Properties and Optimizing Of a Plasma Gasification & Melting Process of Municipal Solid Waste

Paper 58 Qinglin Zhang1, Liran Dor2, Weihong Yang1, Wlodzimierz Blasiak1

1

Energy and Furnace Technology Division, Royal Institute of Technology, Brinellvgen 23, S-10044 Stockholm, Sweden 2 Environmental Energy Resources Ltd, 7 Jabotinski St., 52520 Ramat-Gan, Israel

ABSTRACT
A new solid waste treatment method called Plasma Gasification & Melting (PGM) has been developed by Environmental Energy Resources Ltd. (EER). In this technology, high temperature plasma air and steam are used to convert the waste into high-quality combustible syngas and vitreous benign slag. Due to the special features of the technology it is applicable for various stream of the solid waste field such as MSW, Medical Waste (MW) and Low Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW), where the technology was derived from. The aim of this study is to discuss the characteristics of this technology, and find out the optimal operation condition for a PGM plant. A simulation model of the PGM process was built up and validated by the test results of a PGM demonstration plant. The result shows that the syngas LCV of PGM is much higher than that of traditional gasification. For air gasification, there exists a lower limit of air/MSW mass ratio for 100% conversion of MSW. When the air/MSW mass ratio exceeds the limitation, the syngas LCV will descend by dilution of CO2 and N2. The tar yield will decrease, because of higher pyrolysis temperature. For air/steam gasification, high temperature steam as gasification agent can reduce the limitation of air/MSW mass ratio, so further enhance the syngas quality. The influence of plasma power will be more prominent for air/steam gasification than air gasification. Based on above discussion, an optimizing conception design aiming at producing syngas with high LCV and energy efficiency of a PGM process is suggested.

INTRODUCTION
Increasing municipal solid waste (MSW) yield is one of the main by-products of economical development of human society. Among various methods of waste disposal, gasification is a promising technology. Compared to direct incineration, gasification

can prevent the formation of dioxins, as well as other gaseous contaminations like NOx, SOx, and HCl 1. Another advantage of gasification is that it can produce a combustible gas mixture called syngas, which can be widely used for energy generation and chemical engineering 2. The volume of waste can be sharply reduced by gasification since the organic components release from waste during the gasification process. It has been confirmed that gasification is an advanced waste disposal which has advantages in both environment protection and energy generation aspects 1-4. The application of plasma in gasification has been a hot topic in recent years 5-7. When plasma technology is applied in gasification, a number of unique advantages could be found. For example, the sensible heat of plasma flow can provide high temperature conditions to accelerate the gasification reactions; some reactions which would not appear in conventional gasification can take place; the request of gasification air can be reduced so that the syngas quality can be improved. If plasma flow is injected from the exit of gasification residual, the residual can be melted, and forming a vitrified slag in which undesirable materials like heavy metals will be trapped 1-11. Due to these special features, plasma gasification is especially applicable for the treatment of various stream of the solid waste such as MSW, Medical Waste (MW) and Low Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW). The start-of-the-art of the plasma gasification technology for waste treatment was introduced by Gomez etc 12. Some laboratory scale result of plasma gasification was reported by Moustakas etc13. An industrial scale plasma gasification plant was built up in Israel by the Environmental Energy Resources Israel Ltd. (EER). The aim is to demonstrate the features of a new plasma gasification technology called Plasma Gasification Melting (PGM). This design differs most significantly from other plasma gasification processes in its structure. As we can see in Figure 1, the PGM gasifier is an updraft Fixed-bed gasifier, with plasma air injected into the gasifier from the bottom part, whereas other designs are mainly fluidized bed. The advantage of this structure is obvious: the system is more compact; no milling of feedstock is needed before feeding; the energy efficiency of the PGM process is higher than that of fluidized bed since the temperature at the exit of syngas is much lower. Some information about the PGM gasification technology has been reported in previous publications 14-15.

Figure 1. Structure of the PGM gasifier

As famous process simulation software, Aspen Plus has been widely used to simulate different solid-fuel thermal chemical processes like fluidized bed combustion Error! Reference source not found. , fluidized bed gasification 16, co-generation 19, waste incineration 20 , and fixed-bed gasification 21-22. These successful works ensure the capability of Aspen Plus in simulation and optimization of PGM process. In this work, a new fixed-bed gasification model was built to simulate the characteristics of a PGM plant. The model is validated by the measured data. Then, the influences of important operation parameters for PGM process were analyzed. The optimum operation conditions were determined by both the modeling results and feasibility in a real gasification process.

KEY OPERATION PARAMETERS IN GASIFICATION

The aim of optimization of a gasification process should be not only find out the operating conditions under which the best-quality syngas can be produced, but also considering the practicality of the numerically best conditions in a industrial gasification process. So the understanding of the influence and relationship of key operation parameters is the basis of the optimization of a gasification process. In the PGM process, there are three basic parameters which determine the characteristics. They are equivalence ratio (ER), steam feedstock mass ratio (SFMR), and the sensible heat input per kilo feedstock (SH). The gasification characteristics and syngas composition are mainly influenced by operation parameters and feedstock properties. Among various operation parameters, the equivalence ratio is the most basic parameter of a gasification process. It is commonly used to indicate quantitatively the extent of partial oxidization. The definition of equivalence ratio is as: Equation 1. Definition of equivalence ratio

(A / F ) ( A / F )stoic

where:

(A / F )

= the mass ratio of air and feedstock in the real gasification process.

( A / F )stoic = the mass ratio of air and feedstock for a stoichiometric oxidization
For an air gasification process, the ER should be controlled in an appropriate range. If it is too low, there will be no enough agents to ensure full conversion of fixed-carbon in feedstock into gases by partial oxidization. The partial oxidization also supplies energy for pyrolysis and drying of feedstock. However, if the ER is too large, the char combustion is more preferable to form carbon dioxide rather than carbon monoxide, so that the energy efficiency and syngas LHV may decrease. Nitrogen in feeding air will also dilute the syngas. In an optimal gasification process, the ER ratio should be around the point where 100% fixed-carbon conversion is satisfied, so as to ensure best gasification gas production. Feeding steam into the system is a promising method to improve air gasification process. Since both air and steam are used as gasification agents in this process, it can be named air&steam gasification. The advantage of feeding steam is obvious: two moles of fuel gas could be produced from one mole of carbon by the water shift reaction. Steam is easy to remove from syngas, and no dilution of syngas will be made. Since the characteristics of air&steam gasification is also highly related to steam feeding rate, The mass ratio of steam and feedstock (SFMR) can be seem as another key factor if steam is feed into gasification system. Preheating the gasification agents up to a high temperature has been a promising technology to enhance both syngas quality and gasification efficiency. It has been proved that when the gasification agents are preheated to a relatively high temperature, significant advantages can be achieved, such as less tar production, higher energy concentration in syngas and higher energy efficiency. Moreover, the gasification system becomes relatively insensitive to the variations in particle size, heating value and moisture content typically associated with feedstock. The sensible heat input from agents is the parameter which is used to express the sensible heat carried by feeding agent. In the PGM process, this parameter includes two parts: the sensible heat of plasma flow, and the sensible heat of preheated steam. In this work, it is expressed by sensible heat input per kilo feedstock (SH).

THE MATHEMATIC MODEL

In this work, the PGM process was simulated with a steady model with Aspen Plus.

The whole PGM process was divided into four modules: drying, pyrolysis, gasification and combustion, and melting. Moisture, volatiles, char and ash components are removed from the solid phase by these modules, respectively. The summary of the flowsheet of the model is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. GPM gasification flowsheet

Drying
The drying process is modeled using two main blocks: a heat exchanger and an evaporator. Original MSW is heated by exchanging the sensible heat of the syngas in the exchanger, and then separated into steam and dry MSW in the evaporator. Dry MSW is sent to the pyrolysis zone, while steam mixes with the syngas from pyrolysis section. Temperature change of MSW and gases is calculated from mass and energy conservation equations. The mass balance is described as following:
Equation 2. Mass balance of the drying process
mMSW wet = mMSW dry + msteam

where: The ratio of mMSW dry to msteam is given by the proximate analysis of MSW.

Energy balance of heat exchanger is described as:

Equation 3. Energy balance of the drying process

mi
i

Tsyngas in

Tsyngas out

C p,i dT = mMSW dry

TMSW out

Tsyngasout + C dT m C p ,steam dT + Lsteam p , MSW dry steam T TMSW in MSW in

Where:

C p ,i = the specific heat capacity of the component i

Lsteam = the latent heat of the component i TMSW in = the temperature of MSW flowing intothe drying zone
Tsyngas in = the temperature of syngas flowing into the drying zone

TMSW out = the temperature of dry MSW flowing out of the drying zone
Tsyngasout = the temperature of syngas flowing out of the drying zone

In this equation, left hand and right hand describe the change of the sensible heat of product gas and MSW. According to the definition of drying, TMSW out should not be too higher than 100 C, because the boiling temperature of water is 100 C at the pressure of 1 bar. Considering the impact of heat gradient inside MSW particles, we assume that the temperature of dried MSW and steam is 120 C.

Pyrolysis
Compared with coal, MSW have higher content of volatiles. For an updraft gasifier model, the pyrolysis process is especially important because most of the gas and tar yield in this section will join the gas produced in the char gasification section and be released from the outlet of the gasifier without further reactions. The composition of MSW can be divided into two main series: cellulosic fractions (Wood, paper, vegetation and cardboard) and plastics (PE, PP, PVC and rubber). The pyrolysis characters of each series are different. In this model, the pyrolysis of each series was simulated with different submodel, as was shown in Figure 3. For each

series, a two-step pyrolysis process was used.

Figure 3a. Pyrolysis model for cellulosic fractions
Cellulosic fractions

Char

Primary tar C6H10,71O3,264

Primary gases CO, CO2, H2O

Second tar C6H6

Secondary gases CO, CO2, H2, CH4

Figure 3b. Pyrolysis model for Plastics

Plastics

Char

Primary tar CmH2m

Primary gases CO, H2, CH4, C2H4

Second tar C6H6

Secondary gases CH4, C2H4

It has been proved that for an updraft gasifier, the tar production is sensitive to the pyrolysis temperature. In this model, the extent of secondary pyrolysis is controlled by pyrolysis temperature:
Equation 4. The extent of secondary pyrolysis

YT = exp( A(T T0 ))
where: T = pyrolysis temperature

T0 = 500o C =the temperature at which the maximum yield of tar will be produced
Char was considered as a mixture of ash and fixed carbon, so the yield and composition of char can be calculated directly from the ultimate and proximate analysis of MSW. Heating values of MSW, tar and char are calculated with the HCOALGEN model, which includes a number of empirical correlations for heat of combustion, heat of formation and heat capacity, while densities of MSW and char are calculated using the DCOALIGT model.

Gasification and Combustion

Char coming from the pyrolysis zone will meet and react with gasification agents ( H 2O and O2 ) in the gasification and combustion section. Lots of chemical reactions are involved in this process. For a moving bed gasification process, the residual time for solid fuel is very long, so the chemical reactions occurring in this zone can be considered as at chemical equilibrium. The second law of thermodynamics can be expressed as:

Equation 5. Second law of thermodynamics

(dG )T , P , m 0
It states that the Gibbs function always decreases for a spontaneous, isothermal, isobaric change of a fixed-mass system in the absence of all work effects except boundary work. This principle allows us to calculate the equilibrium composition of a mixture at a given temperature and pressure. The can be expressed as:
Equation 6. Gibbs function for a mixture of ideal gases

Gmix = N i g i ,T = g i0,T + RuT ln Pi / P 0 where:

)]

N i = the number of moles of the ith species

g i ,T = the Gibbs function of the pure species, the superscript
0

means properties at

standard pressure

For fixed temperature and pressure, the equilibrium condition becomes

Equation 7. The equilibrium condition for fixed temperature and pressure

dGmix = 0 In our char gasification reaction, the main species to participate in the reaction are H 2O , H 2 , CO , CO2 , CH 4 , O2 and C . C can be treated as the naturally occurring element, and the other species can be treated as ideal gases.

Plasma Melting
The inorganic components (ash) of the MSW coming from the gasification and combustion zone were melted by high temperature plasma air in the plasma melting zone. The temperature of slag flowing out of the gasifier was calculated from energy balance by setting an appropriate temperature difference between air and slag. No chemical reaction was considered in the melting process.

FEEDSTOCK PROPERTIES
Feedstock used by in the trial runs is MSW collected in Israel. Proximate and ultimate analysis has been made on the MSW sample, and the result is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Feedstock properties Proximate analysis Moisture 30.0 % Fixed carbon (dry 10.7 % basis) Volatile (dry basis) 77.6 % Ash (dry basis) 11.7 %

Ultimate analysis (dry basis) Carbon C Hydrogen H Nitrogen N Chlorine Cl Sulphur S Oxygen O

47.9% 6.0% 1.2% <0.1% 0.3% 32.9%

MODEL VALIDATION
In order to validate the proposed model, 4 sets of data from the trial runs of the demonstrate plant in different operation conditions (see Table 2) were used. The simulation results in terms of syngas yields, volume content of H2, THC, and CO in syngas (wet basis) are compared with the measured results. Detailed results are presented in Figure 4 and Figure 5, respectively.
Table 2. Operation conditions of validation cases Case number ER Plasma power (kW) Steam injection (kg/h) 1 0.122 240 70 2 0.122 240 100 3 0.105 240 70 4 0.097 260 70

It was found that the model can relatively predict the gasification results for PGM process. The trend of syngas yields is just the same as measured values, but the syngas yield is a little predicted, but the differences between model results and measured values are less than 10%. This might be due to the equilibrium assumption in the gasification section, since full equilibrium can not be reached in a real gasification process. The difference of combustible components volume fractions with measured results are also mostly less than 10%.

Figure 4. Measured results of the gas yield and composition of the PGM gasification
20% H 2 TH C C O Yi el d 25

15%

20 Syngas yi el d ( km ol / h)

15 10% 10 5%

0% 1 2 3 4

Figure 5. Modelling results of the gas yield and composition of the PGM gasification
20% H 2 TH C C O Yi el d 25

15%

20 Syngas yi el d ( km ol / h)

15 10% 10 5%

0% 1 2 3 4

RESULT AND DISCUSSION Influence of sensible heat from plasma

The most important significance of the PGM gasification, which differentiates it from other fixed-bed gasification process is the high-temperature plasma air injected from the bottom of the system. The influence of the sensible heat from plasma air is investigated using the above model. The plasma energy varies from 0 to 3MJ/kg feedstock. All calculations were carried out at 100% carbon conversion point.
Figure 6. Influence of SE of plasma on minimum ER
0, 3 ER num ber f or 100% car bon conver si on 0, 25 0, 2 0, 15 0, 1 0, 05 0 0 0, 5 1 1, 5 2 2, 5 3 3, 5 4 Sensi bl e heat f r om pl asm a (M J/ kg M SW ) ER

Figure 6 is the variation of ER number needed for 100% fixed-carbon conversion with sensible heat input. It could be found that with the increase of sensible heat (SH) from plasma, the change of ER can be divided into two different parts. When SH increases from 0 to 1.5 MJ/kg MSW, the ER decreases approximately linearly from 0.24 to 0.15. When the sensible heat keeps increasing, the ER will keep constant. This phenomenon may be explained by low gasification temperature with low plasma power (see Figure 7). When the SE of plasma is lower than 1.5 MJ/kg MSW, the gasification is only 600-800C. According to the report by J. R. Arthur, the ratio of CO and CO2 in char combustion is the function of temperature. When the temperature ranges from 450 to 900 C, the ratio can be expressed by the following equation23:
Equation 8. The function of CO and CO2 molar ratio
r= CO 6420 = 2500 exp CO2 T

Increasing SE leads to increasing gasification, so that the char combustion trends to form CO, rather than CO2. The oxygen needed for combustion is then decreases. When SE exceeds 1.5 MJ/kg MSW, the gasification is higher than 800C. In that case, the partial oxidization of char will form mostly CO, so the ER required will be constant. It can also be found that the increasing of gasification temperature can also be divided in to two parts by the point SE=1.5 MJ/kg MSW, this is mainly due to the difference of reaction heat of two combustion reactions. During the variation of SE, the syngas temperature does not change much. The syngas temperature nearly keep constant, with the exception at high SE (2.5-3.5), where there is a slightly increase.

Figure 7. Influence of SE of plasma on gasification and syngas temperature

2500

2000 Tem per at ur e ( C )

G ai si f i cat i on t em per at ur e Syngas t em per at ur e

1500

1000

500

0 0 0, 5 1 1, 5 2 2, 5 3 3, 5 4 Sensi bl e heat f r om pl asm a (M J/ kg M SW )

The trend of syngas yield, together with syngas composition with different SE of plasma are shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8. It could be found that SE= 1.8 MJ/kg MSW is an important transition point where the trends of both syngas yield and LHV change. When SE increases from 0 to 1.8 MJ/kg MSW, the syngas yield decreases from 1.6 to 1.2 Nm3/kg MSW. At the same time, syngas LHV increases from 1.44 to 3.30 MJ/Nm3. Looking at the syngas composition, the volume fraction of CO increase dramatically, while the fraction of CO2 decreases from 16% to 10%. The content of H2 also increases slightly. The decreasing air feeding may be the main reason for that. When SE exceeds 1.8 MJ/kg MSW, the syngas yield start to increase. When SE reaches 3.6, the syngas yield is about 1.5 Nm3/kg MSW. During this process, the syngas LHV increases from 3.30 to 7.61 MJ/Nm3. this could mainly be explained by cracking of tar with increasing pyrolysis temperature (see Figure 9). It has been clear that compared to conventional gasification, PGM can significantly increases the syngas LHV. From the trend of the LHV, we can know that if the SH goes on increasing, the syngas LHV can be higher. However, this is not practical in a real gasification process. When SH equal to 3.6MJ/kg MSW, the gasification has been over 2000 C. This temperature has exceeds the upper limit of materials of the furnace. Obviously, simply increasing sensible heat to air gasification is not the best solution for the PGM optimizing.

Figure 8. Influence of SE of plasma on syngas yield and LHV

Syngas yi el d LH V

Syngas yi el d ( N m 3/ kg M SW )

0, 5

0 0 0, 5 1 1, 5 2 2, 5 3 3, 5 4 a (M J/ kg M SW ) Sensi bl e heat of pl asm

Figure 9. Influence of SE of plasma on syngas composition (dry basis)

80% 70% G as f r act i ons ( dr y basi s) 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 0, 5 1 1, 5 2 2, 5 3 3, 5 4 Sensi bl e heat of pl asm a (M J/ kg M SW ) C O H 2 C H 4 C 2H 4 C O 2 N 2 O 2 Tar 0, 45 0, 40 0, 35 0, 30 0, 25 0, 20 0, 15 0, 10 0, 05 0, 00 Tar yi el d ( kg/ kg M SW )

Influence of steam feedstock mass ratio

It is known that the characteristics of PGM can be improved by addition of high temperature steam into the gasification section. The influences of steam / MSW mass ratio is investigated in this work.

LH V of syngas ( M J/ N m 3)

1, 5

Figure 10 is the relationship of ER requested for 100% carbon conversion and SFMR with different plasma sensible heat (1.8, 2.4, 3.0, and 3.6 MJ/kg MSW). It can be found that the influence of SFMR on ER value is negative. Theoretically, the air request can finally reduce to zero with increasing steam feeding. However, in a real PGM plant, the plasma energy has to be carried by air, so there exists a lower limitation of ER, depending on how much plasma energy is fed into the system. This relationship can be expressed as:
Equation 9. The relationship between ER and SH
ER = SH

where is a constant. The value of varies with different feedstock. Looking at the behaviour of different SH values, it can be found that when SE=1.8 MJ/kg MSW, the ER decreases linearly with SFMR, the ER reaches its lower limit (about 0.05) when SFMR=0.25. However, when SE=3.6 MJ/kg MSW, the ER will drop dramatically to its lower limit (about 0.1) when SFMR=0.05. The slope of SE= 3.0 MJ/kg MSW is similar to SE=3.6 MJ/kg MSW, while the other series (SE=2.4 MJ/kg MSW) is something between.

Figure 10. Influence of steam feedstock mass ratio on optimal ER value

0, 2 Equi val ence r at i o 0, 15 0, 1 0, 05 0 0 0, 05 0, 1 0, 15 0, 2 0, 25 St eam f eedst ock m ass r at i o 0, 3 0, 35
SH =1. 8 SH =2. 4 SH =3. 0 SH =3. 6 M J/ kg M J/ kg M J/ kg M J/ kg M SW M SW M SW M SW

Figure 11. Influence of steam feedstock mass ratio on gasification temperature

G asi f i cat i on t em per at ur e ( C )

2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 0, 05

SH=1. 8 SH=2. 4 SH=3. 0 SH=3. 6

M J/ kg M J/ kg M J/ kg M J/ kg

M SW M SW M SW M SW

0, 1 0, 15 0, 2 0, 25 St eam f eedst ock m ass r at i o

0, 3

0, 35

Figure 11 is the variation of gasification with steam feedstock mass ratio. It was found that generally, the influence of steam feeding on gasification temperature is negative. For high SH value (SH=3.6 and 3.0 MJ/kg MSW), this can be explained by the dilution of high temperature gas by steam, whose temperature is relatively low (1000 C). For SH= 2.4, and 1.8 MJ/kg MSW, the gasification temperature is lower than 1000 C, while the increasing of steam feeding also results in lower gasification temperature. It was believed that this phenomenon can be explained by water shift reaction aroused by steam feeding:
Equation 10. The water shift reaction

C + H 2O = CO + H 2 + 131 MJ / Kmol It is also found that although the steam feeding can reduce the gasification temperature, the superfluous SH value is not appropriate. When SH=3.6 MJ/kg MSW, the gasification is about 1700-1900 C. Obviously no furnace material can endure such high temperature. The best gasification temperature should be get with the SH value between 2.4 and 3.0 MJ/kg MSW.

Figure 12. Influence of steam feedstock mass ratio on syngas yield

Dr y syngas yi el d ( Nm/ kg M SW )

1, 5

SH=1. 8 SH=2. 4 SH=3. 0 SH=3. 6

M J/ kg M J/ kg M J/ kg M J/ kg

M SW M SW M SW M SW

0, 5 0 0, 05 0, 1 0, 15 0, 2 0, 25 St eam f eedst ock m ass r at i o 0, 3 0, 35

Figure 13. Influence of steam feedstock mass ratio on syngas LHV

10 Dr y syngas LHV ( M J/ Nm)
3

8 6 4 2 0 0 0, 05 SH=1. 8 SH=2. 4 SH=3. 0 SH=3. 6 0, 1 0, 15 0, 2 0, 25 St eam f eedst ock m ass r at i o M J/ kg M J/ kg M J/ kg M J/ kg M SW M SW M SW M SW 0, 35

0, 3

The influence of SFMR on syngas yield and LHV value are shown in Figure 12 and Figure 13, respectively. It is obvious that for both syngas yield and syngas LHV, higher SH value is more advisable. This is mainly due to the tar cracking in high pyrolysis temperature (see Figure 14). Despising the decrease of syngas yield due to the reduction of ER at low steam feeding rate, it can be seen that the syngas yield will increase with increasing SFMR value. A possible explanation for this phenomenon is the steam reforming of tar in high temperature. The mechanism and kinetics of steam reforming of tar has been reported by Chunshan et al. 24. The global reaction can be written as following:
Equation 11. The steam reforming of tar

Cm H n + aH 2O = bCO + cH 2 + dC x H y
where Cm H n stands for tar, while C x H y stands for light hydrocarbons.

Figure 14. Influence of steam feedstock mass ratio on tar yield

0, 5 Tar yi el d ( kg/ kg M SW ) 0, 4 0, 3 0, 2 0, 1 0 0 0, 05 SH=1. 8 SH=2. 4 SH=3. 0 SH=3. 6 0, 1 0, 15 0, 2 0, 25 St eam f eedst ock m ass r at i o M J/ kg M J/ kg M J/ kg M J/ kg M SW M SW M SW M SW 0, 35

0, 3

Figure 15. Influence of steam feedstock mass ratio on energy efficiency

200% El ect r i c ef f i ci ency

150%

100% SH=1. 8 SH=2. 4 SH=3. 0 SH=3. 6 0 0, 05 0, 1 0, 15 0, 2 0, 25 St eam f eedst ock m ass r at i o M J/ kg M J/ kg M J/ kg M J/ kg M SW M SW M SW M SW 0, 35

50%

0%

0, 3

Figure 15 is the relation ship of SFMR on the electric efficiency of PGM process. Considering that MSW is a free feedstock, here the electric efficiency is defined as:
Equation 12. The definition of electric efficiency

& (m

syngas

LHVsyngas Psteam ) gen Pplasma

100%

where:

& syngas = the mass flow rates of syngas m

LHVsyngas = the low heating values of syngas on mass basis Psteam = the heat used to heat up steam Pplasma = the power of plasma

gen = the efficiency of syngas in generating electricity, and here the gen value is
assumed to be 50%. It is found that the SH is the main parameter which influence the electric efficiency. For SH= 3.0MJ/kg MSW, despising the dramatic drop with low steam feeding level, the electric efficiency increases with steam feeding rate. The maximum electric efficiency can be obtained at SFMR=0.33, and the value of electric efficiency can reach 145%. This means that electricity generated from syngas combustion is more than that required by plasma generation. The PGM system can produce extra electricity for outside users.

CONCLUSION
For air gasification, the injecting of plasma flow can reduce the ER required for 100% carbon conversion. When the SH value is 2.4 MJ/kg MSW, the ER required can be reduced by about 50%. At the same time, the syngas LHV can increase from 1.5 MJ/Nm3 to about 6 MJ/Nm3. the gas yield, then, is at the same level as conventional gasification. The reason is mainly tar cracking aroused by sensible heat from plasma flow. From the model results, further increasing of SH value can still enhance both syngas yield and LHV. However, this is not practical due to exorbitant gasification temperature. Feeding of steam into PGM process can further improve the gasification properties. For SH=3.0 MJ/kg MSW, the ER requested can be reduced to 0.08, when SFMR value is over 0.06. Both syngas yield and syngas LHV will increase when SFMR value enhances. When SFMR=0.35, it seems both syngas yield and LHV can reach a maximum value, which are 1.28 Nm3/kg MSW, and 8.00 MJ/ Nm3, respectively. The gasification temperature in this case is about 1250 C. An electric efficiency is defined for the PGM process. In the optimal operation condition described before, the electric efficiency can reach 145%. The PGM plant can supply all electricity required by itself, and supply extra electricity for outside users.

REFERENCES
1. 2. Thomas, M. Waste Manage. 2004, 24, 53-79. Sakai, S.; Sawell, S.E.; Chandler, A.J.; Eighmy, T.T. Waste Manage. 1996, 16, 341-350. 3. Filippis, P.; Borgianni, C.; Paolucci, M.; Pochetti, F. Waste Manag. 2004, 24, 633-639. 4. Choy, K.K.H.; Porter, J.F.; Hui, C.W.; McKay, G. Chem Eng. J. 2004, 105, 31-41. 5. Koutaro, K.; Tomonori, A.; Yoshihito, K.; Ryoji, S. Thin Solid Films 2001, 386, 183-188. 6. Ryo, Y.; Makoto, N.; Hiroshi, M. Fuel 2002, 81, 1335-1340. 7. Shinichi, S.; Masakatsu, H. Waste Manage. 2000, 20, 249-258. 8. Park, Y.J.; Heo, J. J. Hazard. Mater. 2002, 91, 83-93. 9. Sakai, S.I.; Hiraoka, M. Waste Manage. 2000, 20, 249-258. 10. Ecke, H.; Sakanakura, H.; Matsuto, T.; Tanaka, N.; Lagerkvist, A. Waste Manage. Res. 2000, 18, 41-51. 11. Jung, C.H.; Matsuto, T.; Tanaka, N.; Waste Manage. 2005, 25, 301-310. 12. Gomez, E.; Amutha, R.D.; Cheeseman, C.R.; Deegan, D.; Wise, M.; Boccaccini,

13. 14.

15.

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

22. 23. 24.

A.R. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 161, 614-626. Moustakas, K.; Xydis, G.; Malamis, S.; Haralambous, K.J.; Loizidou, M. J. Hazard Mater 2008, 151, 473-480. Liran, D.; Qinglin, Z.; Dikla, F.; Weihong, Y.; Wlodzmierz, B. Gasification of Municipal Solid Waste in the Plasma Gasification Melting Process. ICAE 2010, Singapore, 2010. Qinglin, Z.; Liran, D.; Kentaro, U. Weihong, Y.; Wlodzmierz, B. Process Modelling and Performance Analysis of A PGM Gasifier. 10th Conference on Energy for a Clean Environment, Lisbon 2009. Sotudeh, G.R.; Legros, R.; Chaouki, J.; Paris, J. Fuel 1998, 77, 327-337. Mansaray, K.G.; Al-Taweel, A.M.; Ghaly, A.E.; Hamdullahpur, F.; Ugursal, V.I. Energy Sources 2000, 22, 83-98. Zheng, L.; Edward, F. Energy Convers. Manage.2003, 44, 1845-1851. Silvano, C.; Marina, P.; Diego, B. Waste Manage. 2005, 25, 171-175. Rogers, R. Hydrogen Production by Gasification of Municipal Solid Waste. Technical report of Lawrence Livermore National Lab., CA (United States), 1994. Vittorio, T.; Giorgio, C. Process Analysis and Performance Evaluation of Updraft Coal Gasifier. Proceedings of the 3rd. International Conference on Clean Coal Technologies for Our Future; 15-17 May, 2007, Cagliari, Italy. Christopher, H.; Maarten, B. Gasification. Elsevier, 2008. Arthur, J.R. Trans. Faraday Soc. 1951, 47, 164-178. Li, C.; Kenzi, S. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2008, 13, 594-604.