4.7 Article

Insight into the high proportion application of biomass fuel in iron ore sintering through CO-containing flue gas recirculation

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 232, 期 -, 页码 1335-1347

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.006

关键词

Iron ore sintering; Bioenergy; Flue gas recirculation; Energy efficiency; Cleaner production

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51804347, U1760107]
  2. Hunan Provincial Co-Innovation Center for Clean and Efficient Utilization of Strategic Metal Mineral Resources
  3. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)
  4. Germany Alexander von Humboldt foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biomass energy has been widely regarded as a potential alternative to fossil fuels for abating CO2 emission and gaseous pollutants in iron ore sintering process. In this investigation, the CO-containing flue gas recirculating method was proposed, with its essence of CO reburning to improve sintering performance with high biomass replacement proportion. Results show that biomass fuels replacing more than 20% coke breeze would result in obvious drop of sinter quality due to the shortened high-temperature duration and minerals melting zone. Circulating CO-containing flue gas into sintering bed improved sinter quality significantly as the secondary combustion of CO optimized thermal state. The appropriate replacement proportion of biomass fuel was improved to 40%, and the energy utilization efficiency was increased from 87.25% to 89.62%, which was even higher than that of using coke breeze only. Compared with the case no flue gas circulated, circulating CO-containing flue gas into sintering bed improved the reduction capacity of COx, NO, and SO2 from 18.65%, 26.76%, and 38.15%-31.78%, 45.07%, and 44.51%, respectively. Research findings facilitates the application of high-proportion biomass fuels in practical sintering plants with high energy utilization efficiency as well. (C) 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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