4.7 Article

Energy and exergy analysis of different biomass gasification coupled to Fischer-Tropsch synthesis configurations

期刊

ENERGY
卷 249, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2022.123642

关键词

Biomass gasification; Fischer-tropsch; Hydrogen; Exergy analysis; Modeling; Efficiency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study is to assess the energy and exergy efficiencies of different Integrated biomass Gasification coupled to Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (IGFT) configurations. The results indicate that configurations using hot gas cleaning system or steam as gasification agent exhibit higher efficiency.
The aim of this work is to evaluate the energy and exergy efficiencies at the system and subsystem level of different Integrated biomass Gasification coupled to Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (IGFT) configurations. The combination of the first and second law analysis provides a comprehensive understanding of the different analyzed systems and, in particular, of the peculiarities of hot gas cleaning. Four Aspen Plus models were developed: 1) air-based gasification, cold gas cleaning (CGC), FT synthesis; 2) air-based gasification, hot gas cleaning (HGC), FT synthesis; 3) steam-based gasification, CGC, FT synthesis; 4) steam-based gasification, HGC, FT synthesis. The results highlight the higher energy and exergy efficiency of the configurations that use hot gas cleaning system or steam as gasification agent, with the highest values (52.0% and 55.5%) achieved by the fourth configuration. The gasification part of the process shows the highest exergy irreversibilities, both in terms of exergy destruction and exergy loss, due to the large chemical exergy degradation and to the char production. The results of this work provide further evidence towards the feasibility of renewable biofuels production. Moreover, this analysis gives a more comprehensive understanding of the optimal IGFT technologies to maximize the energy and exergy efficiency.(c) 2022 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