4.6 Article

Conceptual Process Design, Energy and Economic Analysis of Solid Waste to Hydrocarbon Fuels via Thermochemical Processes

期刊

PROCESSES
卷 9, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pr9122149

关键词

techno-economic analysis (TEA); thermochemical processes; waste-to-energy (WTE); solid waste; syngas; gasoline production; diesel production; energy consumption

资金

  1. Proflange Ltd., Cambridge, ON

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research evaluates four thermochemical processes - incineration, pyrolysis, gasification, and integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) - for converting solid waste into hydrocarbon products. The evaluation includes energy recovery pathways, environmental footprint, and techno-economic analysis based on conceptual design and Aspen HYSYS energy simulation.
Thermochemical processes use heat and series of endothermic chemical reactions that achieve thermal cracking and convert a wide range of solid waste deposits via four thermochemical processes to hydrocarbon gaseous and liquid products such as syngas, gasoline, and diesel. The four thermochemical reactions investigated in this research article are: incineration, pyrolysis, gasification, and integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC). The mentioned thermochemical processes are evaluated for energy recovery pathways and environmental footprint based on conceptual design and Aspen HYSYS energy simulation. This paper also provides conceptual process design for four thermochemical processes as well as process evaluation and techno-economic analysis (TEA) including energy consumption, process optimization, product yield calculations, electricity generation and expected net revenue per tonne of feedstock. The techno-economic analysis provides results for large scale thermochemical process technologies at an industrial level and key performance indicators (KPIs) including greenhouse gaseous emissions, capital and operational costs per tonne, electrical generation per tonne for the four mentioned thermochemical processes.

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

4.6
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