fired boilers
• Large power boilers (up to ~1,000 MWth mainly
burning coal (bituminous coal or lignite),
– Competing technology – PC boilers
Fuel flexibility will be increasingly important?
Future of FBC technology in a CO2 constrained world

• If climate target to be met, coal plants must be equipped
with CO2 capture!
• Current EU target is that all new coal fired plants should
have capture from 2020 and on (even stricter target is
required if to meet new IPCC target for max 2 ºC
temperature increase )
⇒ Also FBC power boilers must be with capture!
⇒ Increase in biomass and waste combustion and CHP
schemes can be expected
⇒ Development of new concepts such as CLC
⇒ New FB gasification concepts (biomass, coal with
biomass)
FBC and fluidization

– Flow characteristics
– R&D need related to Fludization
FBC characteristics
• A height to diameter (aspect) ratio of
the riser (H0 /Deq) of the order of or less than 10
• A ratio of settled bed height (the bed formed if the solids are
not fluidized) to riser diameter of
less than 1 (Hb,settled /Deq < 1)
• Fluidized solids belonging to group B in the Geldart
classification
• For CFB units a solids net flux (Gs,net) typically ranging
from 0.5 to 20 kg/m2s
– Gs,net not known and should not be input in CFBC models
• Primary operational parameters of the furnace (with respect
to fluid dynamics) are the riser pressure drop and the gas
flows (i.e. fluidization velocity, secondary gas injection)
Circulating FBC
Bubbling FBC
Without and with EHE

+ 55,4 m
+ 2,3 m

• Bottom bed with exploding Flow characteristics

bubbles
– High through flow
– High fluctuations in gas flow
– Interaction with air plenum
– Reducing conditions
• Freeboard
– Splash zone with strong solids
back mixing (cluster phase
dominates)
– Transport zone with
backmixing at furnace walls
(disperse phase flow dominates)
• Solids segregation
– Freeboard
– Exit
– Exit duct
– Cyclone
Application of Johnsson & Leckner (1995) freeboard model (with a and K decay factors)
Chalmers 12MW CFB

SOLIDS CONCENTRATION [kg/m3]
1E+3
u0 = 2.7 m/s, pref = 7 kPa
dp = 0.20 mm, Hx = 0.51 m
1E+2 0.32 mm, 0.49 m
0.44 mm, 0.60 m
1E+1 slope of line

determines K
1
slope of line
determines a
0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 HEIGHT ABOVE BOTTOM BED h - Hx [m]
LEVEL BELOW Hx [m]
(From Johnsson & Leckner, 1995)

Exploding bubble
in bottom bed
Primary gas flow

varies with time and
with spatial location
Air distributor
Momentum probe signals from three elevations in the Turow CFB boiler
Wall layer Core

5000 5000
Impact pressure [Pa]

Front wall
0 0
-5000 -5000
-10000 -10000 ER, 2550 mm from wall 36.7 m above
ER, 50 mm from wall air distributor
-15000 -15000
-20000 -20000
-25000 -25000
0 5 10 0 5 10
Time [s] Time [s]
5000 5000

0 0
17.7 m above
-5000 -5000
air distributor
-10000 -10000
-15000 L5f, 50 mm from wall -15000
L5f, 2500 mm from wall
-20000 -20000
-25000 -25000
0 5 10 0 5 10
Time [s] Time [s]
5000 5000
0 0 3.8 m above
-5000 -5000 air distributor
-10000 -10000
-15000 -15000
L2f3, 2000 mm from wall
-20000 L2f3, 50 mm from wall -20000
-25000 -25000
0 5 10 0 5 10
Time [s] Time [s]

• Need for FBC research related to

fluidization
Bottom bed and Freeboard

• To increase the knowledge and modeling
capabilities for prediction of mixing of fuel
and combustion air
• Depends on the fuel conversion time and the
characteristic mixing length. Comparison of the
characteristic times for fuel dispersion and
*
conversion: L
τ dispersion rdispersion
Da = =
τ conversion τ conversion
τdispersion= characteristic time for fuel dispersion, rdispersion = mixing rate,
τconversion = characteristic time for fuel conversion, L*= characteristic mixing
length
Fuel feed distribution (Turow 235 MWe)

REAR WALL (fuel and recycle ash)
R1 R2
2.3 m above distributor
F1 F2 F3 F4
FRONT WALL (fuel only)
page 6
Dsr from modeled drying rate of fuel and

measured concentrations of H2O above the bed
Æ
Drying rate + Dispersion of fuel Æ
Distribution of H2O above the bed
Comparison between modeled and
measured concentrations of H2O gives
best fit for Dsr ≈ 0.1 m2/s
•Most measurements from narrow

units ⇒ lower dispersion rates
•Not a dispersion process

Influence of bottom bed fluctuations on

freeboard mixing flow
Bed surface
Exit zone and exit duct
• To model the ratio of the solids which leave the

furnace and the solids which are internally
recirculated, i.e. the back-flow ratio
• For conditions corresponding to those in boilers, it
seems as if the exit geometry has little influence
on the back-mixing ratio, but that is not to say that
the net solids flux can be predicted

Cyclone
• To find primary particle separation systems with a
more compact design (e.g. integrated with furnace,
U-beam separators)
Particle seal and downcomer

• To integrate a external heat exchanger (EHE) in the loop seal is
advantageous due to the high in-bed heat transfer and the CFB loop
will provide a self controlled power output from the EHE
• The solids flow and solid size distribution becomes crucial for the
design of the heat transfer surfaces in the EHE
• EHE flow is complex. Few studies (e.g. Werderman, and Werther,
Proc. 12th Int. FBC Conf, 1993, p 985, Johansson et al., J. Energy
Resources Technology, 128, 2006, p 135)

Entire loop in the case of CFB boiler

• Integrating the above zones in a model requires
knowledge on the particle size segregation
• For a given set of operational parameters (pressure
drop and gas velocities), particle size distribution
determines:
– internal solids backmixing
– net solids flux
– cyclone efficiency (i.e. the design of cyclone)
– solids size (and size distribution) in the loop seal
• Modelling of solids size segregation may require that
momentum transfer between solids of different size
and weight is taken into account
AVERAGE PARTICLE DIAMETER, dp [mm]

Solids size segregation in CFB boiler
0.5
0.4
ut, 0.44 mm
0.3
0.2 dp = 0.44 mm
ut, 0.20 mm
dp = 0.20 mm
0.1
0.0
0 2 4 6 8
FLUIDIZATION VELOCITY, u0 [m/s]
(From Johnsson & Leckner, 1995)

New concepts
– Oxyfuel CFB for CO2 capture
– Chemical looping combustion
– Integrated gasifier in FB boiler
Process and cost study of a large scale lignite fired O2/CO2 PC power plant
Reference plant (current): Proposed O2/CO2 scheme:
Lignite-fired 2x933MWel ( 99.5% reduction in CO2 emissions to the
atmosphere)
2x115MWheat 14 16 C 1. Air compressor
13 2. Compressor cooling
21
3. Direct contact air cooler
Commissioned in 2000 19 4. Evaporative cooler
12 15 17 5. Molecular sieves
20 6. Heat exchanger
18
CO2
10 million tons CO2/year! 32
22 out
7. Expansion turbine
8. Destillation column
9. Boiler
B
10. Super heater
31
11. Economizer
12. TEG heat exchanger
11
24 25 13. Flue gas condensation unit
23
14. Flue gas cooler
10
27 15. Compressor unit 1, 30 bar
26 16. TEG
9 30 29 17. Compressor unit 2, 58 bar
18. CO2 condenser
28 19. Heat exchanger (CO2/CO2)
o2 20. Gas/Liquid separator
21. Subcooler
22. High pressure pump
O2 23. HP Steam turbine
N2 A 24. IP Steam turbine
8 25. LP Steam turbine
6 26. Condenser
5
27. Cooling tower
28. District heating
7 29. Feed water preheater
o2
30. Feed water preheater
31. Nitrogen heater
4 1
3 2
Air inlet
Study yields CO2 capture cost of approx 20 €/t CO2

Andersson et al.(2003) VGB Power Tech Journal No 10
N2, O2, Ar,

N2 Flue gas NOx, SOx
recycle
Oxyfuel (O2/CO2 recycle)
Flue gas
Air Air Separation
Unit
Boiler treatment
and
CO2, (SO2) FBC combustion (Alstom)
compression
CO2 -RICH PRODUCT

Lignite
H2O TOGASPROCESSING
SYSTEM
INDUCED
CFB Steam Generator Unit DRAFT
FAN
AIR
Cyclone INFILTRATION
BACKPASS Gas
HEAT CONDNESATE Cooler
EXCHANGERS
COMBUSTOR
PFWH
PARTICULATE
External
REMOVAL
Heat
OXYGEN SYSTEM
Exchanger
HEATER
GAS
RECIRCULATION
COAL FAN
LIMESTONE
OXYGEN
AIR
ASH AIR SEAPARATION NITROGEN
COOLER FLUIDIZING UNIT
GAS
BLOWER
Chemical looping combustion

N2, O2 CO2, H2O
flue gas
MyOx
2
Air- Fuel- 1
reactor reactor
3
MyOx-1 H2O
fuel
CO2
air
Air Fuel
(2n+m)Mex Oy + CnH2m → (2n+m)Mex Oy -1 + mH2O + nCO2

Mex Oy -1 + ½O2 → Mex Oy

Chalmers’ 10 kW chemical-looping combustor 2003

convective
cooling of
flue gases
Î
reactor
system Ô
Í filters
Chemical-Looping Combustion
Reactor system (fluidized beds):

- well established
- commercially available
- simple
- moderate costs
Oxygen-carrier particles:
- very encouraging results
- scale-up of particle manufacture
- raw materials
- long-term testing needed

Applications of chemical-looping combustion for CO2 capture:
Combustion of gaseous fuel, natural gas, refinery gas, syngas
Chemical-looping reforming, i.e. hydrogen production
Combustion of solid fuels
Integration of biomass gasification

in existing boiler infrastructure – a new low
cost gasification concept
Circulating fluidized bed (CFB) Bubbling fluidized bed (BFB)
Heat, Electricity, Steam Heat, Electricity, Steam
Flue gas
Bio Product Gas Flue gas

Hot bed material
Bio Product Gas
Biomass Biomass
Fuel Fuel
Hot bed
material
Fluidization gas Fluidization gas

Air
Air

Chalmers gasifier for demonstration och research
Advantages
• Heat balance always fulfilled
• Minimization of char losses
• Optional fluidization medium
• Operation at “any” temperature
• Possibility to gasify wet fuel with
a high efficiency
• Possibility to burn fuel with high
moisture content in combustor
• The gasifier does not have any
negative effect on the combustor
• Can be integrated in existing
energy system infrastructure

Conclusions
• Large investments in the energy system are required over
the coming decades, both as a result of an increased
demand for heat and power, as well as due to replacement
of old plants
• The prospects for the FBC technology for clean energy is
high, but there are competing technologies
• Research and development is required in order to improve
the FBC technology
– establish models for reliable design and scale up of the
technology (fuel mixing, solids segregation)
• Rather than competing with the PC technology, the FBC
technology (CFBC) will take important niche markets,
where fuel flexibility is or can be foreseen to be of future
importance
• New concepts (oxyfuel, CLC, indirect gasifiers)
• Alstom, Foster Wheeler and Metso Power

are gratefully acknowledged for providing
the boiler figures and boiler reference lists.
Mr Fredrik Normann is acknowledged for
compiling the data from the lists.

Fluidized Bed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fluidized Bed

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fluidized Bed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Refereed Proceedings

The 12th International Conference on

PRESENTATION SLIDES: Fluidized

This paper is posted at ECI Digital Archives.

Chalmers University of Technology

FLUIDIZED BED COMBUSTION

Fluidization XII - New Horizons in

Chalmers University of Technology

Chalmers University of Technology

Large investments required in the

Published by ECI Digital Archives, 2007 3

Chalmers University of Technology

Chalmers University of Technology

Chalmers University of Technology

Per Capita CO2 Emissions

Non-OECD Europe World average

0 2000 4000 6000

Chalmers University of Technology

Global Power Generation by Fuel

Published by ECI Digital Archives, 2007 7

Chalmers University of Technology

Alternatives towards Sustainable Energy Systems

Chalmers University of Technology

Large need for investments in boiler capacity

Published by ECI Digital Archives, 2007 9

Chalmers University of Technology

Age distribution of US coal fired power plants

FOSSIL FUEL POWER GENERATION - STATE-OF-THE-ART” PowerClean Thematic Network, 2005,

Chalmers University of Technology

Net capacity of operating and planned thermal power plants

Chalmers University of Technology

Power generation capacity - Germany

10 0.4 (Oil) 5,6

Natural gas Coal Lignite Oil Nuclear Wind Bio/Waste Hydro

Chalmers University of Technology

The challenge – Example Germany

Chalmers University of Technology

RES and Energy efficiency not likely to be

Chalmers University of Technology

• CO2 Capture and Storage as a bridging

Published by ECI Digital Archives, 2007 15

Chalmers University of Technology

CO2 Capture, Transport & Storage (CCS)

Chalmers University of Technology

Published by ECI Digital Archives, 2007 17

Chalmers University of Technology

CO2 Capture – main technologies

Chalmers University of Technology

Published by ECI Digital Archives, 2007 19

Chalmers University of Technology

Storage sites by reservoir type and coal and

Blue = oil fields

Black = coal plants

Chalmers University of Technology

• Co-firing as a bridging technology

Published by ECI Digital Archives, 2007 21

Chalmers University of Technology

Power generation capacity - Poland

Natural gas Coal Lignite Oil Wind Bio/Waste Hydro