4.7 Article

Process optimization and robustness analysis of municipal solid waste gasification using air-carbon dioxide mixtures as gasifying agent

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH
Volume 43, Issue 9, Pages 4715-4728

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/er.4611

Keywords

computational fluid dynamics; MSW gasification; air-CO2 mixture gasification; optimization; robust conditions; design of experiments; Monte Carlo

Funding

  1. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) [IF01772, IF/01772/2014]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this work, a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model was coupled with an advanced statistical strategy combining design of experiments (DoE) and the Monte Carlo method to comparatively optimize and test the robustness of two municipal solid waste (MSW) gasification processes one using air-carbon dioxide (CO2) mixtures as a gasifying agent and the other using air alone. A 3(k) full factorial design of 18 computer simulations was performed using as input factors for air-CO2 mixtures the equivalence ratio and CO2-to-MSW ratio, while MSW feeding rate and air flow rate were used for air gasification. The selected responses were CO2, H-2, CO, and CnHm generation, CH4/H-2 and H-2/CO ratios, carbon conversion, and cold gas efficiency (CGE). Findings were that DoE allowed determining the best-operating conditions to achieve optimal syngas quality. Monte Carlo identified the best-operating conditions reaching a more stable high-quality syngas. Air-CO2 mixture gasification showed enhanced responses with major improvements in CO2 conversion and CGE, both up to a 13% increase. The optimal operating conditions that set the optimized responses showed to not always imply the most stable set of values to operate the system. Finally, this combined optimization process performance revealed to grant professionals the ability to make smarter decisions in an industrial environment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available