4.7 Article

3E analysis of a biomass-to-liquids production system based on solar gasification

期刊

ENERGY
卷 217, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2020.119408

关键词

Biomass-to-liquid; Gasification; Solar energy; 3E analysis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51706083]
  2. International Cooperation Project of Shenzhen [GJHZ20190820102607238]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Shenzhen [JCYJ20170818164006890]
  4. Key Laboratory of Coal Science and Technology, Taiyuan University of Technology [MKX201905]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study compares the energetic, economic, and ecological performance of a solar gasification system with a traditional system. Results show that a biomass-based, solar-assisted liquid fuel production system offers higher productivity potential and energetic performance, but the product prices still need to consider carbon tax.
The solar gasification system (SGS) and traditional system are modeled by Aspen Plus. And their energetic, economic as well as ecologic (3E) performance are compared. The effects of different feedstocks and Direct Normal Irradiance (DNI) to the productivity and efficiency of SGS are also carried out. The results show that a biomass-based, solar-assisted liquid fuel production system offers a productivity increasing potential of 49.44% more refined syngas and 65.74% more liquid fuels due to its higher utilization of feedstock. And for the same reason, the energetic performance of SGS increases from 40.22% to 40.66% for thermal efficiency and from 38.35% to 41.35% for exergy efficiency compared with those of reference system. The final price of products in SGS could only be equal to that of reference system when the carbon tax is under considering, while both of them shows no superiority to that of petroleum products. SGS has a better ecology performance contributed by less total carbon and water footprints which are only 55.27% and 61.34% of those of the reference system. (C) 2020 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