4.7 Article

Exergy analysis of municipal solid waste incineration processes: The use of O2-enriched air and the oxy-combustion process

期刊

ENERGY
卷 239, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2021.122147

关键词

Exergy; MSW; Circular economy; Oxy-combustion; Irreversibility

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work provides a complete exergy analysis of municipal solid waste incineration process, with considerations on increasing O2 %mol and adopting oxy-combustion conditions. Flue gas recirculation and oxygen-enriched air were found to improve exergy efficiency and reduce environmental impact. However, limited exergetic improvements were observed due to the exergy cost of the air separation unit.
This work provides a complete exergy analysis of municipal solid waste incineration process. The work was based on a previous study, and was enriched considering the possibility to increase the O-2 %mol in the combustion air, up to oxy-combustion conditions. Two configurations have been considered, with and without flue gas recirculation, and the environmental aspects of oxy-combustion were taken into account, as well as its exergetic cost. The flue gas was used in a boiler for high pressure steam production, expanded in three turbines for power generation. The exergy analysis allowed to identify the process units characterized by major irreversibility and exergy loss as waste. The results showed that the flue gas recirculation led to an exergy efficiency increase of the whole process of about 3% (from 31.1% up to 34% at adiabatic flame temperature equal to 1200 degrees C). The O-2 %mol increase in the combustion air allowed to reduce the flue gas flowrate, leading to environmental benefits. Oxygen-enriched air adoption led to limited exergetic improvements, due to the exergy cost of the air separation unit. The specific energy generation of the plant increased at fixed combustion chamber temperature adopting flue gas recirculation. (C) 2021 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