4.7 Article

Results of fly ash quality for disposal options from high thermal shares up to pure biomass combustion in a pilot-scale and large scale pulverized fuel power plants

期刊

RENEWABLE ENERGY
卷 75, 期 -, 页码 899-910

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2014.10.032

关键词

Biomass; Co-combustion; Fly ashes; Residues; Standards; Renewable energies

资金

  1. Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) [218968]
  2. Institute of Combustion and Power Plant Technology at the University of Stuttgart in Stuttgart, Germany
  3. Materialprufungsanstalt (MPA) at the Universitat Stuttgart
  4. University of Applied Sciences in Esslingen, Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work evaluated fly ash quality from combustion of high thermal shares of biomass fuels. Woody biomass was (co)combusted in an industrial scale pulverized fuel power plant, and a herbaceous biomass was co-combusted in a pilot-scale test facility. Ashes from the electrostatic precipitator were collected and evaluated for chemical compounds, leaching behavior, and mechanical properties. Results from the large-scale industrial pulverized fuel showed the ashes still had good reactivity and mechanical properties according to EN450-1, which is a good unexpected occurrence regarding strength development. Results from the pilot-scale test facility showed that a herbaceous biomass co-fired up to 50% thermal share does not seem to have any negative impact on existing fly ash utilization routes. It is concluded that co-firing clean woody biomass at a very high thermal share and co-firing a high thermal share of a herbaceous biomass with lignite would not change current utilization practices. In practice ashes from high thermal shares are not used due to safeguards in standards form a lack of experience from enough performance testing. Thus, the findings can lead to support for standards that incorporate other assessment methods for biomass fly ash utilization requirements. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据