4.8 Review

Small-scale power generation analysis: Downdraft gasifier coupled to engine generator set

期刊

RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS
卷 58, 期 -, 页码 491-498

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.033

关键词

Renewable energy; Biomass gasification; Producer gas; Distributed power generation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In Brazil, biomass appears as one the most promising alternative energy sources for electricity generation, due to the large amount of agricultural, forest and livestock activities. In addition, biomass is widely available, less intermittent and uniformly distributed, when compared to some renewable sources (wind power, solar photovoltaic, e.g.). To access the power generation from biomass, gasification has been pointed as more adequate to the small-scale deployments (less than 150 kW(e)) indicated for distributed generation, mainly at isolated rural communities, where centralized grid is not available or feasible. This work aims to contribute with a techno analysis about the small-scale electricity generation through gasification of wood wastes associated to an engine generator. For this purpose, it was assembled a pilot power generation plant, composed by a downdraft gasifier and a spark-ignition engine (SIE) coupled to electric generator. The parameters evaluated were related to the biomass gasification (gasification yield of 2.5 N m(3) kg(-1), fuel wood consumption of 5.6 kg h(-1), e.g.) and generation (specific fuel wood consumption of 1.9 kg kW h(-1), e.g.). In general, biomass gasification conversion was performed with high efficiency (about 70%); however, on conversion of the producer gas into electricity, the efficiency dropped to 17%, mainly due to low thermal efficiency of SIE and calorific value of gas. Even though, the technology is a promising alternative to supply electricity from biomass, especially on places where electrical distribution network is not yet available. (C) 2015 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

4.8
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