4.7 Article

Characteristics of co-combustion and kinetic study on hydrochar with oil shale: A thermogravimetric analysis

Journal

APPLIED THERMAL ENGINEERING
Volume 110, Issue -, Pages 1420-1427

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.09.063

Keywords

Oil shale; Hydrochar; Co-combustion; Thermogravimetric analysis; Kinetic study

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51406058, 51476060]
  2. Guangdong Key Laboratory of Efficient and Clean Energy Utilization [2013A061401005]
  3. Guangdong Natural Science Foundation [2015A030311037]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2015ZZ015]
  5. Key Laboratory of Efficient and Clean Energy Utilization of Guangdong Higher Education Institutes, South China University of Technology [KLB10004]
  6. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2015M582382]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Thermogravimetric analysis was conducted to evaluate the kinetic parameters for oil shale, hydrochar and their mixture. The oil shale was blended with hydrochar in the mass proportion of 10-90 wt.% to study their co-combustion performance. The combustion performance of oil shale could be improved by blending with hydrochar. Obvious interactions existed between oil shale and hydrochar in relatively low temperature. The combustion process of hydrochar could be divided into two stages. While the combustion process of oil shale was only one stage. The activation energy of hydrochar and oil shale first decreased and then increased with the conversion degree rising. The average activation energy was not consistent with increasing the mass proportion of oil shale in the blends. When the percentage of oil shale in the mixtures was 70%, the average activation energy reached the minimum value, which was 98.5 kJ/mol and 103.5 kJ/mol obtained by Starink and Ozawa-Flynn-Wall method, respectively. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. 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