4.7 Article

Gasification of two solid recovered fuels (SRFs) in a lab-scale fluidized bed reactor: Influence of experimental conditions on process performance and release of HCl, H2S, HCN and NH3

Journal

FUEL PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY
Volume 142, Issue -, Pages 107-114

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2015.10.006

Keywords

SRF; Gasification; Fluidized bed reactor; Syngas; Minor contaminants

Funding

  1. European Regional Development Funds (ERDF, FEDER Programa de Competitivitat de Catalunya)
  2. Spanish Government [CTQ2011-22767]
  3. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [RYC-2011-09202]
  4. Universitat Rovira i Virgili

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper studied the gasification of two solid recovered fuels (SRFs) in a laboratory scale fluidized bed reactor. The gasification performance and syngas quality were assessed under the influence of: gasification temperature (750 degrees C and 850 degrees C), SRF feedstock (RT or FL), bed material (sand or dolomite) and gasification agent (air or O-2/H2O). One of the parameters to evaluate the gasification performance was the concentration of minor contaminants (tar, N, S and Cl compounds) in the syngas. High temperature (850 degrees C) and the use of calcined dolomite as bed material improved gas quality (increasing H-2/CO ratio, carbon conversion and reducing tar content) during SRF gasification. The use of O-2/H2O also enhanced gas composition (i.e. higher calorific value), although further research is needed to fully understand the release of minor contaminants under these conditions. The results indicated that the presence of minor contaminants in the syngas was strongly affected by the composition of the SRF itself, the composition of the ash fraction and the bed material, and provided valuable information to assess the most adequate conditions for SRF gasification. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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