4.7 Article

Syngas production by bio-oil steam gasification in a fountain confined conical spouted bed reactor

期刊

FUEL
卷 345, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2023.128228

关键词

Biomass; Bio-oil; Gasification; Syngas; Fast pyrolysis; Conical spouted bed

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The combination of delocalized units for biomass pyrolysis and centralized units for bio-oil gasification is an economically attractive option for full-scale syngas production. The study focuses on validating a bio-oil feeding device and assessing the effect of gasification temperature on gas properties and conversion efficiency. The results show that increasing temperature promotes tar reduction, carbon conversion efficiency, and gas yield.
The combination of delocalized units for the fast pyrolysis of biomass to produce bio-oil followed by centralized units for the gasification of bio-oil appears as an economically attractive option for the full-scale production of syngas because transportation of bio-oil is less costly than that of biomass. First goal of this study lies in the validation of a bio-oil feeding device made up of a line-thermostated at 60-80 degrees C and a non-atomizing injector cooled by water. This injector allows feeding the crude bio-oil in continuous mode into the conical spouted bed reactor without being clogged by the pyrolytic lignin in the bio-oil. The effect of gasification temperature on gas properties, tar composition, and carbon conversion efficiency were assessed in the 800-900 degrees C range. The results show that temperature promotes tar reduction (from 40.7 to 12.5 g/Nm3), carbon conversion efficiency (from 91.2 to 96.3 %) and gas yield (from 1.37 to 1.85 Nm3/kg on a dry basis) as temperature is increased from 800 to 900 degrees C. A novel aspect of this study is the detailed characterization of the tar evolution with temperature, which, to our knowledge, is an aspect that has not been approached in the literature related to raw bio-oil gasification.

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