4.7 Article

Energy and exergy analysis of MSW-based IGCC power/polygeneration systems

期刊

ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT
卷 238, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114119

关键词

Municipal solid waste; Calcium looping gasification; Polygeneration; Exergy analysis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21878238]
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan [1082211E006151]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Utilizing municipal solid waste (MSW) as feedstock for energy production is a cost-effective and environmentally friendly technology proposed in three configurations: MSW-based IGCC power system, MSW-based IGCC polygeneration system, and CaO-based IGCC polygeneration system. Each design offers different advantages in terms of energy efficiency, CO2 emissions, and overall exergy efficiency.
Since municipal solid waste (MSW) is a negatively priced, abundant, and essentially renewable feedstock, energy recovered from MSW is a useful technology to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, and also reduces the expenses needed to dispose of MSW. Three configurations of MSW-based IGCC power system (Design 1), MSWbased IGCC polygeneration system (Design 2), and CaO-based IGCC polygeneration system (Design 3) are proposed. Design 1 uses a combination of an identified MSW gasifier, an integrated intermittent chemical-loop air separation (IICLAS), and Rankine and Brayton cycles to generate electricity and achieve the high concentration of CO2 emissions around 93.3%-94.7%. The process for co-production of DME and MeOH in Design 2, which replaces the Rankine cycle in Design 1, could increase the net energy efficiency of Design 1 by 71.6%, but the total CO2 emissions from Design 2 are merely 7.97% of Design 1. The calcium looping gasification (CaLG) process in Design 3, which replaces the MSW gasifier in Design 2, could increase the production rate of DME of Design 2 by 12.5%. The CO2 concentration from the calcinator in Design 3 is higher than CO2 concentration in flue gas from Designs 1 and 2 by 2.0%-3.5%. Through exergy analysis, the overall exergy efficiency of Design 3 is lower than Designs 1 and 2 by 3.2%-10.1% due to the exergy destruction rate and ratio in the gasification zone of Design 3 higher than other designs. The GaLG process could increase the DME yield as well as the outlet CO2 concentration, but this approach design induces a higher exergy loss.

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