Fuel Processing Technology 91 (2010) 15371550

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel Processing Technology

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / f u p r o c

Some considerations about bioethanol combustion in oil-red boilers

Jorge Barroso , Javier Ballester, Antonio Pina
LITEC, University of Zaragoza - CSIC, Mara de Luna 3, Zaragoza, 50018, Spain

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
The combustion of bioethanol in boilers has been analyzed and compared with conventional liquid fuels. The study includes an experimental evaluation of combustion performance as well as the estimation of the impact of replacing gasoil by ethanol on the thermal efciency of an industrial boiler. Several works have been dedicated to the study of fuel substitution in internal combustion engines, being the use of gasoilbioethanol blends in engines a common practice. However, very few studies have addressed the characterization of switching of conventional liquid fuels by bioethanol in boilers. Combustion tests demonstrate signicant differences between bioethanol and gasoil ames. Soot, NOx and SO2 emissions are signicantly lower with ethanol, whereas this fuel can produce higher amounts of CO than gasoil if the burner is not properly adapted. The experimental tests have demonstrated that both the burner and boiler operation should be readjusted or modied as a result of the change of fuel in industrial boilers. If thermal input is to be kept constant, nozzles of larger capacities must be used and the air feeding rate needs to be signicantly modied. Also, the ame detector may have to be replaced and the fuel feeding system should be revised due to the enhanced tendency of ethanol to cavitation. Using the same thermal input may not guarantee keeping the same steam production, but some parameters of boiler operation should be modied in order to avoid reductions in the capacity of the boiler when switching from gasoil to bioethanol, such as gas recirculation fraction, steam cooling systems and percentage of oxygen in the exhaust gases. The feasibility of burning bioethanol in gasoil boilers has been analyzed, and the results conrm that fuel switching is technically possible and offers some advantages in terms of pollutants reduction. 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 16 April 2010 Accepted 4 May 2010 Keywords: Gasoil Bioethanol Alcohols Combustion Boilers

1. Introduction The fossil fuels resources are depleting as quickly as the energy consumption is increasing and the humanity have the challenge to nd out environment-friendly alternatives to fulll the energy demand of the world. In this context, many countries are more and more concerned of their vulnerability to oil embargoes and shortages, which would affect not only the development of industrial, transportation, and agricultural sectors, and many other basic human needs, but also their political decisions. Hence, the scientists are looking for alternative energy sources. Considerable attention has been focused on the development of alternative renewable fuel sources, with particular reference to the alcohols, as it is pointed in reviews [13]. Hansen et al. [1] recognized the opportunities of bioethanol blended with gasoline and diesel in internal combustion engines, with the benecial effects of reducing country dependence on imported fuel, substituting fossil fuels by a renewable resource, and accomplishing the more stringent emissions regulations. Agarwal [2] explained that using an ethanol-unleaded gasoline blend leads to a signicant reduction in exhaust emissions of CO and HC and using ethanoldiesel

Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 976 506520x206; fax: +34 976 761882. E-mail address: barroso@litec.csic.es (J. Barroso). 0378-3820/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2010.05.036

blends up to 20% signicant reduction in CO and NOx emission was observed. The main economic, environmental, social implications of biofuels are discussed by Petrou and Pappis [4], concluding it is necessary to make a whole Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) analysis to determine biofuels' performance with respect to all the impact categories, where the supply cost (in relation to a certain fossil fuel price to be substituted) is an important consideration. Farrell et al. [5] concluded that the range of assumptions and data found could play a key role when comparing fuel resources and that further research into environmental metrics is needed for obtaining valid comparisons. Bioethanol is used as alternative fuel in the gasoline and diesel internal combustion engines, because it improves performance and reduces pollutant emissions. Parag and Raghavan [6] developed a fundamental experimental study to determine the burning rates of ethanol and ethanol-blended fossil fuels such as gasoline or diesel. They found that the mass burning rate does not vary signicantly for ethanol blended with diesel, but transition velocity decreases and ame stand-off distances and ame luminosity increase with the content of diesel in the blend. On the contrary, for ethanol blended with gasoline, the mass burning rate increases with the gasoline content due to the higher volatility of gasoline. Transition velocity rst decreases when 10% gasoline is added to ethanol, but with further addition of gasoline, transition velocity gradually increases. Flame

1538

J. Barroso et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 91 (2010) 15371550

stand-off distances and ame luminosity also increase with gasoline percentage. There are several works on different proportions of ethanol gasoline blend [710]. The effect of ethanol blended gasoline fuels on emissions and catalyst conversion efciencies was investigated in a spark ignition engine by He et al. [7], concluding that total hydrocarbon (THC), CO and NOx emissions at operating conditions can be reduced by adding 30% ethanol by volume to the fuel, but unburned ethanol and acetaldehyde emissions increase. Bahattin [8] studied different gasolineethanol blends, determining that the most suitable fuel in terms of performance and emissions was E50 (50% gasoline + 50% ethanol), in which the specic fuel consumption as well as CO, CO2, HC and NOx emissions were reduced by about 3%, 53%, 10%, 12% and 19%, respectively. Naja et al. [9] obtained good results studying experimentally the performance and pollutant emissions of a four-stroke spark ignition engine operating on ethanolgasoline blends of 0%, 5%, 10%, 15% and 20% with the aid of articial neural network (ANN). A decrease of CO and HC concentrations was observed when the ethanol level was increased in the blend; on the contrary, NOx concentration increased with ethanol proportion. Ameria et al. [10] studied the performance of a combined heat and power plant with an internal combustion engine fueled with a bioethanolgasoline blend, demonstrating that the maximum cylinder pressure, the output temperature, the availability of the ue gas for heat recovery and the efciency of the CHP system increase and carbon monoxide volume percentage is reduced when bioethanol is increased in the blend. Several works have been dedicated to study the behavior of ethanoldiesel blends. The works [1115] reported a reduction in heating value, aromatics fractions and kinematic viscosity of the blend and in the emissions of particulate matter and total hydrocarbons from diesel engines, but there is a small penalty on CO and unburned ethanol emissions compared to diesel fuel and the behavior of NOx emissions depends on load, fuel additive, catalytic treatment and other engine parameters. Rakopoulos et al. [16] analyzed a diesel engine fueled with ethanoldiesel fuel blends, proving that the reduction in smoke density, CO and in NOx emissions increased with the percentage of ethanol in the blend with respect to that of the neat diesel fuel. On the contrary, the emissions of unburned hydrocarbons (HC) increased in proportion with the percentage of ethanol in the blend. Kim and Choi [17] tested the effect of ethanoldiesel blend on the emissions in a diesel engine with warm-up catalytic converter, concluding that THC and CO emissions were slightly increased whereas smoke and the total mass of the PM were decreased when ethanoldiesel blends were burnt. Sahin and Durgun [18] developed a numerical investigation about the effects of ethanoldiesel fuel blends on turbocharged direct-injection diesel engines performance and veried that, at varied equivalence ratios, brake specic fuel consumption (BSFC) and equivalence ratio reduce and brake effective efciency and power and ignition delay increase with the percentage of ethanol in the mixture. Chen et al. [19] studied the combustion characteristics burning different esterethanoldiesel blended fuels in a diesel engine, showing that with increasing ethanol in the blended fuel, both smoke and particulate matter (PM) can be reduced. The reduction of CO and NOx emissions in diesel engines by introducing bioethanol in multicomponent diesel fuel mixtures containing fossil diesel fuel (D), rapeseed oil methyl esters (RME), and ethanol (E) was also tested by Lebedevas et al. [20]. The experimental and numerical analysis of the spray characteristics of biodiesel, dimethyl ether (DME), and biodieselethanol blended fuels (BDE) in the common-rail injection system were investigated by Kim et al. [21], concluding that the overall Sauter mean diameter has a stable value of 30 m for biodiesel and BDE20 sprays and 20 m for DME spray. The local Sauter mean diameter distribution as a function of distance from nozzle tip for diesel, biodiesel and biodiesel 20% ethanol blend is analyzed by Park et al. [22], concluding that the mean droplet diameter is very similar for the

three fuels in the rst 30 mm from the nozzle tip, but the reduction of the droplet size from 39 to 32 m in the region between 30 and 40 mm from the nozzle tip is only observed for diesel atomization, while biodiesel and ethanol blended biodiesel have a similar tendency of atomization with a gradually decreasing of droplet size over the entire range of measurement, down to 41 m for biodiesel and to 35 m for ethanolbiodiesel blend. Only a few references about the behavior of ethanoldiesel blends in boilers have been found. One of them is the experimental investigation about the combustion of various kerosenediesel and ethanoldiesel fuel blends in a continuous ow combustor presented by Asfar and Hamed [23], where remarkable improvement in combustion quality and reduction in pollutants and soot mass concentration in the exhaust are reported, as well as an unavoidable slight raise in NOx emissions. Increasing the percentage of alcohol in the blend beyond 10% does not seem to improve combustion or reduce pollutants and soot any further. The effects of the mixing of alcohol with liquid fuels on the combustion in furnaces are briey presented by Prieto-Fernandez et al. [24]. They found that the addition of methanol or ethanol to light oil reduces the amount of unburnt gas hydrocarbons and solid particulates in the exhaust gases. On the contrary, the addition of up to 15% of ethanol to light oil results in a slight decrease in the formation of nitrogen oxides, but for ethanol percentages above 15% the emission of nitrogen oxides is greater than that of pure light oil. Despite the lot of work developed on the combustion of alcohol light oil blends in engines, the use of this kind of blends in burners has not been deeply investigated. The present work is an attempt to contribute to the knowledge in this eld, comparing the combustion of bioethanol and a conventional heating oil (named as gasoil C in Spain) in boilers. The work has been subdivided in two parts; the experimental study of combustion and the simulation of fuel switching in the operation of large industrial boilers. 2. Experimental facilities and fuel characteristics The tests were carried out in a vertical 100 kW experimental boiler (see Fig. 1) designed and manufactured in the LITEC. An oil burner is installed in the roof of the combustion chamber, formed by a cylindrical water-cooled chamber. The combustion gases are extracted at the bottom by a chimney. The burner is a commercial device (SIME MACK 5), with a thermal power of 33.3 to 46.2 kW, normally used for domestic boilers. Different Danfoss nozzles with a 60 solid cone spray were used in the tests. Auxiliary facilities, as fuel and air supplies, gas extraction subsystem, cooling facility and safety controls, allowed a safe and reliable operation of the boiler. Two fuel pipes are connected to the burner, one for feeding and the other one for returning the excess of fuel to the tank. The fuel is thoroughly ltered (three lter stages) before it passes through the mass ow meter, regulation valve, fuel heater and atomizer. The lines have several bypasses in order to allow the cleaning of the lters and the start-up operations. The burner was modied so as to achieve a closer control of some important operating conditions. It is a compact model, incorporating an air fan, so that the air is admitted directly from the atmosphere through a manual damper. In order to control and measure the air ow rate, the air inlet was connected to a compressed air line. The air ow rate is measured and controlled automatically by means of a thermal mass ow meter and a control valve. Special attention was devoted to controlling the atomization temperature, as it can have a signicant inuence on the drop size and, hence, on the combustion process. The fuel temperature is usually measured at the burner inlet, but the injection line and the nozzle are cooled and heated, respectively, by the combustion air stream and the radiation from the ame. A thermocouple was installed immediately upstream of the nozzle in order to determine the actual atomization

J. Barroso et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 91 (2010) 15371550

1539

Fig. 1. Experimental boiler with thermal capacity up to 100 kW.

temperature. With air and fuel at room temperature and the fuel heater off, this sensor revealed that the fuel temperature at the atomizer reached 40 C for the lower fuel ow rate and ambient air temperatures, as a result of radiative heating from the ame. In order to control the atomization temperature, it was automatically controlled by an in-line electrical heater connected to a closed-loop regulator. The fuel temperature set-point was 45 C in all tests, since this is about the lowest temperature that could be achieved with fuel and air at ambient temperature (i.e., fuel heater off). The pressure in the combustion chamber was controlled by a manual damper in the exhaust duct and was kept slightly above atmospheric in order to avoid errors due to air leaks into the chamber. An independent water supply is used for the refrigeration of the boiler, which begins in a 15 m3 water tank. In addition to the feeding pump, the circuit includes another pump for partial recirculation of the water at the inlet of the cooling circuit. A control valve and the recirculation pump allow governing independently the water ow rate and the temperature in the walls of the combustion chamber. The system is adjusted so as to obtain a wall temperature around 60 C, sufcient to avoid condensations on the inner wall surfaces. Several lock-in controls automatically turn-off the burner in the following situations: when ame detector losses the signal, if wall and exit gas temperatures exceed certain limits, in the event of too low ow rate of cooling water or if the pressure in the combustion chamber is outside of the xed range.

Gas analysers, thermocouples, pressure gauges and ow meters record the main boiler parameters along the test. O2, CO2, SO2, CO and NOx in the exit gases are measured by two on-line gas analysers. In each test, conditions were kept stable at least for 192 s, which is the time needed to determine the Bacharach index. Gas composition, ow, temperature and pressure of fuel, mass ow rate of combustion air, temperatures of exhaust gases and inlet and outlet cooling water were recorded every second along the test. The ow rate of cooling water was manually recorded at the start and end of the tests. Gasoil and bioethanol were the fuels used in the tests. Their characteristics are displayed in Table 1. 3. Use of bioethanol in gasoil burners: some practical issues 3.1. Flame detection The ame detection system is a very important safety control in boilers. This system cuts the fuel supply when the ame is lost and it does not allow starting until a ame is detected in the combustion chamber. Flame detection in SIME MACK 5 burners for light oil is based on a photo-resistance sensor. This type of detector responds to the heat received from the ame by radiation and is adequate for highly radiating ames, as that of gasoil. However, it is not suitable for blue ames (e.g., natural gas) due to their much lower radiating power. Bioethanol ames are less radiating than those of gasoil, mainly in its

1540 Table 1 Main characteristics of fuels used in the tests. Parameter Chemical name Carbon (C) Hydrogen (H) Oxygen (O) Nitrogen (N) Sulphur (S) Ash (A) Humidity (W) Stoichiometric air High Heating Value Low Heating Value Density at 20 C Flash temperature Ignition temperature Boiling temperature at atmospheric pressure Vaporization pressure at 20 C Vaporization pressure at 45 C Kinematic viscosity at 40 C Kinematic viscosity at 20 C Unit %m %m %m %m %m %m %m Nm3/kg MJ/kg MJ/kg kg/m3 C C C bar bar mm2/s mm2/s Gasoil

J. Barroso et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 91 (2010) 15371550

Bioethanol C2H5OH 52.14 13.13 34.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.95 29.80 27.43 788 13 366 78.5 0.059 0.25 1.04 1.54

From C10H20 to C15H28 85.08 13.31 1.38 b 0.1 0.13 0.00 0.00 10.67 45.54 42.51 863 64 230 160385 0.003 4.35.2

(vaporization pressure) of bioethanol at atmospheric conditions can lead to cavitation inside the pump, reducing its useful life and inducing harmful pressure uctuations in the system. It was observed in the test that bubbles appeared in the pump discharge even when fuel deposit and pump were situated at the same height. Xing et al. [25] measured bubble-point vapor pressures for ethanol in the 324352 K temperature range, proving that Antoine's equation describes with satisfactory precision the correlation between vapor pressures and equilibrium temperatures, lnp = A B T C 1

root, where the detector is directed (see Fig. 2). This frequently caused false diagnostics of ame failure and, hence, burner shut-downs. A different kind of detector is, therefore, needed for bioethanol ames. In this work, the problem was solved by installing an ultraviolet cell of the type used in gas burners. 3.2. Cavitation Pump cavitation is another undesirable problem detected on switching from gasoil to bioethanol. The low boiling temperature

where, p is the vapor pressure in kPa, T is the equilibrium temperature in K, and A, B, C are constants with the following values for ethanol: A = 17.141, B = 3906.2 and C = 39.56. Extrapolating this equation to 45 C = 318.15 K (bioethanol temperature in the tests), the bubble-point vapor pressure is 23 kPa ( 0.7 gauge bar). Despite the vaporization pressure suggest the possibility of situating fuel deposit at identical level that pump, actually, owing to the pressure losses in the network, it is necessary to place the fuel deposit at a higher level in order to avoid cavitations problems. The problems disappeared when the fuel tank was placed 5 m above the pump. 3.3. Changes in viscosity Kinematic viscosity is another important parameter for fuel atomization. The burner used in the experiments allows atomizing fuels with a maximum viscosity of 6 mm2/s at temperatures of 20 C, therefore the nozzle should achieve a suitable atomization burning bioethanol with viscosities around 1.54 mm2/s. On the other hand, the viscosity could also affect fuel pump reducing their efciency and useful life, but a set of tests developed proved that pumps with bioethanol have a similar behavior to the one measured with gasoil in the range of work tested and that the characteristic curve of the pump remained unchanged after operating with bioethanol for 300 h. 3.4. Changes in fuel ow rate and thermal input As shown in Table 1, the properties of bioethanol are notably different from those of gasoil. Particularly relevant are the changes in density, heating value and oxygen content. Direct fuel substitution is not possible, but the ow rates of fuel and air must be readjusted in order to achieve a good performance. Among others, two basic options can be considered: Operation with the same atomization pressure used with gasoil Operation with the same thermal input Both alternatives have been specically addressed in this work. The following section describes the experimental program as well as a study of the practical implications for both alternatives. 4. Experimental study 4.1. Tests program 4.1.1. Tests with constant fuel ow The objective of this test series is to compare the combustion behaviour of both fuels for a similar mass ow rate of fuel. These tests were performed using the same nozzle and atomization pressure. The mass ow of fuel discharged by a pressure nozzle can be determined by the well-known equation [26],

Fig. 2. Pictures of gasoil and bioethanol ames for 0.50 GPH nozzles with atomization pressure of 9 bar and O2 = 0.6%. a) gasoil ame, b) bioethanol ame.

q Bf = CD Ao 2f pf

kg=s

J. Barroso et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 91 (2010) 15371550

1541

where CD is the nozzle discharge coefcient, Ao is the cross section of the nozzle discharge orice, f is the fuel density and pf is the gauge atomization pressure. A rst series of tests was performed with the same atomization pressure and nozzle used for gasoil. According to Eq. (2), the difference in mass ow rates with bioethanol and gasoil can be related to their density ratio as, Bb Q = b b = Bg Qg g s b g 3

one of 0.75 GPH of gasoil is identical to one 1.216 GPH of bioethanol. Since the size of the nozzles must be selected among those commercially available, the results with gasoil using nozzles of 0.5 and 0.75 GPH were compared, respectively, with data for bioethanol with nozzles of 0.75 and 1.25 GPH. In both cases, the combustion of gasoil and bioethanol can be compared for a very similar thermal power (differences b 8%). The comparison of the thermal inputs to the furnace for both fuels is shown in Table 2. 4.1.3. Thermal balance in the boiler Measured parameters were processed to estimate the efciency and heat losses in the boiler for the different cases. This section describes the variables involved and the calculation procedure. The useful heat is calculated by subtracting from the total power released the losses as sensible heat in the exhaust gases (q2), due to chemical and mechanical unburnt emissions (q3 and q4, respectively), and due to convection and radiation to the surroundings (q5). The heat lost with the exhaust gases is determined as a function of gas (Hgas) and air (Hair) enthalpies,   Hgas Hair Qd

being Q the volumetric ow. The subscript b is for bioethanol and g for gasoil. Therefore, the mass and volumetric ow of bioethanol will be 0.96 times lower and 1.05 times higher, respectively, than the corresponding values for gasoil. The ratio of thermal inputs () introduced to the furnace for both fuels is determined by, LHVb Bb W b = LHVg Bg W
g

Having into account the lower heating values (LHV) of both fuels, the thermal power introduced to the furnace is 1.48 times higher burning gasoil than bioethanol for the same atomization pressure. On the other hand, the proportion of stoichiometric air in Nm3/ kgfuel is 1.54 times higher for gasoil than for bioethanol. So, for the same nozzle and atomization pressure, the air mass ow needed for the stoichiometric combustion of gasoil is 1.47 times greater than for bioethanol. If the fuel pressure and the air regulation are kept constant, the excess air would be too high and the oxygen excess in the furnace would increase in 7.7% when bioethanol is burned, which would lead to a poor performance and even ame blow-off. Therefore, it is necessary to reduce the air ow in 1.47 times, in order to get the same excess of air if the injection pressure is kept constant when replacing gasoil by bioethanol. 4.1.2. Tests with constant thermal input A direct fuel switching, with the same nozzle and atomization pressure leads to a signicant reduction of thermal input. In general, this would not be acceptable, but the burner should be readjusted so as to satisfy the energy demanded by the process in which it is installed. In order to obtain the same quantity of energy with the two fuels tested, it is necessary to increase the consumption of bioethanol in 1.55 times with respect to that of gasoil (proportion between their caloric values). There are two ways for rising fuel ow: using the same nozzle but setting an atomization pressure for bioethanol higher than the one used for gasoil, or using the same atomization pressure, but installing a nozzle with a higher capacity than that used with gasoil. The atomization pressure for bioethanol should be 2.24 times higher than the one for gasoil in order to get the ow rate required. However, such a wide pressure range is not normally possible with commercial burners (like the one used in these tests). If atomization pressure is kept constant, a nozzle with a larger discharge area needs to be installed. The relative change in the size of the nozzle can be estimated from the ratio of mass ow rates by means of the Eq. (2). According to the usual standardization, the ratio between the ow areas of the nozzles can be expressed in terms of their GPH (gallons per hour), Aob Aog s g Bb GPHb = 1:662 = = Bg b GPHg 5

q2 = 100

Where Qd is the energy introduced by the fuel in kJ/kg, determined as the sum of the lower caloric value and the sensible heat of the fuel. The chemical unburnt loss can be determined from the carbon and sulphur contents in the fuel (Ct and St) and the composition of exhaust gases (CO2, SO2 and CO), by the following equation, q3 = 237 Ct + 0:375St CO 100 CO2 + SO2 + CO Qd % 7

The mechanical unburnt loss is determined, whenever the concentration of unburnt particles in the exhaust gases (Cnq) is known, by the following equation: q4 = 100 32700 Cnq Qd % 8

The heat loss by convection (Qcon) and radiation (Qrad) to the ambient is calculated by, q5 = 100 Qcon Qrad BQd % 9

where B is the mass ow rate of fuel in kg/s. The heat transfer coefcients required to calculate Qcon and Qrad depend on the specic boiler and on the type of fuel.
Table 2 Comparison of tests with constant thermal input. Atomization pressure G/B bar/bar Ratio of mass ow rate for fuels G/B kgs1/kgs1 Ratio of thermal power for fuels G/B kW/kW 1.08 1.08 1.09

For 0.50 GPH-G/0.75 GPH-B nozzles 8.7/8.8 0.69 9.3/9.3 0.70 15/14.8 0.70 For 0.75 GPH-G/1.25 GPH-B nozzles 7.6/7.5 0.63 9.3/9.7 0.61 14.8/14.9 0.63

For example, a nozzle of 0.5 GPH working with gasoil produces the same energy as a nozzle of 0.811 GPH working with bioethanol; and

0.98 0.95 0.97

1542

J. Barroso et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 91 (2010) 15371550

Finally, the boiler efciency can be easily determined from the heat losses as = 100q2 + q3 + q4 + q5 % 10

4.2. Experimental results 4.2.1. Results of tests with constant fuel ow Four series of tests were performed, each of them including measurements for a wide range of oxygen concentrations in the ue gases. The base case is named 0.50 GPH 60S 100% G: a 0.50 GPH nozzle with 60 solid angle, with 100% swirl and using gasoil (G). Bioethanol was burned in the other three series. The difference among them is the level of swirl of the air ow. The strongest swirl (100%) was achieved with the original conguration of the burner; i.e., the six inclined slots in the air-stabilisers were maintained open. In the other two cases, the open section of those slots was reduced to 50%. In one case (50%L), three of the slots were fully closed with an adhesive tape (see Fig. 3a). In the other case (50%C), the innermost half of the six slots was sealed (see Fig. 3b). These modications were an attempt to improve the stability of the ame, since some oscillations in the attachment of the bioethanol ame to the burner exit were observed in the preliminary trials with the same nozzle used for gasoil (constant fuel ow rate), specially for low injection pressures. The partial sealing of the swirl slots proved an effective means to improve ame stability. Results for the different congurations of the ame stabiliser are compared for the test series with constant fuel ow rate. In order to provide a complete description of combustion performance with both fuels, the results with gasoil and bioethanol were compared for different airfuel ratios.

Fig. 4. CO emissions vs. O2 in ue gases, burning gasoil and bioethanol with 100% and 50% swirling, closing 3 of the 6 air slots (L) or the central half of all air slots (C).

The variation of CO emissions with respect to oxygen is shown for two atomization pressures in Fig. 4. The emissions are consistently smaller with gasoil. At high excess air, both fuels display a plateau, with CO levels 100 ppm lower with gasoil. The steep increase in CO emissions as airfuel ratio decreases is observed at [O2] b 1.5% for bioethanol and is delayed until [O2] b 0.7% for gasoil. No signicant inuence of atomization pressure is observed for any of the fuels. With bioethanol, the congurations with the swirl slots partially closed display similar results, with CO levels slightly lower than those obtained with maximum swirl. It should be noted that the inner wall temperature of the combustion chamber was probably lower for the bioethanol ames, due to the reduced thermal input. This might contribute to some extent to the increased CO emissions for bioethanol, but with the data available it was not possible to assess the importance of this effect. For this reason, tests with constant thermal input are considered more representative of the inuence of the fuel type on CO emissions. The hypothesis of an excessive cooling of the combustion chamber when burning bioethanol is supported by the comparison of gas temperature at the boiler exit, which, as it can be observed in Fig. 5, is signicantly lower than with gasoil. NOx emissions, corrected to an oxygen concentration in ue gases of 3%, are represented in Fig. 6 for gasoil and bioethanol. A smooth raise of NOx emissions is observed as the level of oxygen increases until 1.5%, for all the fuels and burner congurations tested. A difference of around 60 ppm exits between the emission of NOx for gasoil ames and the values obtained with bioethanol. This difference is attributed primarily

Fig. 3. Modication of air swirler, a) closing the half of air slots; b) closing the central half of all air slots.

Fig. 5. Gas temperature vs. O2, burning gasoil and bioethanol.

J. Barroso et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 91 (2010) 15371550

1543

Fig. 6. NOx emissions (corrected to 3% O2) vs. O2 in ue gases, burning gasoil and bioethanol with 100% and 50% swirling, closing 3 of the 6 air slots (L) or the central half of all air slots (C).

Fig. 8. Bacharach index vs. O2 in ue gases, burning gasoil and bioethanol with 100% and 50% swirling, closing 3 of the 6 air slots (L) or the central half of all air slots (C).

to the presence of certain amount of nitrogen in the gasoil, which does not exist for bioethanol (see Table 1). Also, the lower thermal power of the bioethanol ame is expected to result in reduced ame temperatures and, hence, in smaller amounts of thermal NO. The normalized SO2 emission oscillates between 26 and 37 ppm with gasoil (see Fig. 7). Bioethanol does not contain any sulphur and, therefore, no SO2 emissions were detected. A strong inuence of the excess of air on the Bacharach Index in smoke (BI) is observed in Fig. 8. In all cases, the levels of opacity in smoke for gasoil combustion are far beyond the values obtained with the different alcohol variants. The opacity quickly grows as the excess air is reduced, reaching the value of 9 for oxygen concentration around 1% and 0.4% with gasoil and bioethanol, respectively. The difference in the sooting behavior of both fuels is apparent in Fig. 2. Gasoil produces a much brighter ame, where large amounts of soot are already present at the ame root. On the contrary, the base of the bioethanol ame is blue with only a few weak yellowish streaks; signicant amounts of soot are only formed beyond 12 burner diameters downstream of the ame stabilizer. 4.2.2. Results of test with constant thermal input The combustion of bioethanol and gasoil was compared for two different levels of thermal input, which required using nozzles of different capacity. For the same injection pressure, nozzles of 0.5 and 0.75 GPH with gasoil yield similar thermal inputs as those with 0.75 and

1.25 GPH nozzles for bioethanol, respectively (see Table 2). Injection pressures were varied in the range 7.615 bar, corresponding to the lower limit for which a stable ame could be sustained and the maximum operating pressure of the burner. The tests were named as xGPH60S-ybar-Z, where x is the nozzle capacity, y is the atomization pressure in bar (gauge) and Z is the initial letter of the fuel tested (G/B), for example, 0.50GPH60S-8.8bar-G is a gasoil test with a 0.50 GPH nozzle at atomization pressure of 8.8 gbar. The emission of carbon monoxide with respect to oxygen is shown in Figs. 9 and 10, for the nozzle/fuels 0.75/0.50 GPH60S bioethanol/ gasoil and 1.25/0.75 GPH60S bioethanol/gasoil, respectively. CO emission with bioethanol is higher than with diesel oil for injection pressures lower than 14.8 bar. This difference diminishes as the atomization pressure and the oxygen percentage increase, disappearing for pressures around 14.8 bar and being much smaller for larger nozzles (Fig. 10) at all the pressures. The higher CO emissions measured for bioethanol is an indication of less complete combustion than for the equivalent cases with gasoil. This can be a result of a number of effects: differences in spray characteristics, in the physico-chemical properties of the fuels or in the airfuel mixing pattern. Since bioethanol is less viscous than gasoil, and for the same nozzle design and injection pressure, drop size is expected to be similar (or even smaller) with this fuel than with bioethanol; therefore, differences in the properties of the spray are not thought to explain the results The lower boiling temperature of the bioethanol favours a faster evaporation and combustion than for gasoil drops of the same size and, therefore,

Fig. 7. SO2 vs. O2, burning gasoil and bioethanol with 100% and 50% swirling, closing 3 of the 6 air slots (L) or the central half of all air slots (C).

Fig. 9. CO vs. O2, burning gasoil and bioethanol at similar input energy (0.75 GPH for bioethanol and 0.50 GPH for gasoil).

1544

J. Barroso et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 91 (2010) 15371550

Fig. 10. CO vs. O2, burning gasoil and bioethanol at similar input energy (1.25 GPH for bioethanol and 0.75 GPH for gasoil).

would be expected to lead to a more efcient combustion. However, evaporation rates might be enhanced in the much more radiating gasoil ame than in the bioethanol ame, which is blue in its root and, visually, much less bright in global terms; therefore, this may explain, at least in part, the increased CO emissions for bioethanol. Changes in the airfuel mixing pattern are also anticipated due to the lower ratio of air-to-fuel mass ow rates with bioethanol (by 1.47 times with respect to gasoil). Therefore, the capacity of the air stream to drag and disperse the drops of fuel is smaller and can lead to a slower mixing process in the bioethanol ame. Both effects (delayed evaporation and slower mixing) may lead to an enhanced axial penetration of the spray and, therefore, a

slower dispersion of the fuel into the oxidizer stream. This interpretation is conrmed by the increased visible ame length for bioethanol with respect to the equivalent cases with gasoil (see Figs. 11 and 12). Since the amount of air per kg of fuel cannot be adjusted arbitrarily, some modications on the geometry of the throat and the stabilizer of burners designed for gasoil might be necessary to improve the aerodynamics of the ame and minimize CO emissions when operated with bioethanol. The comparison of photographs of the ame obtained burning gasoil and bioethanol, with similar thermal power inputs (nozzle of 0.75 GPH for bioethanol and 0.50 GPH for the gasoil and 9 bar of atomization pressure), for a low and high Bacharach index are shown in Figs. 11 and 12, respectively. In these gures, it is clearly observed that the gasoil ame contains a much higher amount of soot than the bioethanol ame. This can to a certain extent be advantageous by the higher ame emissivity, but it also has the disadvantage of an enhanced tendency to the generation of black smoke. Also it can be appraised, more clearly in the Fig. 11, that the gasoil ame is shorter than the one of bioethanol. This observation seems coincident with the reasoning pointed previously about which the mixture process is slower for bioethanol, because this fuel needs a small air ow by mass unity of fuel and therefore the air ow has a smaller capacity to reduce the axial speed of the bioethanol drops, which completed its combustion to a greater distance of the burner. CO emissions are similar at high pressures, possibly because the drops are sufciently small to be easily dragged and entrained into the air stream, which together with the shorter evaporation times of small drops leads to a fast release and combustion of fuel vapour in the high temperature ame zone, without appreciable emissions of CO. The variation of the Bacharach index with respect to oxygen for the two sets of nozzles is represented in Figs. 13 and 14. For the same excess of oxygen, a cleaner combustion is achieved as the injection

Fig. 11. Photographs for gasoil a) and for bioethanol b), at 9 bar of atomization pressure and cero Bacharach index. a) Gasoil 0.50 GPH, O2 = 5.8%; CO = 13 ppm, b) Bioethanol 0.75 GPH, O2 = 0.7%; CO = 380 ppm.

Fig. 12. Photographs for gasoil a) and for bioethanol b), at 9 bar of atomization pressure and high Bacharach index. a) Gasoil 0.50 GPH, O2 = 0.7%; CO = 88 ppm; IB = 9, b) Bioethanol 0.75 GPH, O2 = 0.1%; CO N 5000 ppm; IB = 6.

J. Barroso et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 91 (2010) 15371550

1545

Fig. 13. BI vs. O2, burning gasoil and bioethanol at similar thermal input (0.75 GPH nozzle for bioethanol and 0.50 GPH for gasoil).

Fig. 15. Gas temperature vs. O2, burning gasoil and bioethanol at similar input energy (0.75 GPH for bioethanol and 0.50 GPH for gasoil).

pressure and thermal input increase for both fuels. In all cases, soot emission is much smaller for bioethanol than for the corresponding gasoil ames. The difference observed between both fuels is attributed to its chemical composition. The ethanol is an oxygenated molecule, with simple CC bonds and a higher H/C ratio than gasoil, which results in a much lower tendency to form soot particles in the ame. The different behaviour of both fuels is still greater than suggested by Figs. 13 and 14 if it is taken into account that lower opacities and higher CO emissions (indicative of a less efcient airfuel mixing) are simultaneously obtained with bioethanol. This is an important difference between both fuels, with a clearly advantageous behaviour of bioethanol with respect to the gasoil, since it is possible to burn bioethanol with a reduced excess of air without appreciable soot emissions. On the one hand, a reduction in the amount of combustion air results in an increased efciency, since the mass ow rate of combustion products is smaller and, for the same exhaust gas temperature, a reduction in the losses by sensible heat in ue gases is expected. On the other hand, the ame of bioethanol can tolerate better eventual deviations from the optimum value of the air/ fuel ratio and, in general, drifts in burner performance even at such low level of oxygen in exit gases. Figs. 15 and 16 show the exhaust gas temperature for gasoil and bioethanol as a function of the oxygen concentration in the ue gases. The values and their variation with excess air are similar for both fuels. This conrms that the difference observed in Fig. 5 was related to the lower thermal input of the bioethanol ames; when thermal

Fig. 16. Gas temperature vs. O2, burning gasoil and bioethanol at similar input energy (1.25 GPH for bioethanol and 0.75 GPH for gasoil).

input is kept approximately the same, as in Figs. 15 and 16, exit temperatures are very similar for both fuels. Normalized sulphur dioxide emissions, shown in Figs. 17 and 18, are very similar to those shown in Fig. 7, with negligible values for bioethanol (sulphur-free fuel).

Fig. 14. BI vs. O2, burning gasoil and bioethanol at similar input energy (1.25 GPH for bioethanol and 0.75 GPH for gasoil).

Fig. 17. Normalized SO2 vs. O2, burning gasoil and bioethanol at similar input energy (0.75 GPH for bioethanol and 0.50 GPH for gasoil).

1546

J. Barroso et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 91 (2010) 15371550

Fig. 18. Normalized SO2 vs. O2, burning gasoil and bioethanol at similar input energy (1.25 GPH for bioethanol and 0.75 GPH for gasoil).

Fig. 21. Normalized NOx vs. O2, burning gasoil and bioethanol at similar input energy (0.75 GPH for bioethanol and 0.50 GPH for gasoil).

A practical consequence of the difference in SO2 emissions is a reduction of the dew point when gasoil is replaced by bioethanol. As shown in Figs. 19 and 20, the dew point is about 60 C lower for bioethanol, leading to a reduced risk of condensation and corrosion of the boiler.

Fig. 19. Dew point vs. O2, burning gasoil and bioethanol at similar input energy (0.75 GPH for bioethanol and 0.50 GPH for gasoil).

NOx emissions are consistently lower for bioethanol, with differences in the range 3060 ppm with respect to the equivalent gasoil tests (see Figs. 21 and 22). As previously noted, this is ascribed to a lower amount of both fuel-NO (negligible for bioethanol) and thermal-NO. Even though the thermal input was about the same for both fuels, lower peak temperatures are expected for bioethanol because its adiabatic ame temperature is 100 C than for gasoil, for the same stoichiometric ratio. The unburnt heat losses (q3 + q4) are greater in the gasoil than in bioethanol combustion (see Figs. 23 and 24), but this difference diminishes when the atomization pressure and fuel ow increase. The heat losses with exhaust gases (q2) are similar for both fuels (see Figs. 25 and 26). The heat losses by radiation/convection to the surroundings (q5) also display a similar behaviour for both fuels (to see Figs. 27 and 28). The results indicate that the losses by radiation and convection to the ambient increase with the pressure and fuel ow (greater power). The small differences observed in this heat loss for the gasoil and bioethanol in Fig. 28 must be ascribed to the higher power released in the case of the gasoil, since the nozzle that offers the same power for bioethanol is of 0.81 GPH, but this size of nozzle is not commercially available and one with a slightly lower capacity had to be used in tests (0.75 GPH). The efciency is determined with these heat losses and the values obtained are plotted in Figs. 29 and 30. For similar thermal inputs

Fig. 20. Dew point vs. O2, burning gasoil and bioethanol at similar input energy (1.25 GPH for bioethanol and 0.75 GPH for gasoil).

Fig. 22. NOx vs. O2, burning gasoil and bioethanol at similar input energy (1.25 GPH for bioethanol and 0.75 GPH for gasoil).

J. Barroso et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 91 (2010) 15371550

1547

Fig. 23. Unburnt heat losses vs. O2, burning gasoil and bioethanol at similar input energy (0.75 GPH for bioethanol and 0.50 GPH for gasoil).

Fig. 25. Heat losses with exhaust gases vs. O2, burning gasoil and bioethanol at similar input energy (0.75 GPH for bioethanol and 0.50 GPH for gasoil).

(Fig. 30), the efciencies are similar for both fuels. A slightly higher efciency was obtained with bioethanol when the thermal input for this fuel was lower than for gasoil (Fig. 29).

The gas temperature at the furnace exit is determined by the following equation, tHe = t + 273:15 273:15  adiab  tadiab + 273:153 0:6 +1 CTE aF B
b

11

5. Assessment of changes in heat transfer due to fuel switching The experimental results discussed in previous sections reveal some differences in ame and emissions with gasoil and bioethanol when both are burnt in the same burner/boiler. The potential impact on the thermal performance of a boiler is a relevant issue that should be considered when planning to replace the conventional fuel (gasoil, in this case) by bioethanol. This section analyses the expected changes in the heat transfer characteristics of a generic industrial boiler due to the substitution of gasoil by gasoil/bioethanol blends.

Where tadiab is the adiabatic ame temperature, CTE is a constant parameter that includes the Boltzmann number, and the area, efciency and height of the peak temperature zone in the furnace, aF is the ame emissivity and Bb is the mass ow rate of fuel. The calculation of every heat exchange surface is solved iteratively, using the balance of energy and heat transfer equation for each surface. The energy delivered by the hot uid (the combustion gases),  Qi = Bb Hg
in i Hg out i

kW

12

5.1. Methodology The simulation involves the evaluation of heat transfer in the different heat-exchange components of a generic, large-capacity industrial boiler, including: furnace, steam reheaters, economizer and air heater. The calculation procedure follows the recommendations of Ref. [27]. The results on unburnt losses determined in the previous section for gasoil and bioethanol were used as input data for the calculations. is equal to the one absorbed for the cooler uid (steam in reheaters, water in economizer and air in air heater), Qi = Di hout i hin i kW 13

Where Hg and h are the enthalpies of gas and cold uid, respectively and D is the mass ow of cold uid. Subscript i takes the name of sh for superheater, rh for reheater, eco for economizer,

Fig. 24. Unburnt heat losses vs. O2, burning gasoil and bioethanol at similar input energy (1.25 GPH for bioethanol and 0.75 GPH for gasoil).

Fig. 26. Heat losses with exhaust gases vs. O2, burning gasoil and bioethanol at similar input energy (1.25 GPH for bioethanol and 0.75 GPH for gasoil).

1548

J. Barroso et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 91 (2010) 15371550

Fig. 27. Heat losses by convection/radiation to the surround vs. O2, burning gasoil and bioethanol at similar input energy (0.75 GPH for bioethanol and 0.50 GPH for gasoil).

Fig. 29. Efciency vs. O2, burning gasoil and bioethanol at similar input energy (0.75 GPH for bioethanol and 0.50 GPH for gasoil).

and ah for air heater. The conditions are denoted with subscript in for inlet and out for the outlet of each heat exchanger. The closure is accomplished by the heat transfer equation, Qi = Ui Ai Ti
P

Where Qu is the useful heat power of the boiler, determined as the sum of superheated, reheated and saturated steam powers produced in the boiler,
Qu = Dsh hout
sh hin w

kW

14

+ Drh hout

rh hin rh

+ Dsat hout

sat hin w

kW

Being U the heat transfer coefcient, A the heat transfer area, and Ti the logarithmic mean temperature. The gas speed across every heat exchanger is required for determining heat transfer coefcients and its value depends on the consumption of fuel, which in his turn depends on the gas temperature at the exit of the boiler (outlet of air heater). At the beginning of the calculation process the consumption of fuel is assumed, then the heat exchanges are solved in every heat-transfer surface and the gas temperature at the boiler and the associated heat losses are determined. Once the heat lost with the exhaust gases is known, the boiler efciency is determined by losses method (Eq. (11)), and fuel consumption (B) and burnt fuel (Bb) are calculated by the following equations, B= Qu 100 LHV kg=s 15

17 Where hin_w is the feed water enthalpy, and Dsat is the mass ow of saturated steam removed from the drum for plant necessities. This process is repeated until the guess and calculated values of fuel consumption are identical. 5.2. Characteristics of the simulated boiler The simulations are carried out in a power boiler that produces superheated and reheated steam at 540 C. The nominal boiler capacity is 974 t/h of superheated steam at a pressure of 16.7 MPa and 876.4 t/h of reheated steam at 3.6 MPa. The fuel consumption in the original boiler at nominal conditions is 69.5 t/h. A block diagram of the heat transfer surfaces of the simulated boiler is shown in Fig. 31. 5.3. Performance of boiler for different gasoil and bioethanol blends

Bb = B

  100q4 100

kg=s

16

The fact that all heat transfer coefcients are readjusted when the fuel is changed in an industrial boiler make difcult to correctly

Fig. 28. Heat losses by convection/radiation to the surround vs. O2, burning gasoil and bioethanol at similar input energy (1.25 GPH for bioethanol and 0.75 GPH for gasoil).

Fig. 30. Efciency vs. O2, burning gasoil and bioethanol at similar input energy (1.25 GPH for bioethanol and 0.75 GPH for gasoil).

J. Barroso et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 91 (2010) 15371550

1549

Fig. 31. Block diagram of the heat transfer surfaces of the simulated industrial boiler.

evaluate the fuel consumption needed to produce a given amount of steam. In order to evaluate the inuence of the change of fuel, the boiler performance is simulated by the calculation procedure described in Section 5.1. The main results of simulations for gasoil/bioethanol blends in the boiler are shown in Table 3, keeping the design values for the oxygen excess in exhaust gases at 1.23%, for the fraction of gas recirculation (r) to the furnace at 0.175, and for the cooling water in the superheater (Dcool) at 17 t/h.

Table 3 Main results from simulations burning a blend of gasoil and bioethanol. x 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 % 95.27 95.21 95.14 95.08 95.01 94.94 94.86 94.79 94.71 94.63 94.54 B kg/s 15.927 16.257 16.567 16.891 17.227 17.575 17.927 18.310 18.699 19.094 19.507 Dsh t/h 572.8 610.4 647.8 686.5 726.4 767.7 809.9 854.6 900.3 947.2 996.0 Drh t/h 393.8 436.0 479.1 524.8 573.1 624.0 677.2 734.4 794.2 856.6 922.6 Qu kW 424,226 454,281 484,292 515,502 547,869 581,474 615,964 652,565 690,213 728,989 769,498 tge C 128.3 130.9 133.5 136.0 138.5 141.0 143.4 146.0 148.6 151.2 153.8 tadp C 60.2 112.0 115.6 117.5 118.7 119.6 120.2 120.6 120.9 121.1 121.3

Nomenclature: x is the fraction of gasoil in the blend, is the boiler efciency, B is the fuel consumption, Dsh and Drh are superheated and reheated steam ows, respectively, Qu is the useful heat, tge and tadp are the temperatures of the exhaust gases and acid dew point, respectively.

As shown in Table 3, despite the efciency slightly increases when the fraction of bioethanol in the blend is raised, an appreciable penalization in the amount of useful heat (reduction in the steam ows) is veried, maintaining the gas fraction recirculated to the furnace, the cooling water ow in the superheater and the air excess at their design values. With the purpose of achieving the desired values of steam production for high fractions of alcohol in the blend, different modications to the design conditions were tested. A reduction in the gas recirculation fraction to the furnace led to a marginal improvement in boiler performance, not enough to achieve that objective. Thus, this change had to be combined with lower values of the oxygen excess in exhaust gases and of the cooling water ow in superheater in order to increase performance when reducing the amount of gasoil in the blend. The results obtained by modifying simultaneously the oxygen excess, the cooling water ow and the gas recirculation fraction are illustrated in Table 4. The results show that it is practically impossible to reach the nominal capacity of the boiler studied for proportions of bioethanol in the blend higher than 40%, even by adjusting the three parameters mentioned at their minimum values; further reductions are not feasible since the recirculation gas fraction was set at 0%, the cooling water ow cannot exceed its maximum design value, and lastly, it is not convenient to reduce the oxygen excess under the value in which unburnt losses grow abruptly. The inuence of blend composition on efciency and useful heat in the boiler is easier to observe in the Fig. 32 for the case in which the recirculation fraction, the cooling water ow and the air excess are simultaneously changed.

Table 4 Main results burning a blend of gasoil and bioethanol modifying r, O2 and Dcool (cooling water in superheater). x 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 % 94.7 94.7 94.7 94.7 94.6 94.6 94.6 94.6 94.6 94.6 94.5 B kg/s 21.1 21.7 22.3 22.8 23.5 22.9 22.0 21.1 20.4 19.7 19.1 Dsh t/h 745.1 799.5 854.5 911.7 971.1 981.9 982.6 977.6 979.7 975.7 976.2 Drh t/h 564.1 628.5 695.5 766.7 842.4 873.5 873.7 872.6 870.7 880.1 899.4 Qu kW 558801 602663 647325 693926 742612 753781 754253 750858 751959 750627 753496 tge C 146.6 148.0 149.5 151.1 152.9 153.7 153.4 153.3 153.0 153.4 154.1 r 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.040 0.050 0.090 0.100 0.150 0.195 O2 % 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.2 Dcool t/h 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 19.0 17.0 17.0

Fig. 32. Efciency and useful heat vs. proportion of gasoil in the blend, changing recirculation fraction, cooling water ow and air excess.

1550

J. Barroso et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 91 (2010) 15371550

The simulation results indicate that a fuel change from gasoil to bioethanol/gasoil blends with gasoil proportions lower than 0.5 should not be accomplished in an industrial boiler designed for gasoil or fuel oil, unless considerable modications in the design of the boiler are implemented. 6. Conclusions A series of combustion tests and simulations have been performed in order to evaluate some of the potential issues that may arise when gasoil is replaced by bioethanol or its blends with gasoil in heating or industrial boilers. In the rst place, the operation of the burner (designed for gasoil) must be modied in order to achieve a similar thermal input with bioethanol, due to the great differences in the heating value and composition (especially, oxygen content) of both fuels. The capacity of the atomization nozzle and the air mass ow rate should be modied in order to work with higher fuel rates and relative lower air ow rates. The smaller airfuel mass ratio in bioethanol ames results in a higher axial penetration of the spray and, hence, can hinder ame stabilization; this may require some redesign of the ame stabiliser. The much lower luminosity of the alcohol ame may prevent the use of some of the ame detectors normally used for gasoil, which should be substituted by other devices (e.g., UV detectors). Also, special attention should be given to cavitation problems in the fuel feeding system. Bioethanol displayed a much smaller tendency to soot formation than gasoil. This causes the ame to be much less luminous and enables keeping the opacity index at very low values down to very low excesses of oxygen. The alcohol does not contain nitrogen and sulphur, which results in no SO2 emissions and NOx values about half of those measured for gasoil. In many cases, CO emissions were higher for bioethanol. This is ascribed to the fact that the burner was originally designed for gasoil and some modications or adjustments may be necessary to optimise bioethanol combustion; for example, differences between CO emissions with both fuels disappeared for high injection pressures. The various heat losses and the boiler efciency were evaluated for both bioethanol, gasoil and their blends in a generic industrial boilers. This analysis revealed that fuel switching can modify heat transfer in the boiler and, hence, affect the steam production capacity. The results indicate that steam production is reduced as the fraction of bioethanol in the fuel blend increases and that the fraction of gasoil in the blend should not be lower than 50% to keep at acceptable levels the penalty in the useful heat production, owing to the low heating value of bioethanol. In order to counteract this effect, a reduction of gasoil in the blend should be accompanied by certain modications in the boiler operation to avoid the reduction in steam production. Acknowledgements This work was funded by E&M Combustion and the CDTI through the IDEA+2 project. The help of Luis Ojeda with the experimental tasks is gratefully acknowledged.

References
[1] A.C. Hansen, Q. Zhang, P.W.L. Lyne, Ethanoldiesel fuel blends a review, Bioresource Technology 96 (2005) 277285. [2] A.K. Agarwal, Biofuels (alcohols and biodiesel) applications as fuels for internal combustion engines, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 33 (2007) 233271. [3] S.A. Basha, K.R. Gopal, S. Jebaraj, A review on biodiesel production, combustion, emissions and performance, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13 (2009) 16281634. [4] E.C. Petrou, C.P. Pappis, Biofuels: a survey on pros and cons, Energy & Fuels 23 (2009) 10551066. [5] A. Farrell, R.J. Plevin, B.T. Turner, A.D. Jones, M. O'Hare, D.M. Kammen, Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals, Science 311 (2006) 506508. [6] S. Parag, V. Raghavan, Experimental investigation of burning rates of pure ethanol and ethanol blended fuels, Combustion and Flame 156 (2009) 9971005. [7] B.-Q. He, J.-X. Wang, J.-M. Hao, X.-G. Yan, J.-H. Xiao, A study on emission characteristics of an EFI engine with ethanol blended gasoline fuels, Atmospheric Environment 37 (2003) 949957. [8] M. Bahattin Celik, Experimental determination of suitable ethanolgasoline blend rate at high compression ratio for gasoline engine, Applied Thermal Engineering 28 (2008) 396404. [9] G. Naja, B. Ghobadian, T. Tavakoli, D.R. Buttsworth, T.F. Yusaf, M. Faizollahnejad, Performance and exhaust emissions of a gasoline engine with ethanol blended gasoline fuels using articial neural network, Applied Energy 86 (2009) 630639. [10] M. Ameria, B. Ghobadianb, I. Baratian, Technical comparison of a CHP using various blends of gasohol in an IC engine, Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 14691474. [11] R.L. McCormik, J.D. Ross, M.S. Graboski, Effect of several oxygenates on regulated emissions from heavy-duty diesel engines, Environmental Science & Technology 31 (1997) 11441150. [12] B.-Q. He, S.-J. Shuai, J.-X. Wang, H. He, The effect of ethanol blended diesel fuels on emissions from a diesel engine, Atmospheric Environment 37 (2003) 49654971. [13] X. Shi, Y. Yu, H. He, S. Shuai, J. Wang, R. Li, Emission characteristics using methyl soyateethanoldiesel fuel blends on a diesel engine, Fuel 84 (2005) 15431549. [14] M. Lapuerta, O. Armas, J.M. Herreros, Emissions from a dieselbioethanol blend in an automotive diesel engine, Fuel 87 (2008) 2531. [15] X. Lu, J. Ma, L. Ji, Z. Huang, Simultaneous reduction of NOx emission and smoke opacity of biodiesel-fueled engines by port injection of ethanol, Fuel 87 (2008) 12891296. [16] C.D. Rakopoulos, K.A. Antonopoulos, D.C. Rakopoulos, Experimental heat release analysis and emissions of a HSDI diesel engine fueled with ethanoldiesel fuel blends, Energy 32 (2007) 17911808. [17] H. Kim, B. Choi, Effect of ethanoldiesel blend fuels on emission and particle size distribution in a common-rail direct injection diesel engine with warm-up catalytic converter, Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 22222228. [18] Z. Sahin, O. Durgun, Prediction of the effects of ethanoldiesel fuel blends on diesel engine performance characteristics, combustion, exhaust emissions, and cost, Energy & Fuels 23 (2009) 17071717. [19] H. Chen, S.-J. Shuai, J.-X. Wang, Study on combustion characteristics and PM emission of diesel engines using esterethanoldiesel blended fuels, Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 31 (2007) 29812989. [20] S. Lebedevas, L. Lebedeva, V. Makareviciene, P. Janulis, E. Sendzikiene, Usage of fuel mixtures containing ethanol and rapeseed oil methyl esters in a diesel engine, Energy & Fuels 23 (2009) 217223. [21] H.J. Kim, H.K. Suh, S.H. Park, C.S. Lee, An experimental and numerical investigation of atomization characteristics of biodiesel, dimethyl ether, and biodieselethanol blended fuel, Energy & Fuels 22 (2008) 20912098. [22] S.H. Park, H.K. Suh, C.S. Lee, Nozzle ow and atomization characteristics of ethanol blended biodiesel fuel, Renewable Energy 35 (1) (2010) 144150. [23] K.R. Asfar, H. Hamed, Combustion of fuel blends, Energy Conversion and Management 39 (10) (1998) 10811093. [24] I. Prieto-Fernandez, J.C. Luengo-Garcia, D. Ponte-Gutierrez, Improvements in light oil combustion by adding small quantities of alcohol. Possible application in cold starts up, in thermal power stations, Fuel Processing Technology 60 (1999) 1527. [25] Y. Xing, Y. Guo, D. Li, W. Fang, R. Lin, Measurement of bubble-point vapor pressure for systems of JP-10 with ethanol, Energy & Fuels 21 (2007) 10481051. [26] A.H. Lefevre, Atomization and sprays, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, New York, 1989. [27] Power and Nuclear Stations Handbook, General Editors: B.A. Grigorieba and B.M Zorina, Energy Ed., Moscow, 1982.